Shaping Opinion

David Ridpath joins Tim to talk about some recent court rulings, rule changes and other decisions that have cleared the way for college athletes to get paid. Dave is a Sport Management professor at Ohio University, and he’s an expert on NCAA governance, academic issues and athlete rights. The focus of this conversation is how paying athletes will change the NCAA  landscape for athletes, fans, universities and marketers.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/NCAA_NIL_Branding_auphonic.mp3

In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision against the NCAA that now paves the way for college athletes to be paid. But it’s not that simple. The court decided only on education-related benefits, and not broader compensation matters.

Not long after that, the NCAA Board of Directors approved changes that will now clear the way for college athletes to start earning money based on the fame and celebrity they achieve. But they can earn that money without the risk of losing their eligibility or putting their own schools or sports programs at risk of violating amateurism rules.

Here’s what happened.

The Supreme Court ruled against the National Collegiate Athletic Association in an antitrust case. The ruling now limits the NCAA’s rights to bar college athletes from getting paid.

The Court allowed non-cash compensation for college athletes.  In its ruling, the court said the NCAA violated antitrust rules. It said athletes should be paid for education-related benefits. The court did not rule on the larger compensation issues.

The NCAA had built its case around the idea that limits on athlete pay do not violate antitrust laws because they encourage consumer choice. They said that their restrictions are what distinguish college athletics, or amateur status, from professional athletics.

At the end of June, the NCAA decided to suspend its restrictions on payments to athletes for things like sponsorship deals, online endorsements, personal appearances. In other words, athletes can no make money on their name, image and likeness for marketing purposes. Keep that in mind as we talk to our guest today.

The NCAA decision applies to all athletes across all of its divisions – Division One, Division Two and Division three athletes. That’s’ roughly 460,000 college athletes in the United States.

In fact, most of those athletes won’t see a big difference in their finances, but a few of the most elite athletes will.

Dave Ridpath has followed this issue for many years and says this is one of the biggest changes to college athletics in decades.

Links

* David Ridpath Bio, Ohio University

* The Drake Group

* NCAA Clears Way for Athlete Compensation as State Laws Loom, Associated Press

* Supreme Court NCAA Ruling and the New Future of Paying College Athletes, CNBC

* College Athletes' Payment Rights: A Question of When and How, Not If, by David Ridpath and Chris Knoester for the James Martin Center

* The Shame of College Sports, The Atlantic

About this Episode’s Guest Dr. B. David Ridpath

Dr. B. David Ridpath, Ed.D, is beginning his second decade as a tenured faculty member with Ohio Uni...

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh joins Tim to talk about a unique way to approach Big Tech and its increasing exercise of power and control over the national dialogue. It’s the “common carrier” approach. In this episode, Eugene gives his thoughts on the First Amendment and Big Tech. This episode is part of our increased focus this year on your right to freedom of speech.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Common_Carrier_auphonic.mp3

Over the past several months, Washington has been grappling with what to do about Big Tech and its role in the national discussion. More to the point, as more digital companies exert power and control over what is permitted and not permitted to be discussed on their platforms, many questions arise.

How should Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act apply? Or more to the point, should Big Tech firms continue to be immune from certain legal actions for content that is allowed?

Should digital platforms that decide what content is allowed or not allowed be treated as publishers, like newspapers or news websites?

Should antitrust law come to play to break up some of these firms that are so large, it is nearly impossible for a viable competitor to emerge?

Or, is there another way?

Links

* Eugene Volokh, UCLA Bio

* The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason.com

* The Volokh Conspiracy, Facebook

* Volokh Conspiracy, Twitter

* U.S. Statute - 47 USC Section 230 - Telecommunications Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material, FindLaw

About this Episode’s Guest Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught criminal law, copyright law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed. 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2016), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute; a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel; and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a Weblog that was hosted by the Washington Post and is now at Reason Magazine. In addition to his academic work, he has also filed briefs in more than 125 appellate cases throughout the country since 2013, and has argued in over 30 federal and state appellate cases.

