Balsy

Soooo roughly $10, and $7 respectively?

I thought I'd put this out there (and moderators feel free to change this to off-topic) but who's up for a Friendly ZN.O wager for the 2018 season? I thought it was kinda fun last year to make a little wager against each other for Z-Fund's benefit. Anyone game for this season?

Thank-you for at least being honest and admitting that you jumped to a conclusion without throughly investigating it, or understanding it. Takes courage to do that. And no, I'm not saying that condescendingly... You have more information at your fingertips right now than the previous 20,000 years of human history combined, with little more effort to access than moving your fingers around. If you are seriously interested in knowing the answer to this question; hasten forth and go look it up for yourself! I'd also like to point out that I don't believe you understand what admissions criteria that is diversity-based means. I believe you disagree with a conservative straw-man of admissions criteria that is based on diversity, but not the ones in reality. An excellent place to start would be by contacting the University of Akron's own office and directing your questions to them directly.

Triggered? No. I'm not going to let you post abhorrently biased/political stuff here without response. Of course you couldn't imagine that a person running a department like that might make that much money, you haven't bothered to look it up or research it other than when Breitbart mentions it. You fell into their biased trap of outrage; their article gave no context for the position, and triggered you to respond with "I can't believe this outrage!?" If it's something you actually care about: here's the contact information for the members of the board of trustees, you can ask them yourself about justification for the job if you wish, or you can attend the meetings if it's something you actually care about. The fact is; you don't actually care about it...what you do care about is an agenda and sitting on your high horse. That's why you posted it, that's why you posted it the way you did, that's why you gave it the title to the thread you did. We're not stupid. You didn't post this because you were actually curious.

You don't see anything political with that article that was posted? Please don't play dumb, Breitbart is a notorious hyperbolic site to begin with, everything in the headline: "Ohio University Diversity CZAR to make $200,000 per year". The term "CZAR" is used as an inflammatory muckraking term, one that the writer knows the audience (breitbart's readership) will respond to. It's written not to be informative, but to enrage. The body of the piece compares the salary to the entry level salary/salary of other positions at the university, WITHOUT informing the reader of the duties such position entails (like I did in my post). It's pretty clear there is a bias in that article: inflammatory headline to catch the reader "diversity" position thrown around (without being given context) and then mentioning other universities that are paying considerable amounts for these positions. The last part of the article is the most damning of it's bias: "A pending case against Harvard University has the potential to revamp the diversity and affirmative action policies at universities around the country. The case, which was filed by an Asian-American activist group, claims that Harvard University discriminates unfairly in their admissions practices against minorities." It's essentially leaving the reader with Diversity positions such as these at universities actually discriminates unfairly in admissions practices. However, as I pointed out in my post, the position involves so many more things than admissions or recruitment. In fact, it appears it's only a minor part of the job at the University of Akron, as I would assume it is at Ohio University as well. That article is absolutely biased, because it gives no context for anything. It's written: DIVERSITY CZAR ------> Paid Lots of Money --------> Affirmative action = Descrimination. Hopefully you can see what I'm talking about.

No, we won't.

Yes the university has a department called "Office of Inclusion and Equity" which is a office that formerly went by another name, which at Akron is managed by Jolene Lane. The Office of Inclusion and Equity runs many diversity learning opportunities throughout the course of the year; Black Male Summit (which is a huge HS outreach thing UA does every-year, and brings A LOT of people to campus, for the record), China Week (FYI UA has a partnership/sister university in China, and is a Confucius Institute just incase you were unaware); as well as oversees the UpWard Bound Program (which is a fantastic program between UA and APS), amongst many, many, many other things. You know...the crap a Public University should be doing. Also, a position like "Office of Diversity" like that of UA doing the things as described above, is not uncommon among universities (both Public and private). In fact, it's uncommon NOT to have one! Ohio State Has one. Kent State Has one. The University of Alabama has one. The University of Tennessee Has one. South Dakota State Has One...(literally go to google and type "(university name) Office of Diversity" and you'll find it has one. Hell, fortune-500 companies dedicate resources (some of those resources coming in the form of scholarships, internships...which directly relate to universities) based on diversity initiatives; Walmart, ExxonMobile to just name two. So either this is some vast, radical thing...or perhaps its something universities and companies do to remain both tight with the larger community, and competitive. Funny, how these radical right-wing websites that you sited this report from were silent on the Pretend-Play-Military Czar UA created under the Scarborough administration who was getting paid $100,000 (to oversee college kids playing military), for a program that does about 1/1,000,000 of what the Office of Inclusion and Equity does for UA, the community and City of Akron. No, instead these radical right-wing websites pedal snake-oil; without context; without research; without any gumption of credibility, honesty, integrity or honor; to whip ignorant people into a frenzy over something they know nothing about. Your woeful ignorance of the topics you mention yourself, and lack of willingness to do basic research (freaking google) of things before commenting is disheartening, and part of the problem both in the UA community, and at-large. Please keep your politics off the forum. Thank-you.

