Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[Trillium]

From the story, the Women's Cross Country coach stepped down based on allegations and complaints that draw a parallel to Coach Stone's current situation. So, it isn't unreasonable to assume that Harvard can point to the Women's CC investigation as a basis for terminating Coach Stone if she again refuses to accept a buyout or 'retirement' package.

I hadn't specifically picked up the similarities to the Women's CC case...just the high number of Athletics investigations in recent years that points to a systemic problem in Harvard Athletics Administration.

After you pointed out that case, I dug deeper. You are right, the parallels are striking. In both cases

* a divided team, with a polarizing coaching style: some athletes praised the coach, others reported a toxic environment
* a striking number of women leaving the program over a period of years
* some of the most successful athletes experienced a supportive coach, others were treated poorly and were degraded, shamed, or basically ignored
* criticism of weight and encouragement of unhealthy eating habits which resulted in eating disorders; athletes publicly berated for food choices
* athletes pressured to perform despite injuries, and an unusually high number of injuries
* fear of retaliation for raising concerns
* athletes who raised concerns were told they were the problem because they didn't buy in
* complaints to various administration officials by numerous athletes over extended periods of time were totally ignored, until those complaints were published by the media
* both coaches had achieved Ivy Coach of the Year Honors, and had achieved high levels of results success at Harvard.

What is different about the two cases, is that the CC coach was achieving unprecedented success with the program at the time the investigation was commenced. Stone has not been successful for quite a long time. On the other hand, he had only been with the CC program for 3 years, while she has deeply embedded herself in the Harvard ecosystem over decades. Another difference is that, in the CC case, it was a Volunteer Assistant Coach who spoke out directly in the media. This clearly carried a lot of weight in the process of prompting an investigation.

What is very disturbing about how the CC situation was handled is:
* despite being keenly aware of the issues, no one in the administration who had been made aware of the problems by multiple athletes over multiple years took any actions whatsoever until complaints hit the media
* the results of the resulting investigation on culture were never made public
* the coach was allowed to quietly resign and resume his career elsewhere, presumably prolonging the problems with another group of athletes. It came to light that similar issues had occurred in prior programs he had been associated with. This suggests that either (1) there is poor vetting in the hiring process at Harvard, or (2) the administration itself actually sees no issues with this behavior
* there were no steps taken as a result of the investigation (or any the other 7 investigations) to examine to what extent such issues may be more systemic, and take any proactive corrective action to make changes across other athletic programs, or within the administration to ensure they did not recur
* the Director of Track & Field, to whom the CC coach reported, was also implicated in many of the issues. He remains in his position at Harvard 6 years later. Some feel that the CC coach was made a scapegoat, while there were no apparent consequences for the long time Head Coach of the entire program.
* CC athletes who had reported issues to the Assistant AD, supposedly in confidence, found that their concerns as well as their identities were reported back to the program coaches, resulting in further negative consequences. This is the same Assistant AD who was involved with the women's hockey program. No wonder athletes don't speak out.


It's really hard to be optimistic given all that. I think Harvard's probably a lost cause. Now that it's public, they'll have to find a scapegoat. Lee J? Is that why she's on leave? Maybe all the HH coaches are done, but moreso because the writing's on the wall about the prospects of the program further going downhill in performance, than addressing the root cause. Stone will doubtlessly be given a parade and a big fuss for appearances sake along with any decision to retire. Because with Harvard, the only thing that matters more than money, is appearances.

They have their heads so far up their behinds, there is next to no chance they will see they are in any way culpable, and the same harm will come to other Harvard Athletics teams' athletes. How many reviews will it take to get at the rot in the administration? 10? 20? Ever?

[Timothy A]

[QUOTE=Trillium;n3803005]

I hadn't specifically picked up the similarities to the Women's CC case...just the high number of Athletics investigations in recent years that points to a systemic problem in Harvard Athletics Administration.

After you pointed out that case, I dug deeper. You are right, the parallels are striking. In both cases

* a divided team, with a polarizing coaching style: some athletes praised the coach, others reported a toxic environment
* a striking number of women leaving the program over a period of years
* some of the most successful athletes experienced a supportive coach, others were treated poorly and were degraded, shamed, or basically ignored
* criticism of weight and encouragement of unhealthy eating habits which resulted in eating disorders; athletes publicly berated for food choices
* athletes pressured to perform despite injuries, and an unusually high number of injuries
* fear of retaliation for raising concerns
* athletes who raised concerns were told they were the problem because they didn't buy in
* complaints to various administration officials by numerous athletes over extended periods of time were totally ignored, until those complaints were published by the media
* both coaches had achieved Ivy Coach of the Year Honors, and had achieved high levels of results success at Harvard.

