Ken Krayeske is a political activist of sorts whose goal is to open meaningful dialogue for the purpose of improving the world we live in.
If you don’t watch ESPN, he recently attended a press conference at the University of Connecticut and questioned basketball coach Jim Calhoun’s $1.6 million dollar salary as a state employee, relative to the $2 billion state budget deficit. Calhoun went off on Krayeske, telling him he was stupid, telling him to shut up; he completely lost his cool and verbally pounded what he saw at his tormentor. He ranted about the “gate” at that evenings game and the $12 million in revenue the team brings to the university annually.
First and foremost, I am a capitalist. There is a market driven price for successful college athletic coaches and Calhoun’s salary reflects that market. Are they deserving of that much? Probably, there is lot of money at stake between a winning and losing program, and the job requires a great deal of skill, work ethic, ability to handle pressure and the handcuffs of being a public figure.
My challenge with Calhoun’s response is that he did not reflect a level of professionalism relative to his compensation. The attributes being paid for in executive roles like being a CEO of a Fortune 500, or running a big time Division I athletic program, include the EQ to keep your head while those around you lose theirs. Clearly, Calhoun did not display an emotional intelligence that would indicate his worth as a seven figure earner. A freak out session in response to a law students somewhat tough and definitely personal (as it relates to salary) questioning is not the right response. If Calhoun had the EQ that typically merits a million dollar leadership salary, he would have handled the student in a deft and forthright manner, or at least without telling him “My advice to you? Shut up”.
Which brings me to my point. I sent an email to Ken, reflecting that though I still support the market driven salaries of college coaches (as indicated above), I also supported his right to challenge the system by opening a dialogue, and that Calhoun’s reaction lacked the polish of a true executive leader and molder of young men.
Krayeske responded with a thank you, and from the email: “I have received more than 50 emails today, most of them from anonymous hate mongers telling me to die”.
Really, anonymous hate mongers, that’s the appropriate response for the expression of views contrary to your own? The dissenter should “die”? You couldn’t just wish that he gets herpes or something? Isn’t that a bit extreme for practicing your first amendment rights to free speech? Even if you really love UConn basketball in this case, does that punishment fit the crime of politely challenging the compensation structure of college athletics?
Everybody who is stupid but me doesn’t realize the irony in responding to the freedom of speech expression with hate speech. Hate speech, like telling peace activists to die for upsetting their favorite basketball coach, is not protected by freedom of speech legislation. So essentially you are violating speech laws in responding to those who exercise speech freedoms contrary to your views, which without the hate elements, would also be viable.
Good thing you are posting anonymously. (Phew)
8 responses so far ↓
Athol Kay // February 23, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
I understand your point, but seriously, the “reporter” just got owned by the complete exposure of his superifical analysis of the value of the coach more than anything.
All he can think is “coach paid a lot of money = bad”. That’s pretty much a 2nd Grade level of analysis. I’m pretty sure if an actual 2nd Grader had asked the question, Coach would have be far more polite.
Or should we shop for Hall of Fame Coaches at Wal-Mart?
Michael // February 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm |
Athol Kay: Thanks for your thoughtful and valid response. Don’t get me wrong, I love capitalism, and market driven is so far superior to artificial caps, especially as related to earnings. A ton of money is at stake for schools between a winning and losing program; coaching, recruiting and the contributions of the players have a lot to do with the success of a program, among many factors.
It’s a really interesting scenario that has generated quite a bit of discussion, which I think is great. I would maintain though that had Calhoun really “owned” the reporter/activist, it wouldn’t have made the news. It’s easier to tell someone you disagree with to “shut up” and tell them they are “stupid”, than to sublimate your emotions and handle the same situation with diplomacy. When I first heard the story, I thought it was a 23 year old student asking the questions, to which my first reaction is “you can’t handle a student?”. I don’t know Ken personally, but he is more mature than a 23 year old in life experience, nonetheless my expectation of seven figure executive leaders will always be to keep their cool, which Calhoun didn’t.
Not blasting Calhoun either, we all make mistakes, and personal salaries are always a touchy subject.
Mike Ashe // February 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm |
I suppose if your opening statement: “Ken Krayeske is a political activist of sorts whose goal is to open meaningful dialogue for the purpose of improving the world we live in,” is true, then your conclusion that Ken is the one being responsible and Coach C is the one who is inappropriate is reasonable.
