Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[Still Eeyore]

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.

It's also important to remember that it was not just a one-off comment. It was a part of a pattern around the program of mocking players' identities, including the informal fine system that included targeting sexual orientation.

[Skate79]

It's also important to remember that it was not just a one-off comment. It was a part of a pattern around the program of mocking players' identities, including the informal fine system that included targeting sexual orientation.

Exactly. Also, what coach stands before a player and encourages the team to shout "We hate Player X" multiple times?? Beyond juvenile, it borders on some kind of dysfunctional behavior encouraging certain players to mimic the behavior in different ways to curry favor with the coach. That is simply sick.

[Still Eeyore]

Exactly. Also, what coach stands before a player and encourages the team to shout "We hate Player X" multiple times?? Beyond juvenile, it borders on some kind of dysfunctional behavior encouraging certain players to mimic the behavior in different ways to curry favor with the coach. That is simply sick.

It has a whiff of the Cultural Revolution to it.

[selfesteam]

Keep in mind that many of the allegations may be exaggerated and unsubstantiated while others may be true but not enough to remove a coach that has done much for the Harvard women's program for 25 years How quickly many are eager to dismiss the career and dedication of an accomplished leader of women Many of the complaints may also stem from malcontents and haters including angry parents with an agenda from past experience Your hateful and slanderous remarks based on unproven allegations Im willing to bet the majority of which are parents of former and current players who have not succeeded with the team for one reason or another I think the complaints are from a small minority and will if not already, eventually fall on deaf ears for what they really are ...hateful and agenda driven Others may be true indeed however i believe will fall short of the removal of a stalwart in women's hockey Some of you were the biggest supporters of coach when Harvard was winning now you are quick to sling the mud Its unfortunate when allegations involve targeted bias and racial overtone with little or no evidence to support and many are quick to condemn and convict No coach is perfect Consider the body of work I believe the decision has already been made and all the hate and spite will not prevail

[KTDC]

Keep in mind that many of the allegations may be exaggerated and unsubstantiated while others may be true but not enough to remove a coach that has done much for the Harvard women's program for 25 years How quickly many are eager to dismiss the career and dedication of an accomplished leader of women Many of the complaints may also stem from malcontents and haters including angry parents with an agenda from past experience Your hateful and slanderous remarks based on unproven allegations Im willing to bet the majority of which are parents of former and current players who have not succeeded with the team for one reason or another I think the complaints are from a small minority and will if not already, eventually fall on deaf ears for what they really are ...hateful and agenda driven Others may be true indeed however i believe will fall short of the removal of a stalwart in women's hockey Some of you were the biggest supporters of coach when Harvard was winning now you are quick to sling the mud Its unfortunate when allegations involve targeted bias and racial overtone with little or no evidence to support and many are quick to condemn and convict No coach is perfect Consider the body of work I believe the decision has already been made and all the hate and spite will not prevail

This post is making me dizzy! Was this written by a bot?

[Hockeybuckeye]

The Athletic's story the other year cost Mel his job at Michigan and they misrepresented many of the facts so in their Harvard story I'm going to go with the very important American standard of justice of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"

[Still Eeyore]

Keep in mind that many of the allegations may be exaggerated and unsubstantiated while others may be true but not enough to remove a coach that has done much for the Harvard women's program for 25 years How quickly many are eager to dismiss the career and dedication of an accomplished leader of women Many of the complaints may also stem from malcontents and haters including angry parents with an agenda from past experience Your hateful and slanderous remarks based on unproven allegations Im willing to bet the majority of which are parents of former and current players who have not succeeded with the team for one reason or another I think the complaints are from a small minority and will if not already, eventually fall on deaf ears for what they really are ...hateful and agenda driven Others may be true indeed however i believe will fall short of the removal of a stalwart in women's hockey Some of you were the biggest supporters of coach when Harvard was winning now you are quick to sling the mud Its unfortunate when allegations involve targeted bias and racial overtone with little or no evidence to support and many are quick to condemn and convict No coach is perfect Consider the body of work I believe the decision has already been made and all the hate and spite will not prevail

Punctuation is your friend.

[ARM]

Punctuation is your friend.

That isn't even the biggest problem; hopefully the author was not Harvard-educated.

