Former Harvard coach alleges sex discrimination in federal lawsuit

  Over at my other blog, I have been writing about the "retirement" of women's ice hockey coach, Katey Stone in 2023 amid allegations of racism, body-shaming, and overall toxic culture. This is the piece I wrote specific to Stone's announcement that she has filed a federal sex discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University. 

--------------------------------------------------

Well The Boston Globe published the news (paywalled*) behind former women's ice hockey coach Katey Stone's press conference two hours before the conference The surprise factor was gone by the time I tracked down the clips. The two pieces of the press conference (Stone's lawyer's remarks and Stone's remarks) can be found at Hockey News. Some former players spoke as well but I have not seen those clips yet. 

There is plenty to say about this lawsuit and press conference. 

First, looking back at my predictions, I should have placed more emphasis on retribution than on moving forward with "apologies." Most of today was digging in to "truths." There were no apologies. There was some very interesting running around the allegations though. More on that below. 

It was very clear that Stone is irate that she was not allowed to speak back in 2023 when everything went down. I am not positive that she believes coming to her defense would have saved her job and reputation, but I think she believes that. She ended her remarks with "my voice will at last be heard."

Second, I am sure there is some merit to this discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges sex discrimination based on differential treatment including pay. Stone said in her remarks that the AD, Erin McDermott, told her privately that this (the Globe investigation that compelled Harvard to do an external investigation) would not be happening if she were a man. Maybe. But it is not as if men have not been fired for abusive behaviors. Maybe that statement is true at Harvard--which is all that Stone has to prove since she is not suing SPORT--just Harvard. 

It also alleges that she was subject to more stringent standards than men in the department. I assume that this is in regard to the allegations that she would punish players unevenly for infractions--including an athlete who was driving under the influence. Apparently men coaches are allowed that leeway. 

This gets to a larger issue that I have tried to tackle when writing and thinking about coaching behaviors. These standards for what is acceptable in coaching are just whack. Why do we continue to accept this behavior in coaches? 

Words like "respect," "dignity," "good character," and "integrity" were used at the press conference by Stone and her lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg. If you want to prove that you are those things and are capable of teaching those things, you need receipts. Maybe the women who were sitting behind her were the receipts. But I find nothing dignified about yelling at athletes in anger or ignoring their injuries or body shaming them (an unaddressed allegation). 

Third, Harvard has a lot of blame to bear. Differential treatment to coaches means athletes are certainly receiving differential treatment. But if anyone is letting any athlete who commits a crime (DUI) continue to be part of Harvard athletics then that's just a different level.

The pay differential is going to be a tough one though. Courts have allowed differential pay between men and women coaches because schools come up with rationales about money brought in from camps and endorsements and a bunch of other factors including market value. I would love it if this case changed some of those precedents.  But I think Stone will actually have better luck saying that Harvard would not have fired a man for the same (bad) behavior. 

This brings me to the speculative part of this post: what is Harvard going to do with that unreleased external investigation report? I assume it has some damning information about Stone that they would use in a trial to justify their actions. (Also big sticking point that she actually "retired" officially. Note to others who are experiencing job discrimination--make them fire you!) But I assume it also shows that some of these behaviors went unchecked for years. That puts Harvard in danger of a lawsuit from former players. My ultimate prediction is that there will be a no-fault settlement and that no one will be allowed to speak about it and the details of that report will remain buried. And Stone's desire that her voice will be heard will go unfulfilled.

Finally, I want to talk about a few ick moments from the press conference.

One--the throwing of women of color under the bus. Miltenberg's remarks called out Dr. Claudine Gay who led the internal investigation when she was dean of Arts and Sciences. He suggested that she has brought down the reputation of Harvard recently implying that her investigation could not be considered reliable. He also mentioned the phrase Stone used that triggered the internal investigation. He said that the phrase about Indians and chiefs "may offend some people notwithstanding that it's a common phrase." That is the non-apology I was expecting. He is dancing very carefully around accusations of wokeness. It is disappointing when proponents of Title IX fail to check their white privilege and downplay racism to bolster claims of sex discrimination. 

Stone did some dancing too: around the allegations that she ignored and/or exacerbated players' mental health concerns. After saying that the mental health crisis is real she talked about the difficulty as a coach trying to find a balance between pushing too hard and "affirming mediocrity" and that "cultural norms make it more difficult to set a high bar." She characterized her program as one of an "earn it" mentality not an "entitlement mentality." If someone can get Stone to talk without a script in front of her (I'm looking at you podcasters!!), I bet with very little prodding she would go off about "kids today" and their lack of resiliency and sense of entitlement. 

I am curious about one thing. Every other case of sex discrimination in which gay women in athletics have been fired/dismissed (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota-Duluth) also alleged sexual orientation discrimination in their lawsuits. Maybe there is just no evidence of that in this case, but it does not follow the strategy I have seen about throwing everything into a lawsuit to see what sticks. 

I may be done with this story for now. But who knows--something interesting could happen next week and I will back with more lukewarm takes. 

 

* The Wall Street Journal was actually first to this story. Theirs is also paywalled. 

Hope and concern in West Virginia ruling

 I attended a rally/vigil last week focused on LGBTQ+ visibility and one of the brilliant speakers spoke to the difficulty of maintaining/having hope among those who embody those identities, (and those who are allied with them). The idea that "surely things cannot get worse" she said, has been replaced with a resignation that when something worse happens, we know it will not be the last of the worst things or the worst of what is to come. 

The tragic death of teenager Nex Benedict, whom we remembered at that vigil, will not be the last ever, the last this year, nor the last this spring. Queer children are in such a vulnerable position all over the country. And those with additional minoritized identities, like Nex who was Indigenous, are extremely vulnerable when they do not have the privileges that comes with whiteness, or middle-class standing, or normative ability (physical and/or neurological). 

So I am wary to ascribe the word "hope" to the recent overturning, by a federal appeals court,  of West Virginia's law banning trans girls and women from school-sponsored sports. It is certainly good news amidst the bad (the longer list of states that continue to be allowed to engage in discrimination, the NAIA's recent banning of transwomen from intercollegiate sports at its member schools, and Ohio's impending ban). 

In addition to the almost certain appeal of the ruling is the fact that the child at the center of the case is someone who could be characterized as a near-ideal plaintiff. She is a young teen who has been public about her identity since the age of 8. She has a birth certificate that states she is female. She is on puberty blockers and estrogen. Being an athlete seems to be a key part of her personhood and she has been playing on girls' teams since her social transition. She is feminine, blond, and white. 

But my hope that this is a turning point, or at least a sign of better things to come, quickly dissipates when I admit to myself that if almost any single one of the factors above was different, this case could have had a different outcome. What if the plaintiff was not engaged in medical transition (remember some states have now banned that), what if she had only recently socially transitioned or never before played on a girls' team? What if she was a Black girl? (A look at the responses to former Connecticut high school track star Andraya Yearwood demonstrates how racism constructs beliefs about gender and femininity in ways that demonize and do violence to Black trans girls and women.) 

To be clear: I am very happy the decision went in the plaintiff's favor and that she will be able to continue to participate on the girls' track team. I hope it makes space for those who might not be the "ideal" because of how they present or how they are choosing to embody their identities. 

But, right now, that is about all the hope I can muster.