Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[Skate79]

Now a story in the Athletic ?

STONE HAS TO GO. WHAT IS HARVARD WAITING FOR ?

https://theathletic.com/4288145/2023...g-katey-stone/

Reggie you beat me to it!

[Skate79]

What is also damning about the Athletic piece was the selection of Mike Smith to sit in on the meetings with the players who filed complaints. Smith chaired the committee that hired Erin McDermott the A.D. As Myrna McDonald says in the article, where is the independence in the investigation? And she’s absolutely right. Harvard is closing ranks and undoubtedly those administration officials who are named in the article including those who are no longer at Harvard have most likely been advised not to say anything.

The description by one of the parents likening the program to the “Hunger Games” makes my skin crawl.

[Prowler]

The walls are closing in. Hopefully, something is done VERY SOON....

[dave1381]

"In some years, they had to recite Harvard hockey facts, like how many goals Nicole Corriero scored in her career."

Now this was the dark, DARK underbelly of Harvard women's hockey that we needed The Athletic to reveal to the world for the greater good.

Anyhow, Katey Stone's coaching approaches have been clear for years. She has outlasted her coaching peers from the turn of the century. Coaches who physically abused players (Joy Woog, Brian McCloskey, Rick Seeley) have come and gone. Some players have thrived under Katey Stone's leadership. We can see that Julie Chu and Lauren McAuliffe still defend her ardently. Still, Katey Stone's approach is not for everyone. Players and their parents who dislike her approach have the right to pick other programs. Of course, there can be buyers remorse for some who pick Harvard. Grown-ups enter into relationships that don't work out all the time and simply move on. Disgruntled players still have the right to quit the team and stay at Harvard. They can also transfer to a scholarship school in many cases. They can take responsibility for their own choices. Alternatively, they can complain about their experiences for the rest of their lives. They can exploit today's cancel culture to turn outdated cliches into accusations of racism. Media outlets can publish their stories and get high-fives on Twitter for "heroic reporting" from others who don't like Katey Stone's coaching style and are oddly horrified by college women bonding in ways that college men have done for centuries. Harvard has the right to evaluate Katey Stone's overall body of work and to keep her or not. Cheers.

[Nobody98]

Now this was the dark, DARK underbelly of Harvard women's hockey that we needed The Athletic to reveal to the world for the greater good.

Anyhow, Katey Stone's coaching approaches have been clear for years. She has outlasted her coaching peers from the turn of the century. Coaches who physically abused players (Joy Woog, Brian McCloskey, Rick Seeley) have come and gone. Some players have thrived under Katey Stone's leadership. We can see that Julie Chu and Lauren McAuliffe still defend her ardently. Still, Katey Stone's approach is not for everyone. Players and their parents who dislike her approach have the right to pick other programs. Of course, there can be buyers remorse for some who pick Harvard. Grown-ups enter into relationships that don't work out all the time and simply move on. Disgruntled players still have the right to quit the team and stay at Harvard. They can also transfer to a scholarship school in many cases. They can take responsibility for their own choices. Alternatively, they can complain about their experiences for the rest of their lives. They can exploit today's cancel culture to turn outdated cliches into accusations of racism. Media outlets can publish their stories and get high-fives on Twitter for "heroic reporting" from others who don't like Katey Stone's coaching style and are oddly horrified by college women bonding in ways that college men have done for centuries. Harvard has the right to evaluate Katey Stone's overall body of work and to keep her or not. Cheers.

The article doesn’t present this benign detail as being part of the abuse. Details like this are used to paint a picture which includes a mixture of banalities as well as actual abuse. Some might consider this balanced journalism.

However, you chose to highlight this banality as if it is represents the “darkness” while dismissing everything and everyone else in the article. Such astoundingly selective reading says more about your character than anything.

[Timothy A]

Now a story in the Athletic ?

STONE HAS TO GO. WHAT IS HARVARD WAITING FOR ?

https://theathletic.com/4288145/2023...g-katey-stone/

Freaking pay wall, that intro makes me want to read more.

[Skate79]

Now this was the dark, DARK underbelly of Harvard women's hockey that we needed The Athletic to reveal to the world for the greater good.

Anyhow, Katey Stone's coaching approaches have been clear for years. She has outlasted her coaching peers from the turn of the century. Coaches who physically abused players (Joy Woog, Brian McCloskey, Rick Seeley) have come and gone. Some players have thrived under Katey Stone's leadership. We can see that Julie Chu and Lauren McAuliffe still defend her ardently. Still, Katey Stone's approach is not for everyone. Players and their parents who dislike her approach have the right to pick other programs. Of course, there can be buyers remorse for some who pick Harvard. Grown-ups enter into relationships that don't work out all the time and simply move on. Disgruntled players still have the right to quit the team and stay at Harvard. They can also transfer to a scholarship school in many cases. They can take responsibility for their own choices. Alternatively, they can complain about their experiences for the rest of their lives. They can exploit today's cancel culture to turn outdated cliches into accusations of racism. Media outlets can publish their stories and get high-fives on Twitter for "heroic reporting" from others who don't like Katey Stone's coaching style and are oddly horrified by college women bonding in ways that college men have done for centuries. Harvard has the right to evaluate Katey Stone's overall body of work and to keep her or not. Cheers.