Former college All-American, NFL linebacker, and one of the NFL’s most prominent player agents Ralph Cindrich joins Tim to give his unique perspective of the NFL. Ralph spent 40 years in locker rooms, on fields and in negotiations with the owners during the league’s meteoric rise.  This episode is an Encore Presentation of another one of our listeners’ favorite episodes. It was originally released on October 1, 2018.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Encore_-_Ralph_Cindrich.mp3

Ralph Cindrich was ranked among the most powerful people in sports. He is the author of the book, “NFL Brawler: a player turned agent’s 40 years in the bloody trenches of the National Football League.”

In this episode, Ralph talks about his career, cut shot by injury, and the role injuries play in an NFL career. He talks about how injuries can affect the value placed on a given professional football player.

From Player, to Lawyer, to Agent

In this expansive conversation, Ralph talks about how he decided to become a lawyer as his pro football career started to come to an end. He talks about how he made the transition to become a pro football agent.

And he tells many interesting, funny and compelling stories about life in and around the NFL.” Some of these stories range from the time when shady agents tried to dominate the football agent business, to some of his negotiating brawls with general managers and owners.

Among them, how he was there when his teammate, Billy White Shoes Johnson, lit up score boards and created the NFL endzone dance tradition.

He tells, blow by blow, what it was like to negotiate against some of the toughest negotiators in the business, from Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, to Bill Polian of the Buffalo Bills, and Robert Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts.

Links

* NFL Brawler: A Player-Turned-Agent’s Forty Years in the Bloody Trenches of the National Football League, by Ralph Cindrich, Amazon

* NFLBrawler.com

* Hard Hitter, Pittsburgh Quarterly

* Cindrich Renounces NFL Agent Business, Sports Business Journal

* Robinson: Ex-Super Agent Sounds Off, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

* ‘NFL Brawler’: How Local Football Star Ralph Cindrich Became a Big-time Agent, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

About this Episode's Guest Ralph Cindrich

Ralph Cindrich was an All-American linebacker at the University of Pittsburgh. He then went on to play in the NFL for the New England Patriots, the Houston Oilers, and the Denver Broncos.  When his career was cut short due to injuries, he went on to become an attorney, and one of the most revered player agents in the league.

Professor Greg Jackson joins Tim to talk about what it takes to pass the American citizenship test, what’s on it, and what all means. Do you think you could pass the test? You may be surprised. You may know Greg from previous episodes where we discussed George Washington, the history of the American Flag, or the history of the U.S. Capitol building. Greg is a historian and history professor at Utah Valley University. And he’s the host of the very popular podcast called, “History that Doesn’t Suck.” In this episode, we explore the test to become an American citizen.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Citizenship_Test_auphonic.mp3

Less than two years ago, The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation decided to conduct a test to find out just how much Americans actually know about their country, its history and what it means to be a citizen. The country failed.

But let’s be more specific. The survey found that two out of three Americans would not pass the test that’s required to become a U.S. Citizen.

First, a little background on that test.

Before an immigrant to the United States can take the Oath of U.S. Citizenship, he or she must pass a naturalization test that’s administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

It’s a two-part test. There is a civics test. And there is an English language test.

While some accommodations may be made for age and physical limitation, applicants for citizenship are expected to demonstrate they can read, write and speak words in ordinary and daily usage in the English language. And they have to demonstrate that they have a basic knowledge and understanding of American history, government and tradition.

So, when the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, conducted its survey, here are some highlights – or lowlights – of what it found.

* Only 13 percent, or almost 1 out of 10 Americans knew that the Constitution was ratified in June 1788. Most thought it was 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

* 60 percent, that’s 6 out of 10 Americans, did not know the countries the U.S. fought against in World War Two.

* More than half of those surveyed did not know how many justices are on the U.S. Supreme Court. There are nine.

* People who were 65 years old and older scored best with 74 percent answering at least 6 out of 10 questions correctly.