What is different about the two cases, is that the CC coach was achieving unprecedented success with the program at the time the investigation was commenced. Stone has not been successful for quite a long time. On the other hand, he had only been with the CC program for 3 years, while she has deeply embedded herself in the Harvard ecosystem over decades. Another difference is that it was a Volunteer Assistant Coach who spoke out directly in the media. This clearly carried a lot of weight in the process of prompting an investigation.

What is very disturbing about how the CC situation was handled is:
* despite being keenly aware of the issues, no one in the administration who had made aware of the problems by multiple athletes over multiple years took any actions whatsoever until complaints hit the media
* the results of the resulting investigation on culture were never made public
* the coach was allowed to quietly resign and resume his career elsewhere, presumably prolonging the problems with another group of athletes. It came to light that similar issues had occurred in prior programs he had been associated with. This suggests that either (1) there is poor vetting in the hiring process at Harvard, or (2) the administration itself actually sees no issues with this behavior
* there were no steps taken as a result of the investigation (or any the other 7 investigations) to examine to what extent such issues may be more systemic, and take any proactive corrective action to make changes across other athletic programs, or within the administration to ensure they did not recur
* the Director of Track & Field, to whom the CC coach reported, was also implicated in many of the issues. He remains in his position at Harvard 6 years later. Some feel that the CC coach was made a scapegoat, while there were no apparent consequences for the long time Head Coach of the entire program.
* CC athletes who had reported issues to the Assistant AD, supposedly in confidence, found that their concerns as well as their identities were reported back to the program coaches, resulting in further negative consequences. This is the same Assistant AD who was involved with the women's hockey program. No wonder athletes don't speak out.


It's really hard to be optimistic given all that. I think Harvard's probably a lost cause. Now that it's public, they'll have to find a scapegoat. Lee J? Is that why she's on leave? Maybe all the HH coaches are done, but moreso because the writing's on the wall about the prospects of the program further going downhill in performance, than addressing the root cause. Stone will be given a parade and a big fuss for appearances sake along with her decision to retire. Because with Harvard, the only thing that matters more than money, is appearances.

They have their heads so far up their behinds, there is next to no chance they will see they are in any way culpable, and the same harm will come to other Harvard Athletics teams' athletes. How many reviews will it take to get at the rot in the administration? 10? 20?

[/QUOTE/]

What is this, 1972? You are telling me Big 10 midwestern schools are more sensitive to students than eastern high horse eastern schools?

[dave1381]

Regardless of the merits of the arguments to move on from Katey Stone, it's not like this is totally unfathomable decision-making for Harvard to have stuck with Stone this long , and we need to act totally baffled by it, or (like the Athletic podcast) come up with theories that all-powerful women's hockey alumni are some kind of illuminanti pulling all the strings.

it's not complicated. Katey Stone still was the 2014 Olympic coach and coached Harvard to the 2015 NCAA final. The associate AD supervising women's hockey joined the department in 2013, and others go back as long. Given that, plus her longer history, It's not so shocking the department gave her a lot of deference and focuses energy elsewhere, leaving minimal oversight and offering her a lot of leeway to fail. And from the perspective of the evaluation in 2021-22, her team's struggled, then made it back to the NCAA tournament. Plus the AD also seems to have believed in the power of a cheery email to prevent the ugly end to that season from spilling over to the next season.

I'm not trying to argue any of that's right — but it's not like it's hard to understand any of it.

[Skate79]

Abra's recent social media posts, communicating the feedback that she received from the investigators, are more insightful than any of the recent reporting by The Globe or The Athletic or The Crimson on the investigation.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqWxiupL..._web_copy_link

Curious about the paragraph in the post on rules for Harvard employees and 'consequences' based on findings. My immediate thought was whether or not they will be interviewing Mirasolo as she has taken a leave of absence. Is she required when on leave to speak to the firm? What about the doctors and athletic trainers? What about former employees such as Syd Daniels who was an assistant coach (there might be a problem there given her complaint filed against Harvard)? More questions than answers.

[Skate79]

Regardless of the merits of the arguments to move on from Katey Stone, it's not like this is totally unfathomable decision-making for Harvard to have stuck with Stone this long, and we need to act totally baffled by it, or (like the Athletic podcast) come up with theories that all-powerful women's hockey alumni are some kind of illuminati pulling all the strings.

it's not complicated. Katey Stone still was the 2014 Olympic coach and coached Harvard to the 2015 NCAA final. The associate AD supervising women's hockey joined the department in 2013, and others go back as long. Given that, plus her longer history, It's not so shocking the department gave her a lot of deference and focuses energy elsewhere, leaving minimal oversight and offering her a lot of leeway to fail. And from the perspective of the evaluation in 2021-22, her team's struggled, then made it back to the NCAA tournament. Plus the AD also seems to have believed in the power of a cheery email to prevent the ugly end to that season from spilling over to the next season.

I'm not trying to argue any of that's right — but it's not like it's hard to understand any of it.