Dave, I've known you to be a fair and balanced poster to the various threads on the Women' Forum. So, I find this particular post shockingly out of touch with what is real and known about Coach Stone's tenure at Harvard. You can't possibly be dismissing what happened to Maryna MacDonald and the other players profiled in the Athletic piece as a 'choice' to stay or go. That is way too simplistic and highly insensitive to what was clearly abuse. The culture of the program for over 20 years has been toxic and the continual denial on the part of the administration is even worse. Yes, parents and players often complain about playing time or lack of appreciation - it goes with the territory. But what has come to light goes way beyond the normal complaints. This is not about the cancel culture or being 'woke'. This is about damaging young women's lives to the point where they may carry this abuse with them for years affecting their personal and professional lives. It is unconscionable that Harvard has not stepped in to rectify this situation and I for one, as an alum, am furious that the AD and others in the administration are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to what has happened. They need to be held accountable.

[ARM]

Harvard has the right to evaluate Katey Stone's overall body of work and to keep her or not.

Suppose we totally ignore the alleged abuses within Stone's program, and look at the rest of her body of work. She had her team in the title game eight years ago, but hasn't managed much on a national level since then. Technically, Harvard was in the tournament last year, but after the first-round knockout in the ECAC playoffs, didn't really seem to be present.

Is it enough at Harvard if her team is sometimes in the mix for the ECAC and usually makes the playoffs? Is the department okay with her running what is likely no better than the fourth-best program in the Ivy League, and that's helped by the fact that Brown and Dartmouth have been mostly floundering for years.

If that is what she managed before these rumors came to light, I don't see her program's prognosis improving any time soon. She can still get players who really want a degree that says Harvard on it, but I think the days of her attracting the top tier of players are over.

[dave1381]

If that is what she managed before these rumors came to light, I don't see her program's prognosis improving any time soon.

Yes, I agree that's a reasonable assessment, and Katey Stone will be hard-pressed to make the case otherwise. She has long outlasted many predictions of her demise on this forum though.

So, I find this particular post shockingly out of touch with what is real and known about Coach Stone's tenure at Harvard.

That's fair - I am out of touch. I don't know much about what's happened in the last decade of Harvard women's hockey. I know a lot of the decade before that. I am sympathetic for players who've experienced lasting hurt from their times at Harvard.

I don't think the Globe/Athletic articles are fully convincing that she "crossed the lines of acceptable treatment" (quoting how the The Athletic introduced the story on Twitter). Is Katey Stone controlling and manipulative? Sure. (Emotionally) abusive is harder to argue. I expect the AD/admin see it similarly: otherwise she would be long out of job already. The Globe/Athletic stories, while designed well to touch a nerve with the broader public, are not tight arguments that Katey Stone should be fired.

The article doesn’t present this benign detail as being part of the abuse. Details like this are used to paint a picture which includes a mixture of banalities as well as actual abuse. Some might consider this balanced journalism.

The overall presentation by The Athletic is quite far from balanced. They wrote an article that got picked up by the New York Post because it was so titillating. I don't think that the article was tightly focused enough on actual abuse, and it did try to confuse quite banal behavior with abuse.

I was not dismissing that there is real pain of anyone mentioned or anonymously sourced in the Globe/Athletic articles.

[Still Eeyore]

One thing that struck me was the repeated insistence that Naked Skate wasn't a sanctioned activity. It's clear that the administration's main concern was avoiding liability rather than doing the right thing. It's inconceivable that Stone didn't know what was going on, and she had a responsibility, at least ethical if not legal, to put a stop to it.

[Skate79]

Suppose we totally ignore the alleged abuses within Stone's program, and look at the rest of her body of work. She had her team in the title game eight years ago, but hasn't managed much on a national level since then. Technically, Harvard was in the tournament last year, but after the first-round knockout in the ECAC playoffs, didn't really seem to be present.

Is it enough at Harvard if her team is sometimes in the mix for the ECAC and usually makes the playoffs? Is the department okay with her running what is likely no better than the fourth-best program in the Ivy League, and that's helped by the fact that Brown and Dartmouth have been mostly floundering for years.

If that is what she managed before these rumors came to light, I don't see her program's prognosis improving any time soon. She can still get players who really want a degree that says Harvard on it, but I think the days of her attracting the top tier of players are over.

At this point, within the conference, the only wins you can circle on their schedule are against Dartmouth. You used to be able to include Brown, Yale and Princeton in that group. Not anymore. Heck, they were winless against Union and Brown this year.

