Re: Interesting response on the enquirer article

[Michael Ryan]

Hmmm . . interesting Dan. 
 Since I feel that Huggins has done positive things, my answer is easily 
'Huggins'. Frankly, I didn't know who Phil Cox was till this all started. I 
*did* know who Zimpher was because of the positive (academic-based) press 
she had received until the contract flap started. 
 I dont have any direct ill will towards Paul Doc as he simply was working 
with what he had. I imagine that Doc and Cox both felt (in their opinion) 
that racial concerns were effectively handled in the article - of course 
that can be debated. But there was no mention of Cox' comments about the 
'carrying a gun' comment. 
 It just seems like we constantly get half the story - at most. There are 
always more questions. 

-- 
Mike Ryan 


 On 6/2/05, Dan Marshall <address@hidden> wrote: 
> here's what he wrote me....
>  "I think you should take a broader view, of the man and the issue...I'd 
> also ask you this: Who has done more to shape the perception of UC hoops 
> nationally..Cox or Huggs? PD "
  
 *From:* Edwards, Steven B. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:address@hidden ] 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:39 PM
> *To:* address@hidden
> *Subject: *RE: [UC Basketball] Interesting response on the enquirer 
> article
>
>  Daugherty has evolved like many other columnists into a self-important, 
> cynical, sarcastic bore.
>  I have enjoyed many of his columns in the past, but it's clear that he 
> has read too much of his own press and is now a much greater being than the 
> rest of us who subscribe, advertise and ulitmately pay his salary. 
  
 *From:* Jill Beitz [mailto:address@hidden 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:37 PM 
> *To:* address@hidden
> *Subject:* Re: [UC Basketball] Interesting response on the enquirer 
> article 
>
>  WOW. Makes me wish I could cancel my Enquirer subscription all over 
> again.
> J
>
> *2 Cert <address@hidden>* wrote:
>
> My letter to Paul Daugherty
>
> Mr. Daugherty,
>
> You did a good job of bringing up most everything about Mr. Cox except for 
>
> what this entire mess is about. While I agree with you that the examples 
> you 
> gave does show how others in this area are stuck in the prejudice past, it 
>
> has nothing to do with why he decided to speak without thinking first. In 
> fact, the attitude he portrayed in his statement shows a prejudice 
> portrayal 
> of UC athletes, especially black UC athletes! Do I think that's what he 
> meant? No, but the bigger issue is how someone in such a high position at 
> UC 
> can speak without thinking first. Reading that article again is mind 
> boggling to say the least!
>
>
>
> His response.
>
> Nope, the bigger issue is what the prez and the board think is best for 
> the 
> U... thanks...PD