Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2015-2016 College Hockey (non UND Hockey)


cberkas

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is where to put this, but I was told that Norwood Teague, Gopher AD, has been forced to resign because of sexual harassment via the phone to non-student athletic department employees. Supposedly done while inebriated. Can anyone confirm this?

Edited by Sodbuster
added info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is where to put this, but I was told that Norwood Teague, Gopher AD, has been forced to resign because of sexual harassment via the phone to non-student athletic department employees. Supposedly done while inebriated. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, he admitted it.

http://www.startribune.com/u-s-teague-quits-after-inappropriate-texts/321038541/

My gopher buddies are freaking out about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texts and he resigns? I'd think "sensitivity training" and apologies and public shaming and such, but then I find ...

University President Eric Kaler said there was also harassment of a "verbal and a physical nature" at the event.

Physical nature? Yup. See ya. Buh-bye. Gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if UMD's Austin Farley trying out for a Swedish team negated his senior season eligibility?  Elite Prospects lists him as a confirmed transaction for what that's worth.  

Really hoping after their OOC schedule is over they come down with Guentzel/Pearson Syndrome and find out their Assistant Coach was more important than previously realized.

Edited by AlphaMikeFoxtrot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Teague fellow is quite the oaf. 

http://www.startribune.com/star-tribune-s-rayno-adds-her-own-story-to-teague-scandal/321199871/

I'm not sure if I'm more disgusted by him or by his enablers. 

Based on the story, I include the Star-Tribune as one of his enablers as Teague was harassing a Star-Tribune reporter and they did nothing: 

In April 2014 I did and later explained my experience to the human resources department in much more detail. I provided them with many of Teague’s text messages. After multiple meetings, the company provided me with an action plan that included a number of options: the company contacting Teague directly to demand that he cease the inappropriate behavior; contacting Teague’s superiors to inform them of his behavior; changing beats; or, at my suggestion, waiting to see if the behavior continued before taking action.

It was my decision to make and I chose what I believed was self-preservation. I didn’t want my career interrupted because of a powerful man’s misdeeds. Making a formal complaint could have resulted in me losing access at the university. It could have forced me to take another beat, perhaps out of sports; to change my career path in a way I never planned.

The Star-Tribune, given that they offered their reporter "an action plan", knew Teague was a problem; yet, the Star-Tribune did nothing. That is the definition of an enabler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if UMD's Austin Farley trying out for a Swedish team negated his senior season eligibility?  Elite Prospects lists him as a confirmed transaction for what that's worth.  

Really hoping after their OOC schedule is over they come down with Guentzel/Pearson Syndrome and find out their Assistant Coach was more important than previously realized.

Here's the link to the transactions page. I would think that ends his college career, but who knows. This is the same team that Tim Thomas played for.

Edited by Goon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Teague fellow is quite the oaf. 

http://www.startribune.com/star-tribune-s-rayno-adds-her-own-story-to-teague-scandal/321199871/

I'm not sure if I'm more disgusted by him or by his enablers. 

Based on the story, I include the Star-Tribune as one of his enablers as Teague was harassing a Star-Tribune reporter and they did nothing: 

The Star-Tribune, given that they offered their reporter "an action plan", knew Teague was a problem; yet, the Star-Tribune did nothing. That is the definition of an enabler. 

I completely disagree with you on the paper enabling anything. They gave the victim the option to decide how she wanted to handle it because it was a situation that could drastically affect her career. Two of those options they gave her was the paper contacting Teague to cease the behavior or contact his superiors. The victim was the one that decided to keep it under wraps for her own personal/professional reasons. I'm not sure how that is enabling anything when you allow the victim to decide how she wants to handle it. Not to mention, as big of a clown as Teague is/was, he wasn't doing anything illegal under those circumstances. He was definitely wrong to bother her but it wasn't illegal either.

Edited by NDHockey
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Star-Tribune knew Teague was harassing an employee of theirs. They did nothing. And they gave the employee an impossible choice: we screw your career or you screw your career. How nice. 

The Star-Tribune knew of a problem and did nothing. In this case, doing nothing allowed (enabled) Teague to continue and expand his pattern. 

Ask yourself this: If the Star-Tribune knew Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders did this to one of their political reporters following the campaign, would they have sat on that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what do you think they should have done?

What could a newspaper do ... let's see ... 

They could've gone to the U of Minnesota with their findings directly.

They could've launched their own investigation. They still have investigative journalists on staff, don't they? 

They could've sat on their hands and let others become victims of this oaf. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now saying the Teague stuff goes back several years and there were payouts.

http://www.startribune.com/discrimination-complaints-filed-against-teague-at-minnesota-and-virginia-commonwealth/321342421/

Two complaints accusing former University of Minnesota athletic director Norwood Teague of gender discrimination against co-workers resulted in $300,000 in settlements dating back to 2012, records obtained by the Star Tribune show.

 

The complaints were filed by employees at the University of Minnesota and at Virginia Commonwealth University, where Teague worked before being recruited by the U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Star-Tribune knew Teague was harassing an employee of theirs. They did nothing. And they gave the employee an impossible choice: we screw your career or you screw your career. How nice. 

The Star-Tribune knew of a problem and did nothing. In this case, doing nothing allowed (enabled) Teague to continue and expand his pattern. 

Ask yourself this: If the Star-Tribune knew Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders did this to one of their political reporters following the campaign, would they have sat on that? 

I guess the way I see it is the person that was being bothered by Teague was satisfied with the course of action. If she's not going to complain about how it was handled, it is hard for me to. It was pretty clear that they were willing to pursue it further if she wanted to.

I'd also point out that while what Teague did is slimy, it's not like the newspaper was allowing a murderer or rapist to go free. He didn't do anything illegal in that sense. His "skills" at pursuing a woman are obviously brutally bad but being an sleeze isn't against the law either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the way I see it is the person that was being bothered by Teague was satisfied with the course of action. If she's not going to complain about how it was handled, it is hard for me to. It was pretty clear that they were willing to pursue it further if she wanted to.

I'd also point out that while what Teague did is slimy, it's not like the newspaper was allowing a murderer or rapist to go free. He didn't do anything illegal in that sense. His "skills" at pursuing a woman are obviously brutally bad but being an sleeze isn't against the law either.

If you want to be technical about it, it could have been termed assault.  The definition of assault from the Legal Information Institute (Cornell University Law School) is as follows.

 

Assault

Definition

1.  Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.  No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result.  So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2.  With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact.  Essentially, an attempted battery.  So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3.  With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person.  Essentially, the same as a battery.  So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

If she considered herself to be threatened, that is assault. There doesn't have to be physical injury. 

Not to mention, he was in a position of authority over her.  While he could not have fired her, he controlled her access to a necessary part of her job.

What happened should never have happened and my personal opinion is that regardless of whether or not she wanted it to...that should have been brought to her editor right away and then to the University.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree "in this instance". Do we know yet in the other instances?

Considering all we judge on is what she described to them (since you were criticizing her employer on how they handled it), it is a moot point about whether there were other instances outside of her experience. They can only judge on what they know at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you want to be technical about it, it could have been termed assault.  The definition of assault from the Legal Information Institute (Cornell University Law School) is as follows.

If she considered herself to be threatened, that is assault. There doesn't have to be physical injury. 

Not to mention, he was in a position of authority over her.  While he could not have fired her, he controlled her access to a necessary part of her job.

What happened should never have happened and my personal opinion is that regardless of whether or not she wanted it to...that should have been brought to her editor right away and then to the University.

She definitely had a hostile work environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...