The numbers don't lie. The team is 77-95-17 since the 2014-'15 season when they last went to the Frozen Four. And as ARM says, the days of recruiting players like Ruggerio, Vaillencourt and Chu are probably over. So, expect it to get worse before it gets better.

[dave1381]

A few more reactions to The Athletic:

-- I'm sympathetic for players who've had bad experiences in Harvard hockey, and those having long-term consequences of their time I hope get all the mental health help they need. But I don't think some numbers of players expressing their pain is enough to get Katey Stone fired, and many seem misguided in believing that's the case.

-- Maybe the article will create enough outrage, bad press, and embarassment for Harvard that it'll lead to Katey Stone to be fired or encouraged to resign. I am doubtful that'll be the outcome though. Those wanting to get Katey fired I expect will have to focus on a smaller number of clearer serious violations to succeed.

-- As a society, we have laws against underage drinking and hazing. We have zero tolerance for certain types of hazing (young people die or suffer long-term consequences), but we certainly do not have zero tolerance for all hazing. I see the examples given of hazing and peer pressure in the article as rather banal and not worse than the median student organization or friend group. The Globe and The Athletic hazing beat writers surely see this differently and want to move society more toward their own editorial views on hazing, but I don't think we're there yet.

-- I witnessed in the early 2000s Harvard players assigned nicknames based on physical characteristics, religion, etc. as part of the team culture. Players generally embraced this and found it to be good-natured. The idea that nicknames and the fine system proves that team culture is broadly anti-gay and anti-Asian is absurd (and yes, the article is being spinned this way by, e.g, outsports). Teammates are equal opportunity offenders here. But in 2023 this is "bullying" that targets "sensitivities"... uh-huh.

-- I'm not going to take seriously the idea that the "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" Stonerism is going to be Katey Stone's downfall. Clearly it's been tried, built some international outrage, but it has gained zero traction with Harvard's administration. I am against racist nicknames, etc., but in a world where the Chiefs just won the Super Bowl and we had the Cleveland Indians until 2022, this just isn't going to work in getting Katey Stone fired.

-- I always saw the role of the coach is to get the best out of her team. Maintaining physical and mental fitness and health falls a lot on individuals and the overall support of the university. Coaches will push players within the limits of what doctors allow. That's certainly not unique problem to Katey Stone. Universities also always need to do more with mental fitness and health.

-- I've known of examples where I thought Katey Stone's behavior was unnecessarily brutal toward players suffering mental health issues. I think at times Katey Stone has abused her authority. Is it enough for her to be fired? I don't know, because I don't think the articles focused enough on truly bad behavior. Rather, they focused a lot on events that are salicious and titillating because they reveal details of social interactions of women at Harvard that are usually kept private, but overall are really quite banal from my perspective. Using upperclassman to lead by enforcing team culture and rules coming from the coach seems rather commonplace without more specifics of abuse of authority.

So those are my reactions. I thought it's useful to have some more perspective on Katey Stone in between immediate outrage and unconditional support. If that leads to further posts saying I lack character or whatever, fine. I've given my perspective and don't plan to discuss much further.

[wiscolorado]

A few more reactions to The Athletic:

-- As a society, we have laws against underage drinking and hazing. We have zero tolerance for certain types of hazing (young people die or suffer long-term consequences), but we certainly do not have zero tolerance for all hazing. I see the examples given of hazing and peer pressure in the article as rather banal and not worse than the median student organization or friend group. The Globe and The Athletic hazing beat writers surely see this differently and want to move society more toward their own editorial views on hazing, but I don't think we're there yet.

Yikes dude. You're entitled to your opinion, but if the types of activities reported are what you think of as typical or normal for a group of friends, then I gotta say I'm glad that you and I don't run in the same crowds.

[Hockeybuckeye]

Scandals in college sports tend to explode quickly as those involved are rapidly tried and convicted by those on the internet and the offending schools are quickly put under a very uncomfortable microscope.
Look at the scandals of doctors sexually abusing athletes at Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State and the administrations of each covering it up for years! Each was hit with multiple lawsuits that they have no hope of winning and I suspect it will be the same for Harvard.
The vultures, I mean lawyers are probably already starting to circle.

[Skate79]

A few more reactions to The Athletic:

-- I'm not going to take seriously the idea that the "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" Stonerism is going to be Katey Stone's downfall. Clearly, it's been tried, built some international outrage, but it has gained zero traction with Harvard's administration. I am against racist nicknames, etc., but in a world where the Chiefs just won the Super Bowl and we had the Cleveland Indians until 2022, this just isn't going to work in getting Katey Stone fired.

Except you left out one important detail. Coach Stone was looking at Maryna MacDonald when she made that comment. Knowing full well that her player was indigenous. That puts the comment in a much different light than if it were an offhand remark made between two parties in private. And to compare the comment to the fact that the Chiefs won the Super Bowl is patently ridiculous. We are talking about a young lady's heritage, not some NFL team who rakes in billions of dollars with a team nickname that connotes leaders of indigenous people.