Obviously we are all welcome to expressing our own opinions (within board rules), but I’ve reread Corey’s article about the KB hire 5 times now and can not figure out how some people are concluding that it is “self-righteous”, unless we have very different understandings of the meaning of that word.
IMHO, IF you read Corey’s entire article and do not take any one phrase or sentence out of context, it is not at all self-righteous. In at least one major respect, it is the opposite of “self-righteous”.
The definitions I’ve seen of the prevailing use of “self-righteous” include a smug confidence that your opinion is right above all others.
Rather than displaying any of that narrow-mindedness, Corey instead goes out of his way, repeatedly in that article, to present an array of differing viewpoints that people have shared with him and/or that he can envision others having.
He does no proselytizing in that article about his own opinion of the wisdom of FSU’s hire nor about Kendal’s degree of culpability, if any, in the Baylor mess.
He does acknowledge that there is nothing he could find that implicates Kendal in the Baylor scandal, but that the Briles name does carry with it the baggage of controversy, no matter how fair that is or isn’t.
Corey admits that the Briles/Baylor factor made reading about FSU’s hire decision somewhat jarring to him, but no “self-righteousness” or presumed-guilty conviction is required for something that is controversial to be “jarring”.
He is very careful to note how there are multiple layers that make this topic more difficult to parse and process.
And there is no denying how infused with complexity and controversy this entire matter is, irrespective of what your own personal stance is regarding Kendal’s involvement or culpability, if any.
Can anyone explain how being honest about the difficult complexities of a matter as multidimensional and potentially combustible as this hire is and acknowledging the existence and intensity of viewpoints of different FSU constituencies and observers (the “they” Corey refers to throughout) is being “self-righteous”?
If UM or UF or Bama or UGA was the school hiring Kendal Briles, and Corey were to write that same article pointing out that all their different stakeholders would need to come to grips with the complex nature of that hire, would you be just as quick to bash it as garbage and call him self-righteous? If so, why?
IMHO, IF you read Corey’s entire article and do not take any one phrase or sentence out of context, it is not at all self-righteous. In at least one major respect, it is the opposite of “self-righteous”.
The definitions I’ve seen of the prevailing use of “self-righteous” include a smug confidence that your opinion is right above all others.
Rather than displaying any of that narrow-mindedness, Corey instead goes out of his way, repeatedly in that article, to present an array of differing viewpoints that people have shared with him and/or that he can envision others having.
He does no proselytizing in that article about his own opinion of the wisdom of FSU’s hire nor about Kendal’s degree of culpability, if any, in the Baylor mess.
He does acknowledge that there is nothing he could find that implicates Kendal in the Baylor scandal, but that the Briles name does carry with it the baggage of controversy, no matter how fair that is or isn’t.
Corey admits that the Briles/Baylor factor made reading about FSU’s hire decision somewhat jarring to him, but no “self-righteousness” or presumed-guilty conviction is required for something that is controversial to be “jarring”.
He is very careful to note how there are multiple layers that make this topic more difficult to parse and process.
And there is no denying how infused with complexity and controversy this entire matter is, irrespective of what your own personal stance is regarding Kendal’s involvement or culpability, if any.
Can anyone explain how being honest about the difficult complexities of a matter as multidimensional and potentially combustible as this hire is and acknowledging the existence and intensity of viewpoints of different FSU constituencies and observers (the “they” Corey refers to throughout) is being “self-righteous”?
If UM or UF or Bama or UGA was the school hiring Kendal Briles, and Corey were to write that same article pointing out that all their different stakeholders would need to come to grips with the complex nature of that hire, would you be just as quick to bash it as garbage and call him self-righteous? If so, why?
Last edited:
