Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[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 And times have changed a lot more than she has over 27 years and she and her program are getting more and more out of date.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.

 

[JuniorCap]

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 And times have changed a lot more than she has over 27 years and she and her program are getting more and more out of date.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.

 

[Skate79]

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.

[FONT=Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]As you say, times have changed, and Stone has failed to do so leading to what we have today. You can criticize the players for being soft or coddled but they had no say in how they were raised. Each came from different backgrounds and had different athletic experiences. Indigenous people have a special pride and love for their heritage and history. It defines them in ways that many of us can't understand. That should not make them feel any less important or valuable than any other race or ethnicity. Yet Coach Stone made it a point to separate them from the rest of the team with her comments, further reinforcing the divisiveness that permeated the locker room. Including one of her assistant coaches. And anyone who thinks an "Asian" or "gay" tax is simply a benign part of hazing needs to take a long look in the mirror.[/FONT]

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

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.

This is the just conclusion a savvy AD would have reached after last spring’s review. A really unsavvy AD, in her second year at Harvard, chose not to see this.
She could have saved HWH a lot of pain, and this forum about 500 posts.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

Some interesting parallels to be found in France’s Women’s World Cup soccer team, which has just fired its female coach. Atmosphere, leadership, mental health: “This fracture has reached a point of no return.” I’ll spare y'all the NYT paywall, but the story can be found elsewhere. Much more pertinent than some of the USA comparisons cited by some here, imo.

 

[dave1381]

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."

These are all good points. Even if there were no breaches worthy of firing, there are still arguments that Katey Stone is not the right coach for Harvard in 2023.

Skate79, to clarify, my defense of the Harvard team culture is motivated in part by my admiration of the Harvard team captains of the 2000s, both Olympians and those who rose to be captain from a lower profile. From my perspective, they were great leaders who fostered excellent team unity and support for each other, and rituals were all in good fun. I feel their legacy is under attack here as well. But as you say, I am now out of touch, and these rituals over two decades have mutated into something more sinister. Or in other words, just because Nicole Corriero found a nickname that mocked her body to be hilarious doesn't mean that it's the right team bonding approach for everyone in perpetuity.

And it doesn't mean that everything was okay in the peak years. Abra Kinkopf, a freshman on the 2002-03 team who quit, is named in The Athletic piece and is among those most aggressively criticizing Katey Stone (she is named now in The Athletic, and see her Instagram).

 

[Skate79]

These are all good points. Even if there were no breaches worthy of firing, there are still arguments that Katey Stone is not the right coach for Harvard in 2023.

Skate79, to clarify, my defense of the Harvard team culture is motivated in part by my admiration of the Harvard team captains of the 2000s, both Olympians and those who rose to be captain from a lower profile. From my perspective, they were great leaders who fostered excellent team unity and support for each other, and rituals were all in good fun. I feel their legacy is under attack here as well. But as you say, I am now out of touch, and these rituals over two decades have mutated into something more sinister. Or in other words, just because Nicole Corriero found a nickname that mocked her body to be hilarious doesn't mean that it's the right team bonding approach for everyone in perpetuity.

And it doesn't mean that everything was okay in the peak years. Abra Kinkopf, a freshman on the 2002-03 team who quit, is named in The Athletic piece and is among those most aggressively criticizing Katey Stone (she is named now in The Athletic, and see her Instagram).

Dave, I have no doubt that AJ Mleczko and Jennifer Botterill were terrific captains and leaders. They set a standard of excellence for the program and enabled Coach Stone to recruit blue chip players such as Julie Chu and Sarah Vaillancourt. I want to be clear that in no way am I suggesting that either Jennifer or AJ had anything to do with the activities we have learned about as part of this investigation. As has been pointed out in this thread, they may or may not have been interviewed for either the Globe or Athletic stories and declined to comment. Both Jennifer and AJ have prominent national media gigs and it would not serve them to become involved in this ongoing saga.

What may have started out as something in good fun in the early 2000s quickly escalated into something that is far more damaging for the student athletes who chose to come forward and, in some cases, allow their names and stories to be used for the two articles. I can only imagine what kind of backlash they are dealing with or will face as a result of their decisions. And let's face it, we are living in a different world where there is heightened sensitivity and awareness that didn't exist in the 90's or early 2000's. Just ask Carson Briere.

 

[dave1381]

Sure, and I agree no alums from 2000s are ultimately responsible for Katey's actions or the team culture years after they played for Harvard.

It is worth noting that Abra is one of the leading public critics here, and Jennifer Botterill was one of 4 team captains during Abra's year on the team. Anyone can infer from the topics of Abra's posts that she and Coach Stone were in conflict over what she ate, she was called out for not behaving in a way that was "team first", and she is clearly distressed enough about the experience 20 years later to be fixated on pressuring Harvard to fire Stone.

