Man... Just read 6 pages in this thread. Interesting perspectives... most off topic, but interesting.

 

On topic, I have sat next to Green's mom. She was into the game and loud, but not over the top that night.

Off topic: private schools have such an advantage by being able to "non-renew" students who cause a lot of problems. I am jealous of this.

Off topic: at a public school the idea of disciplining a kid because of the actions of their parent would not go over well. (Playing time questioned, kid dismissed story). Again, jealous.

 

I may need to apply for a position at Trinity.

My objections to this scenario extend to all schools, not just Trinity. And I don't feel it's a punishment...it's protecting not only the sons of these moms but their friends, teammates, coaches, other parents....

 

Read the article. These kids are clearly not rah-rah about what their moms are like. They all seem to just be just like other kids. What does this show do to enhance their lives?

 

This isn't a free speech issue. We have no "right" to the details of these kids' lives. We are a salacious society. We love to gawk at the extreme. We live to point at those and scoff. That's sick!

 

And as a parent, I tried (and still try) to conduct myself in a way that is an example to my kids. How is this a good example, and why should it be documented? LeBron's mom was raked over the coals for the same kind of behavior. And the one mom is denying her daughters the opportunity to pursue their own interests. We should, as a society, be concerned that these are acceptable parenting tactics.

 

There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to list them all. I can only shake my head at those who feel this is in any way a good thing. I object to any show that seeks to sensationalize such behavior. There's a segment of our society who see these kinds of shows and want to emulate the "characters" in them. This is not a good thing.

Not one, single person in this thread said that the kid was an embarrassment. Not one.

 

Not one, single person in this thread said his mom was nuts. Not one.

 

There isn't anybody in this thread that is projecting something onto this discussion that isn't there... except one.

 

 

Rockmom:

"On Lord...this cannot be good. And one of them is at Trinity."

 

GetSlow:

"Yeah, not a fan of that. I can't read Dr. Mullen's mind, but I'd imagine he and the board want nothing to do with this and will try to keep Trinity out of it as much as they can."

 

 

Yea... I'm really reaching thinking that you all are basically saying the filming is going to embarrass Trinity. I don't really know why else everyone would be so adamantly against it otherwise. If everything is all rosy, what's the big worry about filming then?

 

Rockmom can cry about how all kids like him randomly end up at Trinity. I've just made the point that they PROBABLY did their homework on him before there was a decision to bring him on and if they didn't see the risks, maybe they should have. It's part of being a big time program. Welcome to the big show Trinity. You win games and get everything else that comes with it.

 

Finally, I don't have some kind of agenda against Trinity. I go to a private Catholic college myself. I just think it's ridiculous when some of the statements about it that are being made make it seem like nothing more than pure luck that their basketball program started getting good players. It's probably a little more complicated than that.

What about it is good and why would any school want this circus going on?

 

I think that if it's done correctly, it could bring attention to issues that need to be addressed. For example, why does Green's mom end up filing bankruptcy when selling their house. I'd rather he just be able to go enroll in Henry Clay if he could provide his own transportation. I don't think it necessarily has to be a circus.

 

Rockmom:

"On Lord...this cannot be good. And one of them is at Trinity."

 

GetSlow:

"Yeah, not a fan of that. I can't read Dr. Mullen's mind, but I'd imagine he and the board want nothing to do with this and will try to keep Trinity out of it as much as they can."

 

Yea... I'm really reaching thinking that you all are basically saying the filming is going to embarrass Trinity. I don't really know why else everyone would be so adamantly against it otherwise. If everything is all rosy, what's the big worry about filming then?

 

Rockmom can cry about how all kids like him randomly end up at Trinity. I've just made the point that they PROBABLY did their homework on him before there was a decision to bring him on and if they didn't see the risks, maybe they should have. It's part of being a big time program. Welcome to the big show Trinity. You win games and get everything else that comes with it.

 

Finally, I don't have some kind of agenda against Trinity. I go to a private Catholic college myself. I just think it's ridiculous when some of the statements about it that are being made make it seem like nothing more than pure luck that their basketball program started getting good players. It's probably a little more complicated than that.

 

Well.. alright then. I say one of them goes to Trinity and this is where we get to? It was meant as a statement of fact, nothing more.

 

Note to self: Do not provide facts, links to info, etc. All will be disregarded, as folks prefer to be misinformed and draw their conclusions that way. I hope as an attorney you are more open minded when seeking truth.

My objections to this scenario extend to all schools, not just Trinity. And I don't feel it's a punishment...it's protecting not only the sons of these moms but their friends, teammates, coaches, other parents....

 

Read the article. These kids are clearly not rah-rah about what their moms are like. They all seem to just be just like other kids. What does this show do to enhance their lives?

