Coach Rice’s behavior toward all players and coacheswas motivated solely by his belief that yelling and beingaggressive during practices ultimately would cause themto play better during the team’s basketball games.”
Mr. Pernetti chose
not go against expressedlegal counsel! His decision to fine and suspend CoachRice
was supported and praised by you
After the video with selected segments was released to themedia, the outcry by the public was significant and pressure began to mount.
At this point, you fired Coach Rice.
Soon after, Mr. Pernetti resigned his position in an effort toquell the maelstrom in what he believed, at the time, to be inthe “best interest of Rutgers,” the standard upon which he based all his decisions as AD.
His resignation was accepted by you after declaring in adisplay of “intellectual disingenuousness,” that had youactually
the video instead of
“knowing what was onit,” YOU
would have fired Coach Rice in November, goingdirectly against the advice of the legal counsel and findingsof an independent investigation! Obfuscating the truth byclaiming a marginal technicality in a desperate attempt atself-preservation is not reflective of courage. It is, however,quite instructional as an example of “character erosion in theface of fear.”There is no question that Mr. Pernetti’s departure from his position is
, unless you are of the opinion that if anemployee deserves to be fired, then, so too, does everyone in thechain of command above him, in which case your resignationshould be soon forthcoming as a matter of ethical consistency. Welearn very little about ourselves and others during “good times,” but volumes during periods of great turbulence and fear. Under great media and political pressure, you gave the appearance of