Now I don't think Jennifer has any obligation to comment on the situation, and it's understandable why teams should usually keep things within the locker room. But if you knew about some pain of Harvard players circa 2003, do you then feel some misgivings once you're confronted with similar pain being further amplified over the next 20 years? I know I do. My initial reaction to learning about Abra was similar to what the 45 alums wrote to Globe in defense of Katey (Abra posted excerpts of the letter): "competing at the Division I level at an Ivy League school is no picnic, and is not for everyone" while still feeling sympathy for Abra. But when you read and digest all the specifics of Katey's coaching tenure, it's hard then not to feel some guilt and horror that you knew something about it years before.

 

[Nobody98]

To everyone commenting that the early 2000s were not part of the problem:

Did you miss the end of the Athletic article where Vanessa McCafftery (2002) wrote an extremely kindly worded and level headed message to the alumni saying that she “witnessed behavior that was abusive” and imploring everyone to “be true to your own experience but also sensitive to all of your teammates”, and was subsequently removed from the alumni email thread by former captain Lauren McCauliffe (2004)?

Vanessa was referring to Stone regarding the abuse, but it’s telling that the two alums literally played out an example of toxic team dynamics in an email thread 20 years later. This isn’t just someone accusing Harvard Hockey of being a culture that rewards bullies - it is literally bullying by women in their 40s - one dared to express a view that challenges the warped perception of Stone’s pets, and then a pet kicked her out of the group.

This is so wrong. What gives one alum the power to decide whether another alum gets to be part of an alumni email list? This is grade-school level meanness. I don’t say that to minimize the meanness, because such behaviors which ostracize and alienate people without leaving a physical wound are often extremely psychologically damaging, because they leave people confused about whether something even happened (like Vanessa wondering if she’s missing team emails or if everyone just got quiet after her message).

This is why there is a culture of fear. Speak out, even as a 40 year old, and you get “cancelled” by a group of your oldest “friends”. It’s a cult.

 

[dave1381]

I understand that the story of the email thread is meant to serve as an example of the toxic team dynamics you've been talking about, and if everything played out exactly as you described, then it's a good example of the divisiveness on the team and how players out of favor with Katey Stone would identify as emotionally abused.

The writers obviously had that toxic team dynamics playing out among alumni in their 40s in mind, though I think some elements of this interpretation could be misleading. It was an email thread and not a general alumni mailing list. It was an email thread started with a mission. Vanessa made it clear that she did not support that mission, so it's totally reasonable for those who started the thread to remove her. So I wouldn't conclude that Vanessa is certainly now shunned and apostate and cut off from all alumni communications the rest of her life. And we don't know if Lauren or anyone emailed Vanessa privately, nor do I expect Vanessa is so fragile or naive in her 40s to be emotionally damaged by this event. But whatever -- the full reality about this email thread is not all that important.

Yeah, I understand things were not rosy in the early 2000s. From the outside, we always knew Katey had a short bench. We knew players on the wrong end of that didn't always view that playing time allocation to be meritocratic. We knew she made an example of "Disliked/Disregarded" players who weren't "Team First" in her judgment, and sure, Team First could be distorted to mean loyalty to Katey Stone since she is the one largely responsible for defining it. I can see how this system would foster division. I also understand why "Favorites" would think Disliked/Disregarded players deserved whatever scorn was dished out in this system, whereas the Disliked/Disregarded would consider this system to be abusive. It makes sense that they would still disagree about this 20 years later.

Harvard though has made it clear though that it tolerates "emotionally abusive coaching" as APSAC or the academic literature would define it, though many clearly reject that label or that Stone's system crossed a line. As we've discussed, what Harvard does from here is both a question of what kind of coaching it considers acceptable, and what kind of coaching will be successful today.

 

[Skate79]

To everyone commenting that the early 2000s were not part of the problem:

Did you miss the end of the Athletic article where Vanessa McCafftery (2002) wrote an extremely kindly worded and level headed message to the alumni saying that she “witnessed behavior that was abusive” and imploring everyone to “be true to your own experience but also sensitive to all of your teammates”, and was subsequently removed from the alumni email thread by former captain Lauren McCauliffe (2004)?

Vanessa was referring to Stone regarding the abuse, but it’s telling that the two alums literally played out an example of toxic team dynamics in an email thread 20 years later. This isn’t just someone accusing Harvard Hockey of being a culture that rewards bullies - it is literally bullying by women in their 40s - one dared to express a view that challenges the warped perception of Stone’s pets, and then a pet kicked her out of the group.

