Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[Prowler]

I heard today that Stones assistant coach is taking a personal leave of absence from the team. This is really sad. Why is Harvard dragging this along ? It is time for a new coach. Very simple

excellent question.

[Skate79]

I heard today that Stones assistant coach is taking a personal leave of absence from the team. This is really sad. Why is Harvard dragging this along ? It is time for a new coach. Very simple

Which assistant coach? Doesn't she have two assistants?

[Skate79]

"It is important to get at the heart of the matter to truly address these risks, so that our clients may move forward and are able to address the real issues, not just the legal risk.”

This sentence jumped out at me. The legal risk can be dealt with by Harvard's general counsel. What I think the University is after here is findings of risk to students' well-being that includes the possibility of suicide. Don't roll your eyes. I was on the phone with someone today who told me of a heart wrenching story that almost made me lose my lunch. It has been documented that Coach Stone's abuse has had negative ramifications on players health and clearly, the mental health resources at Harvard have failed to address the situation. After the University swept all of this under the rug, the players most likely felt they had no other recourse but to quit the team and a game they love or transfer. How incredibly sad is it that they should be forced to make that choice because of a coach whose behavior and tactics belong in a prison system, not an academic environment.

[Prowler]

Which assistant coach? Doesn't she have two assistants?

LeeJ Mirasolo..

[dave1381]

Your posts in this thread are mostly well-thought and balanced, though perhaps influenced in part by a relationship with the team that goes back decades. I find this statement troubling, however. I don't know the Harvard situation as well as others commenting here, and especially you. Thus, I'm commenting strictly in a general sense, not specific to Harvard at all.

Given the increased attention in recent years to issues like eating disorders and suicides of young people, the note here seems off. What if a program and/or coach is doing absolutely nothing wrong, but a student athlete's unique situation has her in need of mental health resources; would we make light of that? I think we all try to be as understanding and sympathetic as we can. Now if someone is in a situation where she feels ostracized, the likelihood of needing mental health resources increases.

With all that has come to light about how some university programs are run, if I am feeling abused or victimized in some way by an athletic program such that I feel I need mental health support, I'm not sure that I would entirely trust the sources that program is recommending. Yes, there are laws protecting me, in theory, but we have learned of organizations where protecting the athletes is pretty far down the priority list. I wouldn't be confident that anything I said regarding a coach/program wouldn't make its way back to the people who are contributing to my problems.

That's all fair. Yes, I made a flippant comment in part from frustration after hearing not only Katey Stone but also years of Harvard alumni raked through the mud by The Athletic. As noted earlier in the thread, some alumni were attacked by the article in ways that I am certain were extraordinarily unfair and misleading, and other aspects of the article took behavior I knew well and made it into something sinister. The Athletic's obviously dishonest behavior also leads me to suspect some players have also been dishonest in their characterization of Harvard hockey as a whole, and I am admittedly resentful of that.

That all said, I do not question that there are some student-athletes who feel trauma from their time with Harvard hockey. I do not want to make light of them. Abra Kinkopf has every right to make daily Instagram posts demanding Katey Stone be fired. Stone treated her badly. There were many witnesses. There is no question about that.

The Athletic podcast was baffled how it could be the case that Coach Stone still has any institutional support. It's not hard, when you've listened to her for years, to find her approaches compelling. She would say often "mind over matter". She would take pride in pushing players beyond what they believe they are capable of. She would demand a "team first" focus. She would use approaches that really got inside players' heads. Captains would indeed promote compliance. She would make examples of players who failed to comply. A typical team might have a fourth line that rarely played and a third line whose playing time was quite variable. On some level, isn't that the coaches job description? Maintain team unity and create incentives that motivate players? Criticize when performance standards are not met?

Now I agree with The Athletic that many of Stone's defenders are wrong to dismiss critics as entirely "players/parents disgruntled about playing time" or "players who can't handle tough coaching." The alumni's letter to the Globe used language like "D-I hockey is demanding and not for everyone" which I think is a bit unfair to Stone's critics, as there are probably some players who may hve thrived in D-I hockey in better match.