* Those 45 years old and younger did the worst. Only 19 percent were able to pass the exam.

I know what you’re wondering right now. You’re wondering if you could pass the exam yourself.  Well, before you try to answer that, we decided this may be a good time to take the mystery out of the test.

Links

* History that Doesn't Suck Podcast

* Greg Jackson, Utah Valley University

* Sample Civics Test, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

* 12 Years a Slave, by Solomon Northup (Barnes & Noble)

* Narrative Life of Frederick Douglass, by Frederick Douglass (Barnes & Noble)

* Ken Burns' Documentaries, Barnes & Noble

About this Episode’s Guest Prof. Greg Jackson

Dr.

Dr. Cyril Wecht, a world-renowned forensic pathologist joins Tim to talk about his long experience with his study of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Dr. Wecht was among the first to raise concerns over the investigation of the assassination. In this episode, we talk with Dr. Wecht about the events of November 22, 1963, the story that was told to the world, and the story that has started to emerge in the 55 years since.  This episode is an Encore Presentation of one of our listeners’ favorite episodes. It was originally released on February 18, 2019.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Encore_-_JFK_Assassination.mp3

Dr. Cyril Wecht has been involved in many high-profile cases, including the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. But the most high-profile case that he has studied and written a book about is the JFK Assassination and the possibility that it was the result of a conspiracy.

On a sunny day on November 22nd 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed as his motorcade traveled through the streets of Dallas.

That’s one thing that everyone can agree on. After that, the official explanation for what happened is only one of the stories that have resonated with people over the years.

As history would tell it, as the president rode with the first lady and Texas Governor John Connally through Dealey Plaza in Downtown Dallas, he was horrifically shot in the head, setting off a chain of events that are controversial to this day.

Very quickly, the world would learn that the shooter was an employee of the Texas Schoolbook Repository. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was said to have perched himself at a window on the 6th floor overlooking Dealey Plaza when the president drove by.

In six seconds, he fired three shots into the president’s car. In a matter of hours, the police caught up with Oswald and it was widely believed that for all intents and purposes, the case was solved.

With President Kennedy deceased, President Johnson convened the Warren Commission to conduct a formal investigation into the assassination.

By September and October of 1964, just short of a year after the assassination, the Warren Commission issued their report. It was 26 volumes of details and justification of their findings, which was that there was a single shooter, and that shooter was Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission concluded that he was operating on his own and that there was no larger conspiracy either within or outside of the United States.

Dr. Cyril Wecht was the first civilian forensic pathologist to see the Warren Commission’s forensic evidence, which would come in 1972.

Before that, in 1964, he was among the first to study the 26-volume Warren Commission Report from a forensic pathology perspective.

Please Thank Our Sponsors

Please remember to thank our sponsors, without whom the Shaping Opinion podcast would not exist.  If you have the need, please support these organizations that have the same taste in podcasts that you do:

* BlueHost Premium Web Hosting

* Dell Outlet Overstock Computer Center

* Philips Hue Smart Home Lighting

Links

* Who Killed Kennedy?, Amazon Books (Cyril Wecht author)

*

Gavin McIlvenna joins Tim on the Centennial of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Gavin is president of the Society of the Honor Guard, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army, but one of the more unique experiences he’s had is the time he spent guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. In this episode, Gavin tells the story behind the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and the symbolic and real significance of one of the most hallowed places on American soil.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Soldier_auphonic.mp3

There are places throughout the United States where those who’ve died for their country are remembered with honor and where they remain.

Churchyard cemeteries in places like Boston and Philadelphia to honor the Revolutionary War dead. Or battlefield cemeteries like the one in Gettysburg to honor the fallen during the American Civil War.

But in America’s history, there hadn’t been a single place. A dedicated place to pay tribute to those who gave their lives for our freedoms and for the nation.

That changed after World War One.

After the Great War, France and Great Britain decided to select one of their fallen soldiers to represent all of the dead from World War One. They laid an unknown soldier to rest in an honored place on November 11, 1920, just over 100 years ago.

