What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

My supposition is that the "leadership academy" is a euphemism for sitting down the co-captains of the 41 varsity and who knows how many club teams and for "pedigogical purposes" reading them the riot act about hazing so that, if hazing occurs, the captains will know that they will be held personally accountable. Sort of the contrapositive of the old school presumption that if a player was offending their teammates, the captains would take the player out behind the woodshed and mete out rough justice without the coach's involvement.
Maybe, for the appearance of inclusivity, the first chairs of the HRO, the Bach Society and the Band and the grand panjandrums of the Crimson, Advocate, Signet and Lampoon will be participating in the leadership academy as well, but I'm guessing the main focus of the program will be on hazing in athletics.
Well, on second thought, it's to be hoped that Band parties no longer have some of the disgustingly misogynistic aspects that they had in the early 'Sixties and as for Colin Jost's successors at the Lampoon....perhaps I'd better stop thinking about this subject; perhaps a leadership academy all around is not such a bad idea
 
Here is the legal definition of hazing, from the Harvard athletics handbook: "Student-athletes are advised that Massachusetts law expressly prohibits any form of hazing in connection with initiation into a student organization or athletics team (Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 269, secs. 17, 18, and 19). The law applies both to officially recognized and unrecognized groups and to practices conducted on and off campus. The term “hazing,” as used in this law, is defined as “any conduct or method of initiation...which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person.” The definition specifically includes “whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical health or safety of any such student or other person, or which subject such student or other person to extreme mental stress, including extended deprivation of sleep or rest or extended isolation.”

So it should come as no surprise that Harvard did not confess to hazing, because hazing is illegal, and the standard of harms necessary to satisfy the legal definition is quite high and would require a lot of evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

But I hope we would all agree that there is a common everyday use of hazing that is less stringent than the legal definition, but stills constitutes behavior we find to be wrong. I see the McDermott statement as admitting this weaker standard was satisfied. She describes bad behavior that seems to meet our everyday definition of hazing and regrets it happened. But she was never going to call this behavior "hazing" due to the potential legal implications and the legal definition of hazing.
 
dave1381 said:
Here is the legal definition of hazing, from the Harvard athletics handbook: "Student-athletes are advised that Massachusetts law expressly prohibits any form of hazing in connection with initiation into a student organization or athletics team (Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 269, secs. 17, 18, and 19). The law applies both to officially recognized and unrecognized groups and to practices conducted on and off campus. The term “hazing,” as used in this law, is defined as “any conduct or method of initiation...which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person.” The definition specifically includes “whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical health or safety of any such student or other person, or which subject such student or other person to extreme mental stress, including extended deprivation of sleep or rest or extended isolation.”

So it should come as no surprise that Harvard did not confess to hazing, because hazing is illegal, and the standard of harms necessary to satisfy the legal definition is quite high and would require a lot of evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

But I hope we would all agree that there is a common everyday use of hazing that is less stringent than the legal definition, but stills constitutes behavior we find to be wrong. I see the McDermott statement as admitting this weaker standard was satisfied. She describes bad behavior that seems to meet our everyday definition of hazing and regrets it happened. But she was never going to call this behavior "hazing" due to the potential legal implications and the legal definition of hazing.
Click to expand...

Would "naked skating" come under forced physical activity? :-(
 
vicb said:
Would "naked skating" come under forced physical activity? :-(
Click to expand...

It falls under the category of "complete insanity." Whoever came up with that idea in the first place was an absolute idiot. All the abnormal behaviors within this team's history that have come to light are so outrageous and so obviously hazing, but as others have said, the school couldn't admit that fact, but their very careful use of verbiage is basically saying between the lines "we know this was all hazing, we have gotten rid of the coach, and we are taking action so that this type of thing never happens again." By the way, Stone has essentially ruined whatever positive reputation she might have had before all this became so public by thinking any of those behaviors were ok and for allowing them to continue for so many years. It's still shocking to me that any person in their right mind could have thought all that stuff was ok, even if you're an "old school" coach. It also makes me wonder if or how many assistant coaches over the years might have said anything to her about these things being "wrong" or harmful to the players. The whole situation is just so mind blowing it's almost impossible to believe it all happened and for so many years before it finally got investigated. Deplorable!!
 
dave1381 said:
I hope we would all agree that there is a common everyday use of hazing that is less stringent than the legal definition, but stills constitutes behavior we find to be wrong. I see the McDermott statement as admitting this weaker standard was satisfied. She describes bad behavior that seems to meet our everyday definition of hazing and regrets it happened. But she was never going to call this behavior "hazing" due to the potential legal implications and the legal definition of hazing.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. Meanwhile, what are the tabloid headline and the tabloid article of Barstool Sports designed to bring to the conversation? Barflies.
 