How would I characterize what goes wrong? To reiterate, Coach Stone would take pride in demanding a complete mental focus on individual's pushing themselves to support the team. Some players thrived with this approach and believe it was undoubtedly successful in pushing them to perform for the team, and they loved everything about the system. But yes, I gather some players found these kind of mental demands to be damaging. Yes, The Athletic is right that it wasn't just players who largely rode the bench that fell into this category. I talked 20 years ago at length with one player who did receive extensive ice time who felt this way. And yes, the media coverage that players who had some kind of "individualistic streak" would not work well in Harvard's system is a fact that rings true. I don't think she tried to divide teams, but sure, that could happen sometimes.

Now when players struggled in this system, and struggled with their mental health, did Coach Stone go too far in berating them and hurting them? I think the answer is a clear yes. I have talked myself with her about one player who had struggled 20 years ago and left the team. I had hoped, at the very least, she would recognize that there was a risk that not taking care of the mental health of players who left the team: aside from being the obvious right thing to do, it could easily lead to the program blowing up. I wish Coach Stone had done better there and I wish Harvard had done better. It's clearly a broader failure of Harvard Athletics if players who struggled under Coach Stone didn't receive the support they needed.

So that is precisely where I see the failings in Harvard Hockey and Katey Stone, and the issues I mention are not trivial. But I also find it tremendously unfair and false to characterize Stone's system and Harvard hockey's culture as inherently abusive, and to characterize all Harvard Hockey alumni and Stone supporters as perpetuating a cycle of abuse. And yes, if you are pushing the accusation that the whole Harvard system has been abusive under Katey Stone, you are saying that all Harvard women's hockey alums are abusers. There is no between. You don't get to pick and choose the Harvard women's hockey alums that you like. You are then asserting that A.J. Mleckzo, Jennifer Botterill, Angela Ruggiero, and Julie Chu are all abusers. You are also accusing me personally of having ignored and enabled a wide system of abuse. These implications do not ring true to me.

[BadgerPete]

In my opinion, the thing about the history off it isn't the reaction to behaviors and attitudes from two decades ago, but the obstinate refusal for any reflection, adaptation, or adjustment as the general public understanding of toxicity in sport has changed. I can give some leeway to stories from the 1990s as a product of their times, but the fact that they have clearly endured without any evolution in style is mind-boggling and shows that there isn't likely to be any changes.

And other people have said it, but the thing that I just can't wrap my head around is that this is not a good hockey program right now. They've been in the bottom half of the ECAC four of the last six years. They haven't appeared in the ECAC Championship game since 2015. They have one NCAA appearance since then and were promptly dispatched by UMD. And there's no sign that this team is on the verge of improvement. Their highest scoring sophomore was Davidson Adams with a 13 point season, and their highest scoring returning first year is Sophie Ensley with just 2 points. (It was Jade Arnone with 8 when I posted this, but she portaled just hours later.) No returning first year scored a goal last year. It's always tough to evaluate incoming recruits, but in terms of the high-level players that can change programs, Harvard has 0 commits from the U18 Worlds Teams of the US and Canada. (Colgate has 4, Cornell has 4, Clarkson has 3, Princeton has 3.) There's just no sign that this program is on the verge of anything.

If this was someone with the recent track record of Johnson or Desrosiers with multiple titles and consistent NCAA tournaments, I wouldn't condone it but I'd at least understand it. if this was Nadine Muzzerall who had just built a juggernaut from almost nothing I'd be able to comprehend it. But this is a lot of negative press and potential long-lasting damage to a program for what is currently maybe the 7th best team in the ECAC. I get the rich history, but in the geologic ages of sport we are talking distant history. I just fail to see how the cost-benefit sheet balances at all here.

[thirdtime's . . .]

She would say often "mind over matter". She would take pride in pushing players beyond what they believe they are capable of. She would demand a "team first" focus. She would use approaches that really got inside players' heads. Captains would indeed promote compliance. She would make examples of players who failed to comply. A typical team might have a fourth line that rarely played and a third line whose playing time was quite variable. ..........................

Now when players struggled in this system, and struggled with their mental health, did Coach Stone go too far in berating them and hurting them? I think the answer is a clear yes. I have talked myself with her about one player who had struggled 20 years ago and left the team. I had hoped, at the very least, she would recognize that there was a risk that not taking care of the mental health of players who left the team: aside from being the obvious right thing to do, it could easily lead to the program blowing up.

Things did indeed blow up. You’re a reluctant witness for the prosecution.