I love dressing in my Akron gear and going to the shoe. Love to see this matchup TBH. And c'mon now, it's once a decade! Let's take it when we get it

My students the other day (age 16) had a lively...debate...as to wether or not Vanilla Ice truly ripped off Queen or not.

Wasn't MTB one of the recruits we were happy to get? A 3-star WR if I'm not mistaken... I hope we seem a productive year from him! For those who know football better than me, is he a potential fringe guy for the NFL if he were to have a hell-of-a season?

Dang it...that grab bag seems like it would have been great

You're all good, I did as well play the sandlot version myself. Looked forward to the yearly "turkey-bowl" with all the kids from the neighborhood who were home on thanksgiving sliding around in the mud. My chemistry co-worker and I were stunned the otherday, we did all these super awesome gas-law demos in class (things that would have blown my mind in HS) and almost all of my classes were completely unimpressed. She remarked "we've lost the war to video games". I guess it's more than just video-games though, they appear to want instant gratification with it. Why sit through the whole game, when you'll have someone post a snapchat video of a big play you'll watch and then go back to something else. IDK, maybe I'm just being an old man here (ironic because I'm the baby here lol)

Anybody have any insight from the game? I unfortunately was unable to attend

People are oversaturated with things to do nowadays. The sports world may need to find a way to revolutionize the game-day experience. I like what @ZipsVoice said that it's appalling that students don't go to the rivalry game, of all games. I personally wonder if the over-saturation and easy accessibility of it all with a black-mirror (cellphone reference) in your hand that getting excited about the "big-game" isn't as exciting anymore.

Well said

Yes thank you, i've said "milk toast" enough that I should have corrected it sooner. Much appreciated. What now? Sorry for pointing out that someone was right?

You're making the assumption that he was good at fixing the prior mess.

Indeed, guess there were some on this forum who nailed it. You and I called it bud but yes, now the spin-cycle of "he wants to be closer to his religion" or "because of his families struggles" or some other nonsense. Funny how he wants to be closer to his religion in Utah NOW that he has University President on his resume, rather than before. I call BS. He's an opportunist, nothing more. Which (to anyone who will attack me for saying that) is perfectly fine. But if you're an opportunist, don't proport yourself to be something more honorable than that. Most people on this thread owe him (Dre) an apology, he at least somewhat right that the milk-toast letter published by Wilson wasn't worth the paper it was written on. (see explanation below by 72 Roo, assuming it's true). The letter Wilson published was in stark difference to the situation below. If the situation below is true, than Dre and I were correct in saying we don't buy his "because of my family" nonsense.

I agree with a lot that is said here. Though I believe that declining student enrollment has less to do with the economic situation in the larger area, and more to do with other factors; namely the state of ohio putting greater restrictions on institutions for their retention rates by cutting funding, which led Akron to directly accepting less students. If the U focuses on the regional economy than it also needs to focus on the educational needs of the students of the region; that was the bread-and-butter of UA until the state decided to change it's formula. Changing Columbus Day to Pocahontas day is an erroneous comment that has nothing to do with this conversation, nor does it impact the Economic Issues of the region. Seriously, it should have been done away with a century ago. (Let it be known that I did not bring up this topic first).

I've expressed myself enough. You don't care. Peace.

And that's the problem. If you saw my post as condescending, than suck it up buttercup. (that, is condescending). I am unapologetic about talking about facts and making logically sound arguments. If logic and facts = condescension, than so be it. Prohibiting the free exercise thereof DOES NOT include using the force of government to enforce your religious convictions onto others; which is logically consistent with every example I gave. (Extension:) If you don't believe drinking alcohol is morally right according to your god, that's fine. You and your parishiners don't consume or sell alcohol. The government has no business banning it for everyone based on your religious beliefs. THAT is the very definition of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. And you know that it is. I was seeking clarification, yes, hence the question. Which Zach gracefully gave.

Just because one person is the person to say something, doesn't mean it's not worthy of being discussed. Zach's first response I thought was excellent. Go back and look at my response to his which was "Exactly, that's why I was curious and asked." It was the nebulous comments of other people, either not understanding or getting their underwear in a bunch, that began to derail the conversation. And this is where the the conversation begins to derail. Your last sentence is completely off base, and I will respond to it. But by doing it; it is you who has derailed the conversation, not me. But that underline portion that I've been talking about this entire time. Members make comments like that (that are an opinion, and are up to debate). Members seem to get upset when I respond to the statement made there...but they don't get mad at the person making the statement in the first place. That's hypocrisy. Why do they criticize me and not the person making the statement? Because they (politically, or otherwise) are biased in favor of the person who made the original statement. ------below is an unrelated tangent you created, not me, but I'm sure I would be criticized for --------- As for this supposed "war on Christianity". . Really this boils down to perspective. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion (of an individual) as well as a freedom (of an individual) from religion. The government is to pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -If you are someone who identifies as a christian you might feel as if there is a war against Christianity; because largely Christianity has been the benefactor (especially the last half century) of a government imposing said religion's will. Blue Laws, Bans on Interracial Marriage, The Prohibition of Alcohol (just to name a few) were all laws enacted by our Government, which respected an establishment of religion and were based on religious convictions. Those laws (except for Blue Laws in some places) have largely been repealed. One could say "our religious freedom is being taken!" or "this is a war on religion" to over turning the Prohibition of Alcohol, or interracial marriage; but those people would be wrong. Those were prvilidges grated towards their religious convictions that should not have been granted in the first place. I would continue with the rant, but you already don't care and I doubt you read it. The point being; an objective response is necessary to respond to that nebulous thrown in line. Nothing I said in my response here, is radical, though you likely will say that it is. ------------------------------- You don't get to make an erroneous comment like that and not expect a response. You don't get to make an erroneous comment like that, get a response from, and then you (or others) claim that I'm the one who derailed the conversation. Because I'm not. Just looking for a little less hypocrisy from people.