[dave1381]

Ok, one more post. The Globe article did a nice job of outlining the categories of complaints against Stone. I realized that going through each is a nice way to sort the more consequential allegations from the rest, whereas I think criticism focuses more on less consequential allegations.

Negative motivation.

Each of the 16 former players said Stone denigrated them or their teammates in ways that made them demoralized, anxious, confused, or seeking mental health support. “Winning and fostering a supportive, non-toxic environment are not mutually exclusive,” said Chloe Ashton, a junior forward who left the team in December. “The best coaches produce good results by inspiring athletes physically and mentally. Unfortunately, that was not my experience in the Harvard women’s hockey program.”

This is clearly Katey Stone's coaching approach, and players who can't stand it should have gone elsewhere. I couldn't believe that this led of the serious list of allegations. There are of course mentors who use more negative motivation vs. positive motivation. If you find yourself stuck under someone using negative motivation and you don't like it, go elsewhere, or stick it out and move on with your life.

The administration may want to evaluate if the current generation is so coddled that negative motivation cannot possibly attract recruits and yield results in 2023, but surely negative motivation alone is not a serious allegation that leads to firing someone.

▪ Insensitivity to mental health issues. Stone was described by numerous former players as having little tolerance for those confronting emotional challenges. A former team leader who requested anonymity said that when Stone learned she was receiving mental health care, the coach told her, “You need to toughen up and not be a burden to your teammates.”

It's worth separating a few things here. Katey Stone has indisputably shamed players who had mental health issues for not putting "Team First", on the basis that they failed to take care of their own mental health and created a distraction for the team. It is a horrible single-minded focus that I've found revulsive on some level, but I can also understand that it is a brutal reality of being a head coach and having your career success depend on teenagers and young adults.

What I think there is more grounds for criticizing Katey Stone is if she actively discouraged or even prevented players from using university mental health resources. It has surely become fairly standard obligation that educators today, though they are not expected to provide psychotherapy, are typically duty-bound to refer students to mental health resources as necessary. This accusation seems to me like a hint at more serious problems, and I would focus on this accusation if I were the Harvard administration evaluating her.

▪ Pressure to return from concussions and other injuries.

▪ Adverse influence on academics.

Coaches obviously have pressure to push students to the limits of what doctors allow and to encourage players to prioritize practice over conflicting academic obligations. This is much more a university-level issue than an issue with every one coach. I am more surprised if coaches didn't do this. If you have problems with this, you have problems systemically with college athletics. Sure, Harvard could do better, but it's not a Katey Stone problem.

▪ Body shaming

Universities should provide more support to resources for students dealing with body issues. I think it's reasonable for a coach to create expectations and incentives, and it's not the role of an educator to provide psychologically support for everyone who cannot handle themselves. This is more of a university-wide issue that Harvard should improve on.

▪ Contradictory disciplinary standards. Former team members said Stone cut one player for a drinking infraction, then gave her a second chance, permitting her to train with the team for several months, only to cut her again. Yet when several seniors reported to Stone that one of her favored players had driven drunk and run a red light on Memorial Drive, the coach accused them of betraying the player and imposed no discipline, they said.

This one I think is underappreciated and sounds more serious. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more attention, and it's been lost in the non-serious criticisms. If Katey has abused her power in using discipline to punish critics and ignore infractions of supporters, this could be problematic and more likely a breach of contractual obligations. I would focus on this accusation if I were the Harvard administration evaluating her.

▪ Hazing.

I've already discussed this at length in my last post, since this was the focus of The Athletic investigation. I think she would be in trouble, if there were clearly forced acts that risked serious long-term mental of physical health risk that Katey Stone tolerated (and by that I mean were reported and ignored -- not that just as The Athletic reported that she tells students she knows everything that goes on in the program). I don't see that here. If a coach's or athletic admin's job were lost for every player that ever felt uncomfortable at a team activity or a college athlete regretted drinking too much due to peer pressure, there would be a lot fewer coaches.
--

As for the chiefs-indians comment which was otherwise the focus of the Globe article: however much you feel for the broader pain of the players and coach affected, the University has made it clear where it stands. We know the results of the investigation, and spokesperson Dane also told the Crimson, "“Harvard took prompt action and thoroughly reviewed Coach Stone’s self-reported use of a once frequently-used colloquialism that is now deemed culturally insensitive during a team meeting." I fully agree, and anyone is wasting their time if they think this issue is going to get any more traction.

