Couple of items that may be of interest wrt PSU:

Ceasar

Heisman
Oct 7, 2021
5,255
12,529
113
It is amazing to me that any self-respecting trustee would even consider abiding by these restrictions. And I wonder who is the arbiter of what statements are deemed to be "critical"? Obviously it is the BOT. This is truly embarrassing to PSU. Members of the Chinese Communist Party probably have more freedom of speech that a PSU BOT member.
 

CFLion

All-Conference
May 11, 2023
418
1,047
93
How is that different from any non-disparagement clause? I work under those agreements all the time. They basically prevent one party from talking crap about another party, with certain legally protected carveouts.
 

PSU Mike

All-American
Jul 28, 2001
4,328
7,605
113
How is that different from any non-disparagement clause? I work under those agreements all the time. They basically prevent one party from talking crap about another party, with certain legally protected carveouts.
My limited understanding is that whistleblower protections apply to internal reporting and reporting to appropriate government agencies. There’s limited to no protection for airing negative opinions directly to the public, correct?
 

CFLion

All-Conference
May 11, 2023
418
1,047
93
My limited understanding is that whistleblower protections apply to internal reporting and reporting to appropriate government agencies. There’s limited to no protection for airing negative opinions directly to the public, correct?
Correct. Any disclosures required by law are protected, but malicious statements about the other party are not. The consequences for such are usually described in the agreement (typically termination and perhaps legal action).
 

RolexKong

Senior
Aug 15, 2025
477
450
63
How is that different from any non-disparagement clause? I work under those agreements all the time. They basically prevent one party from talking crap about another party, with certain legally protected carveouts.
Private organizations can impose such clauses. When the government or its agencies do, it becomes a First Amendment question.
 

PSUFTG

All-Conference
Nov 1, 2021
2,306
3,551
113
Correct. Any disclosures required by law are protected, but malicious statements about the other party are not. The consequences for such are usually described in the agreement (typically termination and perhaps legal action).
None of that has anything at all to do with any issues in the pending litigation, just to be clear.
 

ApexLion

Heisman
Nov 1, 2021
6,126
10,456
113
Anybody catch the drama at Michigan State? President left for Clemson after MSU tried to increase his salary substantially. He said the BOT was the issue and left for less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bison13

BobPSU92

Heisman
Aug 22, 2001
43,829
35,441
113
Anybody catch the drama at Michigan State? President left for Clemson after MSU tried to increase his salary substantially. He said the BOT was the issue and left for less.


”But a 5-3 majority on the board voted in a special May 17 meeting to approve the salary hike as well as a revised code of ethics and conduct aimed at creating unity.”

Eight trustees. 😞
 

Chumboshifko1

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2025
1,911
1,731
113

”But a 5-3 majority on the board voted in a special May 17 meeting to approve the salary hike as well as a revised code of ethics and conduct aimed at creating unity.”

Eight trustees. 😞

Everything the BoT does is calculated for maximum effect.

To piss off alums, students and fans. The embarrassing BoT does only what benefits them.
 

SleepyLion

All-Conference
Sep 1, 2022
2,584
3,913
113
  • Like
Reactions: BobPSU92