 

This isn't a free speech issue. We have no "right" to the details of these kids' lives. We are a salacious society. We love to gawk at the extreme. We live to point at those and scoff. That's sick!

 

And as a parent, I tried (and still try) to conduct myself in a way that is an example to my kids. How is this a good example, and why should it be documented? LeBron's mom was raked over the coals for the same kind of behavior. And the one mom is denying her daughters the opportunity to pursue their own interests. We should, as a society, be concerned that these are acceptable parenting tactics.

 

There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to list them all. I can only shake my head at those who feel this is in any way a good thing. I object to any show that seeks to sensationalize such behavior. There's a segment of our society who see these kinds of shows and want to emulate the "characters" in them. This is not a good thing.

You decry sensationalizing this issue, yet participate in a discussion board whose recent topics have included "People in Arizona are stupid" and "Coach fired because fiance grabbed her breast." Overlooked in all this discussion of image preservation and curbing free speech is the fact that all six Kentucky families signed a deal with producers. What that probably means is that the participants will be financially compensated if the show gets picked up by a cable TV network. So their participation is entirely voluntary.

You decry sensationalizing this issue, yet participate in a discussion board whose recent topics have included "People in Arizona are stupid" and "Coach fired because fiance grabbed her breast." Overlooked in all this discussion of image preservation and curbing free speech is the fact that all six Kentucky families signed a deal with producers. What that probably means is that the participants will be financially compensated if the show gets picked up by a cable TV network. So their participation is entirely voluntary.

 

Did I participate in those discussions? I'm here for the football, P&R and Religion.

And you base this exclusionary philosophy on what? Sounds to me you want to protect these young athletes from their mothers.

 

As a veteran teacher, I have on occasion wanted to protect my students from their parents.

GetSlow:

"Yeah, not a fan of that. I can't read Dr. Mullen's mind, but I'd imagine he and the board want nothing to do with this and will try to keep Trinity out of it as much as they can."

 

 

Yea... I'm really reaching thinking that you all are basically saying the filming is going to embarrass Trinity. I don't really know why else everyone would be so adamantly against it otherwise. If everything is all rosy, what's the big worry about filming then?

 

As long as we're quoting me, let's go ahead and get them all out there.

 

Yeah, not a fan of that. I can't read Dr. Mullen's mind, but I'd imagine he and the board want nothing to do with this and will try to keep Trinity out of it as much as they can.

 

No. Probably nothing they can do about filming off school grounds.

 

I'm definitely not crazy about this whole thing. These types of shows generally turn people into spectacles for all the wrong reasons. Maybe they'll do a nice show about high school hoops in Kentucky and the parents that make it possible... but I doubt it.

 

In the same way that when some kid from Trinity gets arrested and the news says "Trinity student arrested" for two days, certain kinds of exposure for the school are not positive. There's no telling what kind of show this is going to be, but I've seen enough "Housewives" and "Amish Whatevers" and "Hillbillies Doing Stuff" to know that, on the whole, reality TV producers are not in the business of showing people in a positive light. I'm not crazy about anything that could potentially use Trinity as a backdrop to deliberately embarrass the school, its students, or the parents of those students.

 

That was my entire contribution to this thread before you entered. I have concerns about a reality show because reality producers have money to make and are not concerned with the treatment of their subjects other than that primary end. For that reason, I do not trust the producers of such shows. Ultimately the subjects can do as they wish, but that puts Trinity under no obligation to co-sign. That was it.

 

Within two pages of your joining in, you accused me of wishing ill for the kid, thinking his mom was "nuts" (your word and your idea, not mine or anyone else's) and -- if I'm reading between the lines properly -- being, at best, an elitist and probably worse. It's not the concern that this may embarrass Trinity that you're reaching for because that's far from the only thing you've accused Trinity supporters of here.

 

So tell me again, what have you brought to this discussion apart from projecting your own feelings onto Trinity and its alumni and supporters? I've already admitted the show could turn out just fine and that my reservations could prove unfounded. Twotoplace was very helpful with his link to the work of this production company; they seem pretty harmless with their shows about wedding dresses and ladies who own bakeries.

 

But that hardly explains your detours into Trinity's application process, recruitment of students and the financial aid program. This has gone far beyond a discussion of whether or not the show is a good idea, which is how it started.

Getslow, sorry if I came off as attributing the "wishing the kid ill" or "nuts" to you. Never meant to do that because you've been one of the most reasonable people about issues like these. On my phone now and will post more later.

 

I think you've misunderstood some of my admission/selections comments and how Trinity possibly could have seen something like this coming because I don't think it's something I could just come out and say plainly.

As a veteran teacher, I have on occasion wanted to protect my students from their parents.