So I see here some accusations worthy of further scrutiny (contradictory discpline standards, obstructing mental health treatment), while the criticisms receiving the most attention and focus from Stone's critics (racism, hazing, and negative motivation) I expect will achieve little traction with the Harvard administration.

[dave1381]

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.

All the fainting couches people are falling on over the Naked Skate sure seem hyperbolic given other U.S. college traditions, e.g., Primal Scream at Harvard . And it can be quite cold during winter exam nights -- comparable in minor health impact to the specific impacts of the Naked Skate, I'd expect. But god forbid it's a group of women doing such a thing.

The following South Park dialog is a good summary of what's going on with the tax system, costumes, etc.

Token: "You mean, you want me around?"
Stan: "Sure, dude, you're our friend."
Token: "Yeah, I know. But you guys always rip on me for being rich."
Stan: "Dude, just because we rip on you for being rich doesn't mean we don't like you."
Kyle: "Yeah. We're guys, dude. We find something about all our friends to rip on. We made fun of you for being rich just like we make fun of Butters for being wimpy."
Butters: "They sure do."
Stan: "Yeah, like we rip on Kyle for being a Jew."
Kyle: "Right."
Token: "That's right, huh?"
Kyle: "And Stan for being in love with Wendy."
Stan: "Yeah, I get it for that."
Kyle: "And Cartman for being fat."
Cartman: "Uh huh."
Kyle: "And Cartman for being stupid."
Cartman: "Yeah."
Kyle: "And Cartman for having a ***** for a mom."
Cartman : "Hey
Kyle: "And Cartman for being a sadistic *******."
Cartman : "Ey, you did me already"

Totally mundane stuff among guys busting b*lls, but it's part of a mental-health Hunger Games if it involves a group of Harvard women trying to forge connections with the finest china of Generation Z (the Hunger Games comparison came from a parent, of course). I see more sexism implicit in shocked reactions to the Globe/Athletic than discrimination in the culture of the Harvard women's hockey team.

[ARM]

There are at least two different ways to consider this situation: should Stone be removed due to conduct outside of the bounds of what Harvard can tolerate or condone; and should Stone be removed due to conduct that is not conducive to a successful program? Dave's S.P. analogy is basically showing negative interactions that are common in a group of adolescent males. I don't think that is where the bar should be set, even for college-age males. And as for whether or not there will be differences in human interaction between groups of males versus females, I think that anyone who doesn't understand that need, both nuanced and less nuanced, hasn't spent much time interacting with both groups.

When Steve Sertich was coaching Bemidji, he told a story of the difference between coaching guys and girls. He said that if you holler at a guy in front of his teammates, the teammates will be like, "Well, I guess Joe will have to do better." But if he did the same thing in front of female players, he would lose the group for the rest of the day, because their focus was now on, "Poor Susie! Is she going to be okay?"

My own unimportant opinion is that anyone whose idea of how to motivate people is to get them to chant, "I hate <a teammate>!" has no business being in a leadership position. I think as a society we can do better than a position of, "if you don't like it, leave."

[sk8tronthepond]

ya except we are not talking about "3rd string players" here, but former captains, and top line players and and producers, but sure, you stick to your "its all the medias fault"

Can't find that quote in my post. Are you a writer for some newspaper?

[KTDC]

Seems like Stone was proudly doing it old school 27 years ago, old school for even then. And times have changed a lot more than she has over 27 years and she and her program are getting more and more out of date.

The Harvard administration may have to recognize her time has come despite their appreciation for her and all she has done for 27 years.

[AlwaysCold2]

Seems like Stone was proudly doing it old school 27 years ago, old school for even then. And times have changed a lot more than she has over 27 years and she and her program are getting more and more out of date.

The Harvard administration may have to recognize her time has come despite their appreciation for her and all she has done for 27 years.

1000% agree.

[Skate79]

That isn't even the biggest problem; hopefully the author was not Harvard-educated.

I had the same thought. Frightening.