Other nations followed in similar fashion. Portugal, Italy, Belgium. All selected an unknown soldier to receive full military honors and burial at an honored place in those countries.

The commanding general of American forces in France at the time was Brigadier General William Connor. He first heard about the French plans to honor their Unknown Solider during the planning phases. He liked the idea and ran it up the chain, only to be rejected by the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Payton March. That was in 1919. General March felt the Americans would be able to identify all of their own dead, so there wouldn’t be any “unknown soldiers,” and he felt the U.S. had no comparable burial place for a fallen hero that was similar to Westminster Abbey in Great Britain.

But on December 20, 1921, U.S. Congressman Hamilton Fish of New York introduced a resolution that called for the return to the country of an unknown American who was killed during World War One. He wanted to bury a soldier who was killed in France, and then make plans for his burial with full military honors in a tomb that would be constructed at Arlington National Cemetery.

The tomb was built and is now located at the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington Cemetery. On November 11, 1921, the body of an unidentified soldier who was killed in France, was laid to rest. He represents all of the unidentified and missing from World War One.

Since that time, an unidentified American service member has been laid to rest at that tomb, with the highest honors, representing World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. One crypt sits empty to represent all those who remain missing.

This year marks the Centennial of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Please Thank Our Sponsors

Please remember to thank our sponsors, without whom the Shaping Opinion podcast would not exist.  If you have the need, please support these organizations that have the same taste in podcasts that you do:

* BlueHost Premium Web Hosting

* Dell Outlet Overstock Computer Center

* Philips Hue Smart Home Lighting

Links

*

Historian Andy Masich joins Tim to discuss the battle of Little Bighorn, one of the most well known and possibly misunderstood battles in the history of the American West.  An author, speaker and college educator, Andy also serves as CEO of the Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh. In this episode he puts the story of Little Bighorn into perspective for today and how America changed afterward. This episode is an Encore Presentation of one of our listeners' favorite episodes. It was originally released on July 9, 2018.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Little_Bighorn_Encore.mp3

June 25, 1876 , American Indians defeat George Custer at and the U.S. Army  at Little Bighorn, which is in southern Montana.

The U.S. Army had been forcing American Indians onto reservations, but there were resistors led by chiefs Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

As Americans moved West, Indian nations had repeatedly entered into treaties with the U.S. government but the terms changed as more and more people moved West.  Then gold was discovered in South Dakota’s Black Hills in South Dakota, which had been considered sacred ground to plains Indians.

In 1875 the U.S. Army was said to have ignored treaty provisions and invaded the Black Hills. That prompted many plains Indians to leave their reservations and join Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in Montana. Battle lines were drawn.

In late 1875, the U.S. Army ordered “hostile Indians” in Montana to return to their reservations or be subject to attack.  Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse ignored the order, then urged other warriors to join with them to fight the army.

By late Spring 1876, thousands of American Indian men, women and children had gathered at a massive camp along a river in Southern Montana called Little Bighorn.

On June 17th, General George Crook of U.S. Army was stunned by size and ferocity of the Indian attack nearby and pulled back.  Two other Army columns remained, one commanded by General Alfred Terry and one by General John Gibbon.

General Terry ordered the 7th Cavalry under Lt. Colonel George Custer to scout ahead.  Instead of proceeding cautiously, he dismissed his scouts when they told him of a gigantic Indian village nearby in the valley of Little Bighorn.

Believing that there was a village but discounting its size, his main fear was that when word got to the village, the people would scatter before he could emerge victorious.

He divided roughly 600 men into three battalions, keeping about 215 under his direct command. He did this to keep the Indians from scattering to escaping his invasion.

The people did not scatter, they mobilized. Sitting Bull was too old for battle, but younger Crazy Horse sped into battle with a large force to meet the U.S. Army.

With Custer’s troops divided and advancing, they found it was they who were under attack by a rapidly growing number of warriors.  Custer and the others had tried to regroup his regiment but it was too late. Everyone was under attack.

