Story Poster
Photo by calbears.com

Cal Parts Ways With Teri McKeever

January 31, 2023
9,051

Director of Athletics Jim Knowlton announced Tuesday that Cal has parted ways with longtime women's swimming & diving coach Teri McKeever.

In a letter to the team and Cal athletic department staff, Knowlton wrote that "after carefully reviewing an extensive investigative report that was recently completed by an independent law firm, I strongly believe this is in the best interests of our student-athletes, our swimming program and Cal Athletics as a whole."

Knowlton also wrote that "the report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values."

Knowlton said Dave Durden will continue as Cal's Acting Director of Swimming & Diving, and that the department will move as quickly as possible to decide permanent leadership for the program.

Discussion from...

Cal Parts Ways With Teri McKeever

7,863 Views | 47 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Oski87
cal93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cause for canning Knowlton?
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."



So now THAT year long investigation needs to begin?
Ursine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
That's why you hire consultants.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ursine said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
That's why you hire consultants.


Yeah, how you read their disclaimer is interesting. Seems to me they found that Knowlton violated policies, but he is their client, so…."whether our client was guilty or not is beyond the scope of our investigation, at least until he pays our sizable bill and until someone else is willing to pay us more."
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Ursine said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
That's why you hire consultants.


Yeah, how you read their disclaimer is interesting. Seems to me they found that Knowlton violated policies, but he is their client, so…."whether our client was guilty or not is beyond the scope of our investigation, at least until he pays our sizable bill and until someone else is willing to pay us more."

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain running things. Now just go away.": said the consultants for the Wizard of Oz to Dorothy
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.

Yeah, it's gonna get real interesting.
I would imagine that we'll learn who the "suspects" are besides JK when McKeever sues or swimmers do.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alameda County jurors will not be supportive of the old school negative reinforcement coaching techniques that will be showcased in any litigation the good coach initiates. It's hard enough to get an Alameda County jury to convict a criminal defendant. They are weak sauce.

….but Cal may be willing to settle simply to avoid the public airing of dirty laundry. If coach gets greedy, she may get goose egged at trial and end up on the hook for UC's costs.
*Looks like coach has made her move. She filed a complaint with the DFEH to get her Right to Sue letter so she can file a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court for violation of state employment discrimination laws.
If it goes to trial, I'll take UC and the points.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


If it goes to trial, I'll take UC and the points.

I'm with you.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.
CalBandGr8t
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

bearister said:


If it goes to trial, I'll take UC and the points.

I'm with you.

Make that three.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalBandGr8t said:

DiabloWags said:

bearister said:


If it goes to trial, I'll take UC and the points.

I'm with you.

Make that three.


The operative is "if it goes to trial." I think certain top administrators with personal liability in the case have zero interest in it going to trial given her lawyer's publicly announced strategy to implicate them and would agree to an overly generous settlement. Are there safeguards at UC to prevent that from happening?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalBandGr8t said:

DiabloWags said:

bearister said:


If it goes to trial, I'll take UC and the points.

I'm with you.

Make that three.
Four, though my money is on a settlement.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?

How about the fact that he sucks at his job? Is that cause?

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.

I don't think there any chance of class certification. This is not a securities case where there is one common set of facts and breaches of law by the corporation impacting the same people. Or no overtime pay for a group of employees who do the same thing.

The allegations in the Report are breaches of different policies, with different acts over time against different swimmers, resulting in different damages. For example, you don't have the necessary 40 plaintiffs of "bad" swimmers who were targeted for abuse to force them to transfer to recover their scholarships (if you do, you better read the report). In fact, probably not that many after applying the state of limitations. The Report names specific lettered athletes. Do you have 40 swimmers that had personal information misused? Not even close, read the Report. Not even close. And you don't get to combine the personal information swimmers with the remove the scholarship swimmers, since they are separate issues of law and facts. There was only one swimmer who the Report could say Makeover forced to swim injured in violation of rules. Only a few were body shamed. The N word rap complaint way by swimmer K and may have been heard by 4 or 5 other swimmers, none of them black. Swimmer N said the N word was used once in small group meeting with primarily team captains and star player to discuss music that would be played. Again, your just don't have many plaintiffs for what is a very specific type of violation of school policy. But the plaintiffs who heard the N Word have a different complaint (no commonality) than the swimmers being pushed out for their scholies or the body shamed swimmers, use of personal information, etc. This is not even close to the type of case that is a class action lawsuit.

And none of this has anything to do with whether JK should be subject to investigation. It just takes complaints by one swimmer that JK broke university policies, which is the only way you get Hufnagel, Martin and the reporter into the same conversation. One person, the reporter filed a harassment complaint again Hufnagal and a complaint that Martin retaliated again her for disclosing information by not allowing her access to coaches. Has anyone filed a formal complaint against JK? Well....?