dave1381 said:
So it should come as no surprise that Harvard did not confess to hazing, because hazing is illegal, and the standard of harm necessary to satisfy the legal definition is quite high and would require a lot of evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

But I hope we would all agree that there is a common everyday use of hazing that is less stringent than the legal definition but still constitutes behavior we find to be wrong. I see the McDermott statement as admitting this weaker standard was satisfied. She describes bad behavior that seems to meet our everyday definition of hazing and regrets it happened. But she was never going to call this behavior "hazing" due to the potential legal implications and the legal definition of hazing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me a bit that McDermott went for the lesser definition of hazing. As you say, Harvard was going to great lengths to avoid any legal repercussions. Still, the naked skating to me does not fall under the weaker definition of hazing and that is why I've got a problem with how they are dealing with this whole episode. Never mind the alcohol which also does not meet the standard of the weaker definition. I simply can't give them a pass on this because they should know better and should have acted long ago to put a stop to this behavior. And held Coach Stone to a tougher standard.
 
The thing I find most disturbing about all the "Hazing" talk, and all you have to do is look at this thread over the last several posts, is that Stone is being totally let off the hook for years of abusive behavior. Her treatment of some of these girls is absolutely inexcusable and if it takes some tabloid type articles like the one in Barstool to keep this story in the light of day, then I'm all for it. "Retirement" is not an option for her, and she, and McDermitt and the school need to be held accountable in a very real and tangible way. As I have said already here, this isn't the end of this whole fiasco. Not even close....
 
Prowler said:
The thing I find most disturbing about all the "Hazing" talk, and all you have to do is look at this thread over the last several posts, is that Stone is being totally let off the hook for years of abusive behavior. Her treatment of some of these girls is absolutely inexcusable and if it takes some tabloid type articles like the one in Barstool to keep this story in the light of day, then I'm all for it. "Retirement" is not an option for her, and she, and McDermitt and the school need to be held accountable in a very real and tangible way. As I have said already here, this isn't the end of this whole fiasco. Not even close....
Click to expand...

Completely agree. They are just trying not to get sued. Sadly, it will probably work.
 
Outrage doesn’t provide any solutions. You can argue that Harvard chose self-interest over doing the right thing, but it’s not really so clear what doing the right thing would have been in this situation, other than not moving at glacial speed to part ways with Stone. One may have wanted something more punitive, but loss of position and reputation on this scale is not negligible — she’s been disgraced. Though Harvard’s first concern may not have been for HWH, its wider interest in putting institutional damage behind it in fact enables the women’s program to move ahead without the further, overwhelming disruptions that any litigation would bring. And it’s not clear that anyone involved has any taste for litigation, though this may play out differently down the road. (Indeed, there may already be settlements that we will never hear about.) And how much more light can be shed on this already well-documented situation? What more can be said? That's why the tabloid stuff is questionable. Do we really need to hear more than once what the sorry behaviors were? There’s a semi-creepy quality in the need to repeat these accounts. It was very nasty stuff. We know!

Meanwhile I’m waiting for the white smoke to appear over the Vatican. McDermott must have been telling the truth when she confessed to an inexcusably late start in the search process. Harvard can now combine self-interest with doing the right thing and remove her also.
 
Has anyone been following the Northwestern Football and Baseball situations? The response by the school was on point with the seriousness of the subject. Crazy that Harvard somehow gets a pass on the worst handling of a situation ever. The athletic director should be fired immediately, and hopefully someone can right the ship at that institution. The student athletes at Harvard across all sports have not been supported for many years, and every communication by the athletic departments since McDermott took over has been total lip service. It has been just disgusting watching the situation. I understand the "outrage doesn't provide solutions", but outrage is the common emotion among alum and students alike. How does one "provide solutions" when you have no power in the situation. Harvard will continue to do whatever it wants and hold itself above other institutions.
 
I follow B1G athletics and if the school carries through and fires the AD along with the president, my respect for Northwestern would be restored. These elite snobby schools who preach one thing yet when it affects them circle the wagons and protect each other is a disgrace. Harvard is the poster child. It was the alumni and fans that demanded the football coach goes after a very weak "2 week suspension without pay" was the first 'punishment' and this is why the AD and president need to go. They tried to bury it. The Harvard community need to demand the same if they want their school to be know as anything other than a bunch of hypocrites.
 
tedlasso said:
Has anyone been following the Northwestern Football and Baseball situations? The response by the school was on point with the seriousness of the subject. Crazy that Harvard somehow gets a pass on the worst handling of a situation ever. The athletic director should be fired immediately, and hopefully someone can right the ship at that institution. The student athletes at Harvard across all sports have not been supported for many years, and every communication by the athletic departments since McDermott took over has been total lip service. It has been just disgusting watching the situation. I understand the "outrage doesn't provide solutions", but outrage is the common emotion among alum and students alike. How does one "provide solutions" when you have no power in the situation. Harvard will continue to do whatever it wants and hold itself above other institutions.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that Harvard hasn't hired that jerk already. Seems it would provide he continuity that McDermott is looking for.
 
tedlasso said:
Has anyone been following the Northwestern Football and Baseball situations? The response by the school was on point with the seriousness of the subject.
Click to expand...