“Mind over matter” can be perverse if someone gets inside your head and the matter at issue is your own body. “Team first” can similarly be perverse when it becomes a mantra, rather than the truism it is, even as a significant number of players aren’t really asked to contribute to the team (e.g., the habitual short bench). And let’s not forget what precipitated the lid blowing off this program: key team contributors by anybody’s definition felt so alienated that they left the program. So Stone’s “team" had no Daniels, no Macdonald and no Thompson (along with no Reed) — (7-21-3).

(Btw, no one seems to be tarring all Harvard hockey alums with Stone’s brush. I’m not getting that from the Athletic or the Globe, however sensation hungry they might otherwise be.)

P.S. For those Ivy Leaguers who don't normally follow the Transfer Portal thread, see what Trillium is reporting over there.

[Skate79]

So that is precisely where I see the failings in Harvard Hockey and Katey Stone, and the issues I mention are not trivial. But I also find it tremendously unfair and false to characterize Stone's system and Harvard hockey's culture as inherently abusive, and to characterize all Harvard Hockey alumni and Stone supporters as perpetuating a cycle of abuse. And yes, if you are pushing the accusation that the whole Harvard system has been abusive under Katey Stone, you are saying that all Harvard women's hockey alums are abusers. There is no between. You don't get to pick and choose the Harvard women's hockey alums that you like. You are then asserting that A.J. Mleczko, Jennifer Botterill, Angela Ruggiero, and Julie Chu are all abusers. You are also accusing me personally of having ignored and enabled a wide system of abuse. These implications do not ring true to me.

Dave, I don't think anyone is making this about the Harvard system or all Harvard women hockey alums. That would be grossly unfair and obviously inaccurate as has been borne out by the Harvard women alums who have spoken out about the abuse. What is being discussed is Coach Stone's obvious failings as a head coach and mentor to young women. She runs the program and so it stands to reason that the culture of the program is a direct outgrowth of her temperament, character and personality. It's that way with any program, for better or worse. The players that perpetuated the abuse, hazing and bullying were doing so to curry favor with Stone or perhaps they found the culture to be to their liking and did it once they realized that Stone would not punish them. Whatever the reason, it didn't stop and got worse over time to the point where the program is now considered in the lower tier of the ECAC. If nothing else, performance is a byproduct of a culture that is failing miserably.

[dave1381]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm curious to know what anyone thinks: if the media then, say, USCHO or The Crimson, had the handful of players who left the team 20 years ago on the record with their criticisms of Coach Stone, would they have resonated then? This would've encompassed some of the criticisms of body shaming, mind control, disregard for mental health, and pushing hard once medically cleared from injuries.

My view is it would've been a much taller order for those players. They would've been smaller in numbers compared to the wins and Frozen Fours. Even the mass of players coming forward today gets outright dismissed by some as whiners. It was easy to take down coaches back then who were accused of physical abuse, but any language and education on emotional abuse or toxicity was not as mainstream. And even if well-meaning, it's easier to dismiss a few players as isolated cases and not parts of a systemic problem. (A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

[ARM]

(B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on."

You, Skate79, and others in this thread can likely better speak to how much of a unique sacrifice this would be. One of the big selling points to these student athletes is walking out the door with a degree that says Harvard on it. Now these young ladies are being asked to choose: give up on the dream of earning a Harvard degree, or give up on the dream of playing D-I hockey. From the outside looking in, I don't know that the dilemma existed to the same extent in that era at any other program, considering both the name recognition of the degree and the competitiveness of the hockey team.

[Prowler]

