Langer and the White House

[filbert]

Re: Langer and the White House

So tell me: when BMW and Mercedes executives routinely paid fines to the EPA for violating the CAFE law*, did they breach their 'duty of care'? If these instances of lawbreaking are consistent with the 'duty of care', then when does disobedience to the law become a breach of the 'duty of care'? Does 'duty of care' mean 'obeying the law' in every instance.

Furthermore, I have yet to see 'maximizing profits' in any definition of 'fiduciary duty'. I see 'best interests', and 'good faith', but I do not see 'maximizing profits'.

So, if you are pleased to point out that I omitted the 'duty of care', I will return the favor by suggesting that you have added 'maximize profits'.

Further, if my assertion was a straw man**, then what of your false dilemma between 'fiduciary duty' and 'retaining employees', wherein you suggested that anything other than layoffs would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty?

*http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-...-the-past.html
**It's a straw man only if you believe that 'duty of care' involves obeying the law in every instance, a framing of the concept that I would expect a majority of people would disagree with, when it comes down to individual cases.

Yes, failure to obey the law constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. I hate to break it to you, but not every breach of the laws is actually caught and punished. That doesn't mean that driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit isn't against the law. It just means that you get away with it. Until you don't.

Oh, sorry forgot to add this part: if you haven't seen a duty to earn a profit (or at least try to do so with all due diligence) listed among the fiduciary duties of corporate officers and managers, that simply means you haven't looked.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Oh, sorry forgot to add this part: if you haven't seen a duty to earn a profit (or at least try to do so with all due diligence) listed among the fiduciary duties of corporate officers and managers, that simply means you haven't looked.

Your recent expansion of the definition of 'fiduciary duty' (e.g. above 'fiduciary duty' is now 'earn a profit' not 'maximize profit') has the effect of undermining your initial claim that fiduciary duty would 'coerce' a business to layoff employees, thus rendering the lawmakers 'ultimately responsible' for the lost jobs.

You are thus further, not closer, to convincing me that lawmakers are 'ultimately responsible' for every choice that is made in order to comply with those laws.

And it is probably best to leave it at that. I have no further interest in discussing the matter, and I can assure you, you are far from convincing me that anyone else is 'ultimately responsible' for the consequences of my choices, which is the logical equivalent of trying to convince me that Title IX is 'ultimately responsible' for Oregon's decision to drop wrestling and start baseball, or that a law is 'ultimately responsible' for a business laying off workers instead of adapting to a lower profit margin.

[filbert]

Re: Langer and the White House

Your recent expansion of the definition of 'fiduciary duty' (e.g. above 'fiduciary duty' is now 'earn a profit' not 'maximize profit') has the effect of undermining your initial claim that fiduciary duty would 'coerce' a business to layoff employees, thus rendering the lawmakers 'ultimately responsible' for the lost jobs.

You are thus further, not closer, to convincing me that lawmakers are 'ultimately responsible' for every choice that is made in order to comply with those laws.

And it is probably best to leave it at that. I have no further interest in discussing the matter, and I can assure you, you are far from convincing me that anyone else is 'ultimately responsible' for the consequences of my choices, which is the logical equivalent of trying to convince me that Title IX is 'ultimately responsible' for Oregon's decision to drop wrestling and start baseball, or that a law is 'ultimately responsible' for a business laying off workers instead of adapting to a lower profit margin.

OK, then. We'll just agree that laws don't affect behavior then. Which brings up the interesting question . . .



Yeah, yeah, OK, I'll give it up too.

Cheers and good night!

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Langer and the White House

I would agree with that, but I would also suggest that wrestling programs would've declined absent Title IX, as 53 D-1 schools dropped wrestling when they didn't have to under Title IX (after Grove City, before the CRRA). Possibly Title IX accelerated the decline of wrestling, but I would argue that the explosive growth of football & the decline of wrestling are not unrelated.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that SDSU's implementation of Title IX reflects an institutional philosophy that is less likely to cause the issues one sees at schools where a higher value is placed on winning and staying in the national limelight.

Can agree with the final part of this post (SDSU's implementation of Title IX), but still do not agree with your other assumptions expressed here. Before Title IX, a number of schools were adding women's sports because it was the right thing to do. Others who didn't necessarily move in that direction on their own could see what was coming their way (as I said, maybe not forced too, but knew they would eventually have to). I can't see tying growth of football, to decline of wrestlilng...if anything, exactly the opposite. The growth of football was reflected in growth in income, and the ability to maintain a balanced program became easier. That didn't mean that every school (your example of Oregon) saw it that way. Anyway, with those thoughts expressed once more, I leave the judgment of whether wrestling was one of the victims (if not the major one) of Title IX, to the forum readers. Amen.

[Nidaros]

Re: Langer and the White House

Was wrestling at SDSU ever in any danger of being dropped because of TitleIX or even having its funding cut. Seems like the last few years wrestling has experienced under funding and a very good D2 wrestling coach was forced out of his job, but things appear to be now back on track, and with financial resources. With other institutions the connection between Title IX and the decline of wrestling might be true, but not at SDSU. I think we can be proud of past AD's they have gotten us fully Title IX compliant and we still have a wrestling program.