I understand that. My beef is having people with a vested interest tell me they want to censor or restrict information for someone's benefit or protection. Can't thwart free speech because you disapprove of the message.

Edited December 14, 201312 yr by Twotoplace

I understand that. My beef is having people with a vested interest tell me they want to censor or restrict information for someone's benefit or protection. Can't thwart free speech because you disapprove of the message.

 

I have no vested interest. I speak as a parent. Not a parent with a kid at Trinity. My son has graduated many moons ago, and although I still do what I can to support Trinity & Assumption (my daughter's Alma Mater), I am not a part of any direct affect that may come from this. But if my kid were a part of a team where their normal lives would be even a tangent part of such a show, I would be upset. Please tell me what GOOD could be gained by this? Not just for the Trinity kid, but for any of the kids? What GOOD will be gained by their friends? The coaches? The schools? The other parents? What GOOD is gained by the viewers of this show?

I understand that. My beef is having people with a vested interest tell me they want to censor or restrict information for someone's benefit or protection. Can't thwart free speech because you disapprove of the message.

 

Not really. Confidentiality laws restrict a lot of information about kids. What happens on school property isn't the same as what happens in the general public. What is said can't really be restricted, but access on school grounds certainly could.

So if no names are on the financial info, then how do they know who to charge what and to whom?.

 

When I worked for Trinity, there were names on the myriad of information students' parents filled out. Not sure how the company could communicate back to the schools if there were no names. Anyone could apply for financial aid, you would be given the forms with an envelope to mail to PSAS in Columbus, Ohio (the company who received, processed and determined the amount of aid each student qualified for based upon their calculations to measure), the schools never touched them once given to the parents. These calculations were not shared with schools, only the final need amount.) After all Financial Aid was calculated, a report is given to the school that stated each student and their calculated need.

 

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If it's "family" then you have a commitment, kind of like marriage vows, "for better or worse". Make the decision to be a part of the family and live with it. Don't throw the kid under the bus and say the film crew should be banned because it makes the school "look bad". No one was talking about banning a film crew when the Sweet 16 banner was raised, but now it's an issue. Funny how that works..

 

How is restricting this show throwing a kid under the bus? Any school or school system would be insane not to show a large degree of skepticism and caution when a reality show says it wants to come to their school based on the number of train wrecks we see with these shows.

 

I hope the kid goes to a D1, BCS program and gets all the media coverage that "fans" of the program apparently don't want him to get now. Maybe if life was so good on the "other" side, no one would be doing reality shows, eh? ..

 

If some sports oriented production company wanted to feature the kid, my guess is just about any school would welcome it for the kid. When a reality show wants to do the feature, completely different story.

 

If you want to be a big time program, act like it, own it, and support your own. I'm for him and wouldn't care if he goes on to bigger and better things. Hopefully he doesn't need the type of "support" he's getting now if he's going to embarrass his own so badly.

 

Poor Trinity, just didn't know what they were getting into apparently. Woe is me. Cry me a river. The reputation of the brand "might" be hurt and that's just bad. That's not what we stand for..

 

You really are not seeing the big picture. There is more risk of this to the school and the student body as a whole than there is reward. It is the responsibility of the school leadership to manage that risk and weigh whether or not to allow this. This goes for any school or school system, not just Trinity.

 

Guess it pays to do your homework. Maybe their "admissions" will be more thorough next time if that's the case. Hope he proves everyone wrong and throws egg in faces though. If you want to turn your back and abandon now, maybe you don't deserve a player like that. Maybe the next kid who thinks about taking that "placement" test thinks of that too.

 

Where did the belief that this kid is a trouble maker come from? Is this even known for sure or are people just assuming it based on this thread?

 

I doubt other programs in Louisville don't eat their own children like that, so maybe (and just my opinion) he'd have been better off there..

 

Where do you come up with this? Wow.

 

At least that way others could still bash, he'd be part of a more successful program and get more exposure, and at the end of the day he might just be better off... but hey, that's just a thought.

 

My guess is if this kid was at a Jefferson County Public School, it would go beyond the principal up to leadership of JCPS who also would be weighing whether allowing this would be a good idea or not.

I understand that. My beef is having people with a vested interest tell me they want to censor or restrict information for someone's benefit or protection. Can't thwart free speech because you disapprove of the message.

 

Getslow, please correct me if I am wrong but the concept of Free Speech is primarily protection from the Fed, State or local government infringing on speech. In other words, if someone walked into a restaurant (a public place like a school) and started a discussion amongst other diners the owner of the restaurant did not like, he/she would have every right to force the person to leave and that person would have absolutely no ability to say his/her free speech was infringed as protected by law. If so, I would say the whole "free speech" claim has absolutely no bearing on what Trinity may or may no allow.