(A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

I think any allegations of the like from 20 or more years ago pale in comparison to what is being reported on now. I don't say this to dismiss any of these old allegations, but more so to point to the seriousness of the recent ones.. None of the players in recent reporting are saying they were pushed to hard (when they were of able body) and as the Athletic podcast stated nobody is saying "Oh Coach Stone yells too much" and nobody was complaining about ice time or what line they were on. This report boils down, at least to me, to the outright abuse to some players. as in players struggling with mental health issues, (because of her) and being told to "Toughen up and don't be a burden to your team mates" or "Your a disgrace to the program and don't deserve to wear the jersey" for missing a practice they weren't allowed to participate in because of a head injury. Or being pressured to play through a serious hip injury that later required surgery to rectify. I could go on but we have all read the reporting, and some have intimate knowledge of the situation. I also want to reiterate what a few have said above, that I don't believe anyone is painting all HWH Alum with the same brush at all. This all boils down to one person and her toxic behavior's over decades behind the bench and has left a trail of suffering women in her wake. I feel sorry for the Alum of the past that maybe did have a positive experience on the team and were possibly blind to what was happening around them. I don't blame them in the slightest. they were a product of their environment and struggling in their own way to make it in that environment. I honestly believe that a lot of this is breaking news to them. There was maybe even a few stretches where this kind of treatment wasn't happening at all. Maybe when the team was on a high note and at the top of their game, but after witnessing the 21/22 season and the success they had right up until playoffs started, I kind of doubt it. It is obvious now that this abuse is, and has been happening and running rampant for over a decade now, and that is what she needs to answer for. Team First? She has no clue...

[tedlasso]

Much of the discourse here has been very thoughtful and well written. There are different opinions all with a basis in some reality.

What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of Harvard, always holding itself out as holier than thou with moral superiority, but then really never actually standing up and doing the right thing. We can argue back and forth the merits of what Katey did or didn't do, but at some point, if the team itself is the most unhappy and having the worst experience of over 50 NCAA D1 teams at your school, shouldn't that be enough? I believe it is well documented that Harvard Womens Hockey finished dead last in student satisfaction and experience. Why should individual players have to blow the whistle or complain if the entire team has told you their feelings. Harvard considers itself an educational institution that is student-centric. But that is simply a farce. Kids are going to your school with zero scholarship money and you are providing them with an awful experience. Hmmmmm. Isn't that enough?

Part of this falls on the AD. She needs to go. I have no idea why she was hired, but even throughout the pandemic, it was clear she was in over her head. No chance Harvard will replace her, but she is simply not up to the task.

This third-party investigation will move forward, and I am sure the school will ultimately issue communication with platitudes and form diction. It won't mean anything at all and it won't be sincere. The time for sincere has come and gone a long time ago. The school simply does not care about its athletes. Period.

The school is the farthest from sincere that I have seen in my experience. But Harvard is Harvard after all, and I don't think they really care. Someone on this thread at one point mentioned that some accountability goes to the student-athlete in seeking out the mental health resources that are available. I agree with the poster that wrote seeking help has its pitfalls. You can be ostracized in this environment just by asking for help.

But beyond the perceptions that go with seeking help, the reality of the situation at Harvard is that you can't get help even if you try! During the 2021-2022 school year, students were waiting 6-8 weeks to see a mental health professional on campus provided by the school. Two months!! If this is the best Harvard can do, that is pretty sad.

[Trillium]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm curious to know what anyone thinks: if the media then, say, USCHO or The Crimson, had the handful of players who left the team 20 years ago on the record with their criticisms of Coach Stone, would they have resonated then? This would've encompassed some of the criticisms of body shaming, mind control, disregard for mental health, and pushing hard once medically cleared from injuries.

My view is it would've been a much taller order for those players. They would've been smaller in numbers compared to the wins and Frozen Fours. Even the mass of players coming forward today gets outright dismissed by some as whiners. It was easy to take down coaches back then who were accused of physical abuse, but any language and education on emotional abuse or toxicity was not as mainstream. And even if well-meaning, it's easier to dismiss a few players as isolated cases and not parts of a systemic problem. (A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

Old-school coaching was clearly far more acceptable 20 years ago than it is today, and blind obedience to authority was also. Twenty years ago she was also basking in the halo of a recent National Championship, and top players were attracted to Harvard for both it's education and it's winning ways. When you're winning, a lot of other issues are overlooked.

This isn't at all about someone merely pushing players to be their best. I find it curious that these articles which reference (among other things) examples of players who were either cut or forced to play despite injuries and serious illnesses--which may have resulted permanent health consequences--were minimized in favour of offering opinions and discussion instead on whether hazing is bad and whether Stone even knew about it. I know of many more such examples from a decade ago of her belittling players, calling them lazy/selfish/worthless, not worthy of the jersey etc as a result of these assorted physical ailments inconveniently getting in the way of "team first" aka "Stone first". These more recent examples open a lot of wounds for those with similar experience years previously, and perhaps for many also guilt for not having done anything to stop the cycle of abuse for the next generation.