This is so wrong. What gives one alum the power to decide whether another alum gets to be part of an alumni email list? This is grade-school level meanness. I don’t say that to minimize the meanness, because such behaviors which ostracize and alienate people without leaving a physical wound are often extremely psychologically damaging, because they leave people confused about whether something even happened (like Vanessa wondering if she’s missing team emails or if everyone just got quiet after her message).

This is why there is a culture of fear. Speak out, even as a 40 year old, and you get “cancelled” by a group of your oldest “friends”. It’s a cult.

I did see the part of the Athletic article about the email thread and Vanessa McCafferty being kicked off. We don't know if Jennifer or AJ were part of this thread or if they privately responded to Vanessa. My comments were focused on both players being exceptional players and leaders. Whether or not they failed Vanessa and other teammates regarding the abuse during their playing days at Harvard will have to wait until either or both address the issue. They are not compelled to do so at this point in time. As I mentioned in my post, it probably does not serve their interests to speak out until there is a specific forum to do so that contributes to Harvard's decision to either keep Coach Stone or relieve her of her duties.

 

[dave1381]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03...view-womens-hockey-program-coach-katey-stone/

Harvard has commissioned an independent review of the school’s women’s hockey program, after the Boston Globe in January reported wide-ranging abuse allegations, including hazing, under longtime coach Katey Stone. The review will be conducted by Katya Jestin, a former federal prosecutor who is co-managing partner of the law firm Jenner & Block and specializes in sensitive investigations involving institutional cultures. Some current and former members of the Crimson received email Monday from Jestin’s investigative group.

https://theathletic.com/4329994/2023/03/20/harvard-womens-hockey-katey-stone-investigation/

Jenner and Block is the same firm that investigated how the Chicago Blackhawks handled sexual assault allegations involving a player and a video coach during the 2009-10 season. That report, released in 2021, resulted in a $2 million fine to the Blackhawks organization and prompted general manager Stan Bowman to resign; senior vice president of hockey operations Al MacIsaac and former coach Joel Quenneville also stepped down from their jobs.

This is the obvious right response from the Harvard administration. Clearly Harvard could not simply ignore the Globe/Athletic and keep Coach Stone on the basis of its previous investigation, nor could Harvard allow external pressure from the Globe/Athletic reports to be seen as forcing its hand in asking Coach Stone to resign. An impartial investigation is essential for however Harvard proceeds.

 

[Timothy A]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03...view-womens-hockey-program-coach-katey-stone/



https://theathletic.com/4329994/2023/03/20/harvard-womens-hockey-katey-stone-investigation/



This is the obvious right response from the Harvard administration. Clearly Harvard could not simply ignore the Globe/Athletic and keep Coach Stone on the basis of its previous investigation, nor could Harvard allow external pressure from the Globe/Athletic reports to be seen as forcing its hand in asking Coach Stone to resign. An impartial investigation is essential for however Harvard proceeds.

Why don't they just can her and get it over with? They have enough reason to do it on wins and losses alone. I'm not sure what value dragging everybody through the mud has.

 

[reggiedunlap9]

Agreed. Stone is done. Time to start discussing who the new coach will be. Crowell (UMD), Carpenito (NU assistant) and Desrosiers(Clarkson) would be 3 great choices to start

 

[dave1381]

If Harvard were to encourage a coach to resign primarily on the basis of Globe/Athletic investigations, after Harvard's own internal investigation yielded no results, then (from Harvard's perspective) that surely gives these publications far too much authorty in arbitrating player-coach disputes. And investigative reporters on hazing beats surely have a lot of incentive to uncover hazing under every stone (pun unintended) with little accountability to investigate objectively whether hazing has occurred according to official legal or departmental definitions. The impartial investigation also clearly puts Harvard on firmer legal footing, for whatever decision is made.

 

[vicb]

agreed. Stone is done. Time to start discussing who the new coach will be. ......... And desrosiers(clarkson) would be 3 great choices to start

no_no_no_no_no!!!!!!!

 

[Skate79]

If Harvard were to encourage a coach to resign primarily on the basis of Globe/Athletic investigations, after Harvard's own internal investigation yielded no results, then (from Harvard's perspective) that surely gives these publications far too much authorty in arbitrating player-coach disputes. And investigative reporters on hazing beats surely have a lot of incentive to uncover hazing under every stone (pun unintended) with little accountability to investigate objectively whether hazing has occurred according to official legal or departmental definitions. The impartial investigation also clearly puts Harvard on firmer legal footing, for whatever decision is made.

Harvard is simply covering their own tracks. By having an independent investigation conducted by a respected law firm that has completed investigations into hockey team culture, the university is stepping aside and letting the findings guide their next decision. Guessing that if the findings corroborate what has been reported, it gives Harvard the ammo to replace Coach Stone and her staff and revamp the women's program.