Custer himself, and his 215 men were cut off and under attack by as many as 3,000 armed braves. In less than a 2 hours, they were all killed to the last man.

Eyewitness Lakota Chief Red Horse said this in 1881 – “The Sioux did not take a single soldier prisoner, but killed all of them. None were left alive for even a few minutes.”

Other regiments survived with heavy casualties but were able to hold for a day until the Indians withdrew.

There were 50 known deaths among Sitting Bull’s followers.

While the Battle of Little Bighorn was the greatest victory for the plains Indians, and the army’s worst defeat in what was called the Plains Indian War, the Indians were not able to revel in victory.

Marlyn Shipley joins Tim for a special Memorial Day episode where she tells her own story. Marlyn is a Gold Star Mother, which means she lost one of her children in service to the U.S. military. Marlyn’s son Michael was a specialist in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne. He died on December 12, 1985 when the plane that he and 247 other fellow troops were aboard, crashed in Gander, Newfoundland. Marlyn talks about what Memorial Day means to her, about the life of a Gold Star mother, about her son Michael.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Gold_Star_Mother_auphonic.mp3

One of the most touching and gripping traditions when it comes to the American military started in Cleveland, Ohio during the First World War.

Robert Queisser was the father of two sons who were serving the military in Europe at that time.

To help him cope with the worry a parent has when his son is at war, and to help his wife in the same way, he came up with an idea. He created a banner called the Blue Star Flag. He even patented it.

The design featured a blue star, which he said represented hope and pride, on a field of white that was surrounded by a red border.

It was 1917, and mothers and fathers across the country liked the idea and demand for the banners exploded. The first flags were handmade and hung in the front windows of homes by mothers, to signify that they had sons serving the war effort. If you had more than one son fighting in the war at that time, you had a star for each child.

As you might expect, not all of those children survived the war. Time would pass and casualty numbers started to climb. The Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defenses had an idea of its own. It suggested that mothers of soldiers killed in the war avoid wearing black mourning clothes. Instead, they said to wear a black band that featured a gold star on their left arms.

President Woodrow Wilson began to call these mothers, “Gold Star Mothers.”

Before long, some of those Gold Star Mothers started to stitch a gold star over the blue star on those flags in their front windows.

If you walked down a street and saw that distinctive flag in the window with a gold star, you knew there was a mother in that house who lost a son in the war.

By the time the Second World War happened, those blue and gold star flags became more omnipresent.

To give you an idea of just how powerful those flags were, picture this.

Alletta Sullivan lived in Waterloo, Iowa. She had five sons, all aboard one ship, the U.S.S. Juneau. All five of those boys died when the ship was sunk on November 13, 1942. Alletta had to replace five blue stars on her flag with five gold stars.

For over 100 years now, service flags have been displayed as American troops deployed all around the world in both war and peace time.

Marlyn Shipley lives in a small town near Pittsburgh and is a Gold Star mother.

Links

* Gold Star Mothers: A History of Service and Sacrifice, OurMilitary.com

* The Deadliest Plane Crash in Canada Killed 248 Soldiers in 1985, HistoryCollection.com

* 35 Years Ago: Unsolved Gander Aircrash Kills 248 101st Airborne Soldiers, 8 Crew, The Michigan Star

* Gold Star Flag Ceremony Gives Closure to Dead North Huntingdon Vet's Mother, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Author and journalist Michael Dolan joins Tim to tell the story of the American front porch. He’s the editor of American History magazine and the author of a book entitled, “The American Porch: An informal history of an informal place.” In this episode, he talks about how the front porch shaped life in America for well over 200 years. You could say that when it comes to our homes, the front porch was the original social media.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Front_Porch_auphonic.mp3

It’s probably something you may not think about much, even if you have one on your home and you walk across it a few times every day. The front porch.

But did you ever wonder what your life would be like if you didn’t have one? Or, on the other hand, if you are one of millions of Americans who don’t have a front porch, did you ever wonder what your life would be like if you did have one?