Similarly Stone leading a chant of "We hate Mac", which was mentioned as being an ongoing tactic across multiple years to others, among 7 of 30 of the athletes interviewed. This is sick and surely can no way be condoned by anyone, winning or not.

The obvious goal of "team first" should be team unity, and going through the wall for your teammates. It seems to be a forgotten underlying message in the articles that Stone is actually a textbook case in what not to do if you want team unity. While some may believe that athletes who felt like they were an unwitting participant in the Mental Health Hunger Games, or the Stanford Prison Experiment is an over the top characterization, when I read the articles, it completely resonated with and characterized our own experience years prior as well . This is not something to be minimized, it has created long-standing trauma for many, which still runs deep. How can anyone justify her tactics? Teammates unable to trust each other knowing that private information is being ferried to Stone about your off-ice habits, teammates inexplicably being among the favoured ones, or the scapegoats, with no information as to why or how to escape it. So inevitably, year after year, "the longer the season goes, the more the team just falls apart, because she pits us against each other". And the burn book from Mean Girls in real life?!? It would be scary if people condoned this just because the team was successful. However, the team has had a sub-.500 season 4 of the last 6, so clearly much is wrong. And now that the issues within the culture have been publicly exposed, recruiting can only become even more challenging.

I do find it very disturbing that there is a tendency among many to dismiss these stories as isolated cases, when players across three decades were interviewed, with similar examples. Or to try to blame it, as the administration and alumni reps did, on pampered over-privileged kids. While there is no doubt that over-privilege is a huge problem in society and sports, it does not explain why Harvard Women's Hockey came dead last in a survey of all Harvard athletic teams for satisfaction and team culture, or why attrition from the program is much higher than that of other D1 schools. In the last 5 years, an alarming 41% (so far!) of incoming players have already left the program. Attrition has also been higher than the norm for a couple of decades.

Someone mentioned a while back that players/alums from the favored set continue to come to Stone's defence because they are unwilling to face the fact that their status never actually stemmed from the meritocracy myth she propagated, and also don't want their own reputations tarnished for enabling the abuse. In general, people have a huge problem accepting information that undermines their own belief system.

While Dave doesn't think it's fair to find various alums at all culpable, I find it very hard to agree. What happened to Vanessa McCafferty, being ostracized merely for expressing a balanced viewpoint rather than continuing to mythologize Stone, is inexcusable and evidence of cultish behaviours. You can't just be a bystander to abuse, even if you were personally treated well. Someone has to step up to enact change. Because no one did, not only did their teammates facing life-altering trauma, but athletes decades later are continuing to experience what may be escalating abuse. So, in my books, I feel all alums are in some way accountable for allowing this fiasco to continue, with those coming out publicly in support of Stone to be especially worthy of scorn. It took great courage for those who spoke on the record for The Globe and The Athletic to come forward. They no longer have anything to gain personally from doing so, and are being villainized by some for speaking out.

[Still Eeyore]

What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of Harvard, always holding itself out as holier than thou with moral superiority, but then really never actually standing up and doing the right thing.

Being Harvard means pretending that one isn't a part of the oligarchy.

[Skate79]

You, Skate79, and others in this thread can likely better speak to how much of a unique sacrifice this would be. One of the big selling points to these student athletes is walking out the door with a degree that says Harvard on it. Now these young ladies are being asked to choose: give up on the dream of earning a Harvard degree, or give up on the dream of playing D-I hockey. From the outside looking in, I don't know that the dilemma existed to the same extent in that era at any other program, considering both the name recognition of the degree and the competitiveness of the hockey team.

If I had to choose between my degree and giving up a sport that I love dearly, it would have been the hardest choice I would ever have had to make, bar none. Given the pressure from parents and family, the degree would have won out. Fortunately, I didn't have to make that choice which is why I feel bad for the young women who did have to make that choice, driven by abhorrent behavior from a coach who deemed loyalty to her and her program more important that an Ivy education.

In the end, the degree stays with you for life and creates a network of alumni who can be incredibly helpful as your career begins to blossom. I love hockey today as much as I did as a youngster playing on ponds or rinks. But I think I would love it much less if I had to endure the abuse some of these players have suffered during their time at Harvard. And like the degree, the effects of that abuse can last a lifetime if not properly treated and healed. The fallout doesn't go away when you graduate.