But I have to respectfully disagree, starting with that opening. Ken wasn’t trying to start a meaningful dialogue or really help or solve anything. He was trying to get his 15 minutes and he made a personal attack on a “rich” target thinking that he could do so with impunity in today’s economy. Guys like Ken are taking cheap shots because he thinks and hopes he can get away with it. Frankly I was rather proud of Calhoun for allowing himself to show some emotion and take this little boy to the woodshed. Ken didn’t get half the tongue lashing he deserved. If Ken wanted to help with the economy he should be asking the government leaders and the CEOs of companies why they are not more like Calhoun and UConn basketball, not the other way around. But that would not be as “juicy”.
No, Ken just took a read of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radical’s and zero’d in on #12 (http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm) and attacked away. He attacked Calhoun publicly, personally, in a way precisely designed to isolate sympathy and cause maximum pain and reaction. There is a time for everything, and this was not the time for Calhoun to be meek.
It is not open season on the successful.
Michael // February 24, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
That’s cool. I don’t expect everybody to understand the importance, significance and depth of emotional intelligence the same way I do. I don’t believe that asking a question is the same as an attack, I do think telling someone they are stupid and to shut up is though.
Honestly I believe it is erroneous to assume Ken’s motive without talking to him. I am sure if you reach out to him via his website, I think it’s called “40 year plan” and approach him in a thoughtful, respectful and intelligent manner, the same way you have here, he probably would respond, as he did to me.
I appreciate your comment, I think this makes for a really interesting debate.
Mike Ashe // February 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
Asking a question is not always the same as an attack = true statement. It is also clearly true that telling someone they are stupid, is. But as a debating technique, statements like you made above are used to make the implied assumption that, therefore, since these statements are true, K is in the right and C is in the wrong.
But, although it isn’t always true, in many cases it is true that a question is an attack and it clearly was in this case. I give Calhoun the better of this exchange, in the domain of emotional intelligence, since he was honest and direct with his counter-attack. Ken was clearly attacking. Ken knew it, the other reporters knew it and Calhoun certainly knew it and responded appropriately.
Ken’s was a textbook agitation technique who’s real purpose was to get Ken attention. He forfeited his claim to being reasonable by posing the “question” in the venue he did. If Ken had asked this question of the UConn AD somewhere else, or posed it on a talk show about sports compensation, or even asked Calhoun, in another more appropriate venue, then I would concede the possibility that Ken was being “emotionally intelligent” and was really trying to improve things for the state and budget and people who are hurting. I’ll even concede that that may be Ken’s ultimate strategic goal. But this wasn’t strategic, this was a short term tactical attack for the purpose of gaining notoriety and attention that maybe Ken can use strategically in some other venue soon.
I’m sure it was not Calhoun’s thought out intention at the moment, but he did a favor to other successful people by refusing to sit still for this type of passive-aggressive attack.
Michael // February 25, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
Mike,
I think this is a great subject that has split people somewhat decisively, though I think probably 70% or more would side with you.
I was never looking at the event in terms of who is more right between the two, but the debate seems very centered on that issue. Which is odd, given that we all know “two wrong’s don’t make a right”, or at least I heard that a lot growing up!
I would agree that Ken will have trouble obtaining passes to press conferences in the future!
Mike Ashe // February 26, 2009 at 3:02 am |
By the way, I did not say so before, but I did try to post a “fair and reasonable” on Ken’s site before I even found your site. It has not shown up on the list of comments however.
Thanks for a civil disagreement, they are rare these days, but refreshing.
Michael // February 26, 2009 at 3:50 am |
Ha! You are quite welcome. I didn’t make Ken’s list either, but he did link me up on his post on “Cool Justice” (blogspot), at least for a day until other heavyweight bloggers weighed in.
I do concede that it was Krayeski’s intention to bring the salary issue to the public eye using the forum of the basketball press conference, but I’m also fearful that a tyrannical attitude against forms peaceful civil disobedience brings us closer to a totalitarian state. I’m still a big time capitalist, if I could lead at that level for $2 million a year with extra’s, get me on that program or sign me up.
Also, I always forget I am a cartoonist, so now I “own” Jim Calhoun, http://unemployeddad.com/?p=777, at least in that I zinged him.