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.

I don't think there any chance of class certification. This is not a securities case where there is one common set of facts and breaches of law by the corporation impacting the same people. Or no overtime pay for a group of employees who do the same thing.

The allegations in the Report are breaches of different policies, with different acts over time against different swimmers, resulting in different damages. For example, you don't have the necessary 40 plaintiffs of "bad" swimmers who were targeted for abuse to force them to transfer to recover their scholarships (if you do, you better read the report). In fact, probably not that many after applying the state of limitations. The Report names specific lettered athletes. Do you have 40 swimmers that had personal information misused? Not even close, read the Report. Not even close. And you don't get to combine the personal information swimmers with the remove the scholarship swimmers, since they are separate issues of law and facts. There was only one swimmer who the Report could say Makeover forced to swim injured in violation of rules. Only a few were body shamed. The N word rap complaint way by swimmer K and may have been heard by 4 or 5 other swimmers, none of them black. Swimmer N said the N word was used once in small group meeting with primarily team captains and star player to discuss music that would be played. Again, your just don't have many plaintiffs for what is a very specific type of violation of school policy. But the plaintiffs who heard the N Word have a different complaint (no commonality) than the swimmers being pushed out for their scholies or the body shamed swimmers, use of personal information, etc. This is not even close to the type of case that is a class action lawsuit.

And none of this has anything to do with whether JK should be subject to investigation. It just takes complaints by one swimmer that JK broke university policies, which is the only way you get Hufnagel, Martin and the reporter into the same conversation. One person, the reporter filed a harassment complaint again Hufnagal and a complaint that Martin retaliated again her for disclosing information by not allowing her access to coaches. Has anyone filed a formal complaint against JK? Well....?




Thanks for your response. Yeah, agree it would not a class action, it would have to be individual lawsuits, but might still be taken on contingency, or maybe some of the swimmers' families can afford attorneys?

I thought the reporter accused Hufnsgel of retaliating against her by no longer meeting with her to give her inside info and it was the university that launched the investigation against Martin for failure to promptly report?

Beyond that, I would not know if any swimmer filed a complaint against Knowlton as that would not be public at this point unless the university released the information as they did against Martin, right?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.

I don't think there any chance of class certification. This is not a securities case where there is one common set of facts and breaches of law by the corporation impacting the same people. Or no overtime pay for a group of employees who do the same thing.

The allegations in the Report are breaches of different policies, with different acts over time against different swimmers, resulting in different damages. For example, you don't have the necessary 40 plaintiffs of "bad" swimmers who were targeted for abuse to force them to transfer to recover their scholarships (if you do, you better read the report). In fact, probably not that many after applying the state of limitations. The Report names specific lettered athletes. Do you have 40 swimmers that had personal information misused? Not even close, read the Report. Not even close. And you don't get to combine the personal information swimmers with the remove the scholarship swimmers, since they are separate issues of law and facts. There was only one swimmer who the Report could say Makeover forced to swim injured in violation of rules. Only a few were body shamed. The N word rap complaint way by swimmer K and may have been heard by 4 or 5 other swimmers, none of them black. Swimmer N said the N word was used once in small group meeting with primarily team captains and star player to discuss music that would be played. Again, your just don't have many plaintiffs for what is a very specific type of violation of school policy. But the plaintiffs who heard the N Word have a different complaint (no commonality) than the swimmers being pushed out for their scholies or the body shamed swimmers, use of personal information, etc. This is not even close to the type of case that is a class action lawsuit.

And none of this has anything to do with whether JK should be subject to investigation. It just takes complaints by one swimmer that JK broke university policies, which is the only way you get Hufnagel, Martin and the reporter into the same conversation. One person, the reporter filed a harassment complaint again Hufnagal and a complaint that Martin retaliated again her for disclosing information by not allowing her access to coaches. Has anyone filed a formal complaint against JK? Well....?




Thanks for your response. Yeah, agree it would not a class action, it would have to be individual lawsuits, but might still be taken on contingency, or maybe some of the swimmers' families can afford attorneys?

I thought the reporter accused Hufnsgel of retaliating against her by no longer meeting with her to give her inside info and it was the university that launched the investigation against Martin for failure to promptly report?