I'm having a hard time understanding how with so many investigations over the past eight years that Harvard would turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the problems with the women's hockey program. Putting Stone's record over the past seven years aside, to simply sweep this under the rug knowing what you've dealt with as a university during these past few years, why on earth would you invite more scrutiny and negative press?? As Trillium suggests, how many more investigations and incidents will it take for Harvard to wake up and clean house in the Athletic Department? With no recruits to speak of and no recruiting taking place until this mess gets resolved, the Crimson will be basement dwellers for a number of years unless they act quickly and decisively.

[Trillium]

Regardless of the merits of the arguments to move on from Katey Stone…. the AD also seems to have believed in the power of a cheery email to prevent the ugly end to that season from spilling over to the next season.

t.

Ah yes, the next time I’m facing a big crisis in my organization I’ll have to remember to simply fall back on the power of a cheery email to make it all go away.

Seriously?! Who is responsible for hiring these incompetent mindless airheads to run things? No wonder things are in the mess they are. That’s truly embarrassing.

There have been complaints and problems with Stone for far more than a decade both escalated to the administration, and manifested by player attrition. There have also been similar issues in other Harvard programs, leading to increasing frequency in investigations.

Problems never go away by pretending they don’t exist. Where is the leadership at Harvard? If they exist, they’re asleep at the wheel.

[Prowler]

Abra's recent social media posts, communicating the feedback that she received from the investigators, are more insightful than any of the recent reporting by The Globe or The Athletic or The Crimson on the investigation.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqWxiupL..._web_copy_link

from the sounds of it, none of the current players are talking...

[Trillium]

from the sounds of it, none of the current players are talking...

Scared ****less. In the past, anytime anyone ever spoke up at Harvard about issues, heads would roll. Their own. It’s part of the culture.

Just like Sgt. Schultz on Hogan’s Heros. “I know nothing”

[Timothy A]

from the sounds of it, none of the current players are talking...

It would be good for that player who was transferring to spill her guts.

[thirdtime's . . .]

The cynical forecast, like I posted earlier, is that Harvard will narrowly focus public release of findings on hazing and racism, argue that despite missteps proper procedures were followed by the coaching staff and administrators, and continue to obscure and dodge major concerns or consequences.

No and Yes. I don’t think Harvard will focus “narrowly," in your sense, on (allowing) hazing and (fostering) racism because these are themselves major issues with major consequences and are actionable, unlike the more elusive question of toxic team culture, however clear that may otherwise appear. My guess is that Stone will be officially gone because of the first two issues, allowing Harvard to, yes, largely escape acknowledging being complicit in the third.

[Skate79]

It would be good for that player who was transferring to spill her guts.

My guess is that Jade Arnone wants to put this year behind her as far as possible and never look back. Unless the law firm calls her to question her about the program, she will most likely remain silent.

[Trillium]

My guess is that Jade Arnone wants to put this year behind her as far as possible and never look back. Unless the law firm calls her to question her about the program, she will most likely remain silent.

Jenner and Block has made it known they will not be reaching out to anyone. It is up to anyone who wishes to speak with them to contact them. Which tells you it really isn't much of an investigation. No doubt Stone and her minions have encouraged dozens of her acolytes to contact Jenner & Block with their fond memories too.

I think recent players are probably still too traumatized to be discussing it, especially if they feel there may still be repercussions for them. History shows that's a legitimate fear. It will be up to those players who have had the opportunity to put it far in the back mirror time-wise--and have had years of therapy to process it--, to speak out.

[Timothy A]

My guess is that Jade Arnone wants to put this year behind her as far as possible and never look back. Unless the law firm calls her to question her about the program, she will most likely remain silent.

I get that, but this is a potential opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many people. Sometimes you need to stand up in an uncomfortable situation and charge forward into the gunfire instead of falling back.

[Still Eeyore]

I get that, but this is a potential opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many people. Sometimes you need to stand up in an uncomfortable situation and charge forward into the gunfire instead of falling back.

It's nice of you to volunteer someone else to relive trauma.

[Skate79]

Jenner and Block has made it known they will not be reaching out to anyone. It is up to anyone who wishes to speak with them to contact them. Which tells you it really isn't much of an investigation. No doubt Stone and her minions have encouraged dozens of her acolytes to contact Jenner & Block with their fond memories too.

I think recent players are probably still too traumatized to be discussing it, especially if they feel there may still be repercussions for them. History shows that's a legitimate fear. It will be up to those players who have had the opportunity to put it far in the back mirror time-wise--and have had years of therapy to process it--, to speak out.

Then the investigation is truly a sham and a waste of time. Except of course for the billable hours for the firm (ha ha, not really funny). What player would risk repercussions at this point whether they are undergrads or alums? Alums probably less so but this web of fear and retaliation seems to include anyone who suited up for the Crimson. Unless they are a member of the 'favorites'.