Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[Timothy A]

Now a story in the Athletic ?

STONE HAS TO GO. WHAT IS HARVARD WAITING FOR ?

https://theathletic.com/4288145/2023/03/10/harvard-womens-hockey-mistreatment-hazing-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 They can exploit today's cancel culture to turn outdated cliches into accusations of racism.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.

 

[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.