Proper context requires proper explanation.

Yes, one would be correct that I lean in what is classically defined as left. However "wayyy" left, I have to disagree. The goalposts have been shifted on what is considered "far right" and "far left" and "middle", and they constantly do. I'll avoid going on a rant about this, but there are some excellent books, scholarly articles and classes dedicated to the topic of political framing and shifting over time; left isn't always "left" and right isn't always "right". And no, I don't have problems with other people's beliefs at all. I have a problem with people who can't handle their beliefs being questioned. I have a problem with people who get angry over someone questioning their long held ideas (who doesn't agree with them). I have a problem with factually or logically incorrect or inconsistent ideas or statements. If someone thinks the same of my ideas or statements, CALL ME OUT ON IT! That's why conversations take place. Start anything? No. Poltically motivated? No. My bias that I picked up on it? Yes. Just as it was the poster's (and others) bias to not see anything at all when it was mentioned. We all have bias that dictate our responses to things, and how we write things. If I were to write a report as to what I saw at a scrimmage or spring game, a team prayer or players kneeling before practice in the endzone after running the field (as another example of something religious) I wouldn't mention it at all, on the contrary to what some believe. If we're here to talk Zips sports, a team prayer is irrelevant TBH. Who cares right? (like some had said). But if it really is that no-one cares, why mention it at all? Well if no-one cares, why care if someone asks if it is being sanctioned or not? You know as well as I do, that's because they do care about that particular observation. And apparently that observation was significant enough to warrant writing about, and so that observation warrants caring about...which prompts the question. I hope you can see what I'm getting at here... If it were true that most people are here to talk Zips sports, there wouldn't be a thread dedicated to the constant presidential problems at the U. I'd say most people here care about UAkron and sports is one of the outlets they use to express their care. If it were "just" about sports, this forum would be empty because people would have abandoned the Zips decades ago. People stay, because they care about the University of Akron. Complaining about President Wilson? No. Getting upset over People willingly accepting the screwing of their alma mater? Yes. It is true that I haven't posted much about sports lately. My fandom of UAkron athletics, and the University of Akron in general has been wavering over the years since I graduated. The constant drip of crap about my alma mater, has made me question why I care at all, or ever cared at all. And to see wholesale acceptance and even praise of that mediocrity, is upsetting. This is why I have slowly stopped coming here. I find it exceedingly difficult to get excited about anything UAkron related. Fine, fine, yes I didn't "correct" you...I called you out for your bias in a tongue-in-cheek comment you made. Just because "god" is in the pledge of allegiance, doesn't mean it should be; and it doesn't legitimize team religious activities. (that's a shifting of the goal-posts) But yes, I'll argue anything...and that's not a bad thing. More people should be willing to call out things, that's how change happens. Now granted, it's also a millenennial thing too...because we were force fed BS from birth about how "this is just the way things are...accept it!" and we've researched those things for ourselves and decided not to accept it just because we've been told to. Perhaps a generational difference.

The Easter-Pagan holiday rant was a response to a member calling me a "jackass" and others making very pointed remarks after I responded with a tongue-in-cheek comment. Separate comment's like LZip's "You're probably against saying the pledge of allegiance as well since it has "God" in it. The horror!" demanded a response. They could have let it go with the simplicity that I asked a question about team prayers in a public institution. They couldn't help themselves, and decided to attack with their own agenda. That was his tangence, not mine, but yes I will not stand by as someone makes a factually incorrect attempt at a backhanded insult without pointing out how wrong they are. Your second example; you can go ahead and continue not liking me for that. I firmly understand that there are plenty of people who say that they do not associate with a political party; to be frank that doesn't mean much, as I said before. I've met plenty of people who said they don't associate with a political party, but are very clearly conservative based upon the things that they say and the way they express themselves. I've met the opposite as well; who were very clearly liberal through the things that they say. Despite what a lot of people think of me here, I think of things very analytically. Those labels are defined as something. And something that can be defined can be observed; quantified and qualified. I'm sorry Kreed, I like you, but to pretend you can't understand the leanings of a person based upon their actions is ludicrous. You can. That doesn't mean people don't change their minds and change, hell I have come a long way in the past decade from how I used to view things. But that change/consideration didn't happen because of a lack of being challenged.