top cheese
New member
Thanks for the link to that video, it's eye-opening
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?
- Thread starter thirdtime's . . .
- Start date
My takeaway from the podcast was the fact that hazing is illegal in Massachusetts and within the NCAA. This begs the question as to whether or not my classmate Charlie Baker will investigate. An NCAA investigation as long as it isn't a sham might be the final nail in the coffin and put pressure on Harvard to make available the results of their internal investigation. Either way, Coach Stone and AD McDermott need to go.
According to https://collegecommitments.com, six incoming students were reported for Harvard for this coming fall since Wednesday 4/19. This includes two D and four forwards. I couldn't find something contradicting this about any of them, though the info on that site doesn't seem to be entirely mistake-free. Depending on the news source, the investigation will be done by either the end of April or the end of the spring term.
Here's to hopefully bluer skies in Allston for the next season.
Couldn't find the list using your link so I went and did a little bit of research and came up with this link which lists the players you referenced: https://www.therinklive.com/womens-d...ns-commitments
Last edited:
MAHOCKEY FAN
Member
These dates are either fake or a “recommit” date….McDonald and Manning are ones that have been committed for YEARS. Both Nobles girls that I have watched. This feels like the real estate game of relisting a. House to spark interest.
It’s great to hear your direct knowledge of the subject (rather than only via that website)!
top cheese
New member
Harvard investigation winding down: https://theathletic.com/4500054/2023/05/08/harvard-womens-hockey-investigation-update/
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
There is a paywall.....once Hawvawd gets it, technically they dont have to make any findings public since they are a private school, correct?
Interesting that Lee J Mirasolo is taking the Stonehill job. Smart move to get out now as opposed to waiting for the axe to fall.
Technically, yes, you're correct. However, in this day and age of social media, it won't be surprising to see some, or all of the report come to light via the Athletic or the Boston Globe. Especially if and when they decide to clean house and bring in a new coaching staff.
There are several strange aspects to this:
Why was she suddenly incapable of working at Harvard only once the shit hit the fan and had to "go on leave", but is perfectly capable of working elsewhere beginning immediately?
Why has this been publicly reported, and presumably as per the article she told the Harvard players, but there has been no announcement at Stonehill?
Why, when there were presumably ample qualified candidates, would Stonehill choose to hire a coach with such controversy surrounding her: not just being happilyassociated with Stone for so many years, but having made racist statements herself in the recent past?
Given Harvard's long track record at protecting Stone (and other abusers) all these years, and long-term disinterest in the well-being of it's athletes, as well as the continued hubris of Stone in surviving what should have been unsurvivable long before now, what makes you so sure the axe is actually going to fall?
It's quite possible the leave of absence was for real. Although I agree that it doesn't make much sense to call it a leave when in fact, she really wanted to be a head coach and the Stonehill opportunity presented itself. But I'll stand by my statement that it was smart for her to disassociate herself from the dumpster fire that has become Harvard women's hockey and grab this chance. Whether or not Stonehill did their due diligence is a separate matter altogether. I don't know if the axe is going to fall but if you were on the coaching staff, wouldn't you make every effort to distance yourself from the program rather than let Harvard decide if you stay or go?
I've spoken with two players who graduated in the last few years and they are on completely opposite sides of this debate. It will be interesting to see what the report finds as it sounds like it is a complex and nuanced issue from speaking with these young women. As an example, one said that the infamous naked skate was the most fun night of the year, it was voluntary and a tradition. It sounds like there are all kinds of opinions on this. I don't envy the investigators in trying to come to a decision.
3811041 said:
That's why these firms charge the big bucks; to wade through what seems difficult and nuanced to come to a set of conclusions that ensure the safety and well-being of the student athletes. And in this particular case, I'm not sure you can put the words "voluntary" and "tradition" in the same sentence. Everything we have learned so far seems to point to that naked skate as being anything but voluntary.
I'm not sure what has been learned to date other than media reports and the media, at best, is suspect. I think if someone on the team states it was voluntary and a tradition, that is direct evidence. Obviously other players may feel differently or believed that they were pressured. The whole issue is the perceptions of the participants.
Still Eeyore
Well-known member
I's also entirely consistent with what has been reported. It's not just that different players might feel differently, it's also, according to what's been written, a difference in years. Some seasons, the naked skate was more coercive than others.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
The longer this drags on the more convinced I am that Stone is staying on. She's built up enough personal capital that she would have gotten the word by now if she was likely to be forced out. And, after all, there's an upcoming season to be played! Harvard will save face by considering the investigation itself to be rebuke enough for its celebrated coach.
My own choice would be to bring back Sydney Daniels as head coach, in a stunning display of restorative justice by the university.
My own choice would be to bring back Sydney Daniels as head coach, in a stunning display of restorative justice by the university.
From time immemorial, systemic hazing has been defended as quasi-voluntary, not coercive, "team-building," sacred tradition, whatever. Abuse is perpetuated when the very people being abused don't recognize it until too late. "We didn't mean anything by it" or "this was all the team's idea" or "no one HAD to participate"--can we, as adult bystanders, begin to look at hazing differently? I am astonished that in 2023, we are still discussing whether certain activities fall under the umbrella of Tradition instead of being labeled as hazing. We should do better. I have stayed out of this discussion until now because I have no personal experience with Harvard. But I do have experience with examining hazing and awful behavior, and what happened at Harvard, even in the most benign interpretation that can be mustered, is both.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Yep. Any opinion less harsh than this post on this subject is completely out of sorts as to how we should treat or view each other as human beings.
Sadly, I need to agree with this first paragraph. Sadder still is that this precludes the second.