The initial response sure wasn't, and it may have dug Northwestern a $40 million hole. President Michael Schill's first action was to suspend Pat Fitzgerald for two weeks during the slowest month of the college football season. It was only when reporters from the Daily Northwestern tracked down the initial complainant and aired what his allegations actually were (Northwestern has refused to make the outside report public or share any details) that Schill pivoted to firing Fitzgerald. Except, it's possible that the agreement between them for a two week suspension constituted a contract, and that Schill could no longer fire Fitzgerald for cause without new information. So, the university may be on the hook for the full amount remaining on Fitzgerald's contract.

The baseball situation, too, was one where the administration has known for a while what the problems were, but only moved to fire the coach after journalists started running stories about it.

As for firing AD Derrick Gragg, the first step has to be finding him. Gragg seems to have entered the witness protection program, and has only been heard from on Zoom calls.

So, I guess their response has been better than Harvard's but I' still not impressed.
 
Still Eeyore said:
The initial response sure wasn't, and it may have dug Northwestern a $40 million hole. President Michael Schill's first action was to suspend Pat Fitzgerald for two weeks during the slowest month of the college football season. It was only when reporters from the Daily Northwestern tracked down the initial complainant and aired what his allegations actually were (Northwestern has refused to make the outside report public or share any details) that Schill pivoted to firing Fitzgerald. Except, it's possible that the agreement between them for a two week suspension constituted a contract, and that Schill could no longer fire Fitzgerald for cause without new information. So, the university may be on the hook for the full amount remaining on Fitzgerald's contract.

The baseball situation, too, was one where the administration has known for a while what the problems were, but only moved to fire the coach after journalists started running stories about it.

As for firing AD Derrick Gragg, the first step has to be finding him. Gragg seems to have entered the witness protection program, and has only been heard from on Zoom calls.

So, I guess their response has been better than Harvard's but I' still not impressed.
Click to expand...

Not to mention multiple football assistant coaches and other "aides/specialists" (coaches called something other than "coach" to stay under NCAA limits) who had to have know and were likely in better position to stop it or report it but didn't, and somehow get to keep their jobs, at least for the time being.
 
OK. You guys are all totally right. Sounds like Northwestern didn't do a great job either. But at least they fired the coaches! And compared to Harvard, they did so relatively quickly. And in response to one of your responses, I can assure you that alumni and donors have been reaching out and raising hell, but the school doesn't care! In addition, while you thing that Northwestern put in place someone that was already around (and clearly knew what was going on) to shepherd the program in the interim, at least they did so publicly so there is actually someone trying to steer the ship. Who is in charge of the team at Harvard? Joe Grossman is the only one listed on the coach page. Is he in charge? Is he keeping his job? As you all have pointed out, he certainly shouldn't keep his job. And if he is in charge, why hasn't Harvard said this is the case. The whole thing is just so sketchy.
 
No they did not and worse, both at Northwestern and at Harvard, is that everyone is centered on the coaches and admin. In both cases, it appears that the actions were initiated by certain teammates, most likely the "leaders". When will they be held accountable? If the newspaper reports are to be believed, it sounds like criminal behavior. Has anyone in either school been expelled? Punished in anyway? Charges brought by law enforcement? Civil actions? To truly fix this need to go beyond just sacking the head coach but hold everyone involved accountable - head coach, assistants, administration and the players who coerced others
 
Cornholio said:
No they did not and worse, both at Northwestern and at Harvard, is that everyone is centered on the coaches and admin. In both cases, it appears that the actions were initiated by certain teammates, most likely the "leaders". When will they be held accountable? If the newspaper reports are to be believed, it sounds like criminal behavior. Has anyone in either school been expelled? Punished in anyway? Charges brought by law enforcement? Civil actions? To truly fix this need to go beyond just sacking the head coach but hold everyone involved accountable - head coach, assistants, administration and the players who coerced others
Click to expand...

Excellent word choice on "sacking". I'm going to go check my tyre inflation levels at lunch.
 
I expect the following press release soon from Harvard and Northwestern with regards to the AD: "Those responsible for the sacking of the head coach has just been sacked".
And then for the presidents of both "Those responsible for the sacking of those who sacked the head coach, has just been sacked"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top