It’s not an understatement to say that in neighborhoods with front porches, the social dynamics between and among neighbors are different than they are in neighborhoods without them.

And most certainly those same social dynamics are different today, than they were many years ago, when it was just assumed your home would have a front porch, and that would be the place you would spend your time between your private world and the public world.

Michael Dolan is the editor of American History Magazine and the author of the book, “The American Porch.”

Links

* The American Porch, by Michael Dolan (Amazon)

* American History Magazine, Historynet.com

* The Front Porch Campaign, American Heritage Magazine

About this Episode’s Guest Michael Dolan

Michael Dolan is a writer, editor, and musician. He lives in Washington, DC, his hometown. Besides editing American History  magazine, he consults on book manuscripts and documentary television programs, most recently one about wildlife along the Canadian/American border. His articles have run in Smithsonian, The New Republic, The New Yorker, Outside, and The New York Times Magazine, among others. His 1987 Washington City Paper story about Judge Robert Bork’s video rentals caused a furor leading Congress to enact the federal Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. Between 1983 and 1995, he and his wife renovated a 1920s-era bungalow in a DC neighborhood near the Potomac River. The final step of that process replaced a careworn front porch with one that he designed. The results of that project inspired his 2002 book, The American Porch: An Informal History of an Informal Place. Dolan’s porch occasionally is the scene of rehearsals by his band, The Powerful House Ways & Means Committee.

Steve Paskoff joins Tim to talk about whether it’s a good idea for employers to ban discussion of politics in the workplace. Steve is CEO of an Atlanta-based firm called ELI, Inc. That’s a company that provides workplace culture training for employers. In this episode, Steve explains how to handle the touchy issue of employees talking about politics and other sensitive topics at work.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Should_We_Ban_Politics_at_Work_auphonic.mp3

Basecamp is a company that makes workplace collaboration software. It enables teams to work together across geography and time zones on robust platforms. I’ve used it and like it.

As successful as the company has been, it only had about 60 employees last month when the CEO and co-founder of the company made a decision that would change things.

On April 26th, Basecamp CEO Jason Fried and his cofounder David Hansson published a blog post for employees entitled: “Changes at Basecamp.”

In the post, the company’s leaders told employees, among other things, that they were going to ban political discussions.

I’m paraphrasing here in the name of brevity, but the CEO said that discussions, “related to politics, advocacy, or society at large…are not healthy, and they haven’t served us well. And we’re done with it at Basecamp.”

The post told employees that if the new policy was unacceptable, the company would offer a fair severance package and help them find another job.

This led to a backlash within the company that spilled over into the social media universe and earned the company more media coverage than its software ever did.

According to reports, management just didn’t like what was happening on their own platform and decided to lay down some strict guidelines.

The fallout came relatively swiftly.  Within weeks, one-third of the company decided to quit. That’s roughly 18 employees who had tweeted on social media that they intend to leave the firm.

Links

* ELI, Inc., website

* How Should HR Handle Political Discussions at Work?, SHRM

* Basecamp's Controversial Move to Ban Politics at Work is a Reminder that the Workplace is Not a Democracy?, Business Insider

* Basecamp Implodes as Employees Flee Company, Including Senior Staff, The Verge

About this Episode’s Guest Steve Paskoff

Stephen M. Paskoff is the founder, president and CEO of ELI®, a learning and consulting company that provides advisory and learning services to help clients align their values with behaviors which increase employee contribution, build respectful and inclusive cultures, maximize results and reduce legal and ethical risk.

Mr. Paskoff is a nationally recognized speaker and author on how to align behaviors with organizational mission and values. He has been named the highest-ranking speaker at SHRM’s national conference and spoken at other major conferences throughout the United States. His work was referenced and quoted in the EEOC’s 2016 Harassment Study.

Before founding ELI® in 1986, Mr. Paskoff was an EEOC trial attorney and partner in a management law firm. He graduated from Hamilton College and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and is a member of the Georgia Bar. More information is available at www.eliinc.com .