Beyond that, I would not know if any swimmer filed a complaint against Knowlton as that would not be public at this point unless the university released the information as they did against Martin, right?
Hufnagel was told not to communicate with her by Martin after she discussed inside information publicly. That said, here is an article on the investigation:

Cuonzo Martin to Be Investigated by Cal Regarding Yann ...https://bleacherreport.com ... Cal Bears Basketball

I could be wrong on this, but if a complaint had been filed against JK, then that would be public information, but by who and why would be confidential. In any event, on harassment and discrimination cases: "the identities of the parties involved in a Title IX case are almost always private and kept confidential (unless there is permission in some situations), but other information contained in a Title IX case may be available to the public with a FOIA request or by other means when exceptions apply." Couldn't find anything on other types of claims. But you think the media would have asked about any investigations of administrators, and would have reported if there was any. It is apparent from the Report how the administrators handled complaints was an issue, but not in the scope of the Munger Tolles investigation. The only complaint they mentioned was the one filed by McKeever. The McKeever complaint and the references in the Report to certain complaints made to administrators suggest JK's conduct is is going to be examined in depositions, absent some form of quick settlement with McKeever. The University is required rot investigate if a swimmer files a formal complaint under Title IX or otherwise.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UC-Berkeley fires employee after reports of sexual assaults (mercurynews.com)

May 2017
Mohamed Muqtar, Cal's assistant director of student services.

Reportedly, he was on the pool deck becoming "friendly" with some of the Cal Women's Team Swimmers and some were confiding in him; only to be sexually harassed by him, according to Jenna Rais who swam at Cal in the early 2000's.

Muqtar allegedly had "asked about her sex life, rubbed against her in his office and had windows facing the pool to satisfy 'perverted motives'," according to PennLive.com.

Rais sent emails to then chancellor Birgenau and Sandy Barbour in January 2010, but never received a reply.

Former Cal Swimmer Sent 2010 E-Mail Reporting Muqtar Harrassment (swimswam.com)

Cindy Tran, also swam at Cal and had "dealings" with Mohamed Muqtar - - - who McKeever encouraged her to speak with after she was pushed to the brink of suicide in 2014.

" I would go and talk to Mo about the abuse I was getting from Teri and the trauma I had."
" . . . and he groomed me to take advantage of me"

Cal Swimmers Say McKeever Learned Their Traumas at Retreats, Then Exploited Them (swimswam.com)

Can you say lack of institutional control?





"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.

I don't think there any chance of class certification. This is not a securities case where there is one common set of facts and breaches of law by the corporation impacting the same people. Or no overtime pay for a group of employees who do the same thing.

The allegations in the Report are breaches of different policies, with different acts over time against different swimmers, resulting in different damages. For example, you don't have the necessary 40 plaintiffs of "bad" swimmers who were targeted for abuse to force them to transfer to recover their scholarships (if you do, you better read the report). In fact, probably not that many after applying the state of limitations. The Report names specific lettered athletes. Do you have 40 swimmers that had personal information misused? Not even close, read the Report. Not even close. And you don't get to combine the personal information swimmers with the remove the scholarship swimmers, since they are separate issues of law and facts. There was only one swimmer who the Report could say Makeover forced to swim injured in violation of rules. Only a few were body shamed. The N word rap complaint way by swimmer K and may have been heard by 4 or 5 other swimmers, none of them black. Swimmer N said the N word was used once in small group meeting with primarily team captains and star player to discuss music that would be played. Again, your just don't have many plaintiffs for what is a very specific type of violation of school policy. But the plaintiffs who heard the N Word have a different complaint (no commonality) than the swimmers being pushed out for their scholies or the body shamed swimmers, use of personal information, etc. This is not even close to the type of case that is a class action lawsuit.

And none of this has anything to do with whether JK should be subject to investigation. It just takes complaints by one swimmer that JK broke university policies, which is the only way you get Hufnagel, Martin and the reporter into the same conversation. One person, the reporter filed a harassment complaint again Hufnagal and a complaint that Martin retaliated again her for disclosing information by not allowing her access to coaches. Has anyone filed a formal complaint against JK? Well....?




Thanks for your response. Yeah, agree it would not a class action, it would have to be individual lawsuits, but might still be taken on contingency, or maybe some of the swimmers' families can afford attorneys?

I thought the reporter accused Hufnsgel of retaliating against her by no longer meeting with her to give her inside info and it was the university that launched the investigation against Martin for failure to promptly report?

Beyond that, I would not know if any swimmer filed a complaint against Knowlton as that would not be public at this point unless the university released the information as they did against Martin, right?
Hufnagel was told not to communicate with her by Martin after she discussed inside information publicly. That said, here is an article on the investigation:

Cuonzo Martin to Be Investigated by Cal Regarding Yann ...https://bleacherreport.com ... Cal Bears Basketball

I could be wrong on this, but if a complaint had been filed against JK, then that would be public information, but by who and why would be confidential. In any event, on harassment and discrimination cases: "the identities of the parties involved in a Title IX case are almost always private and kept confidential (unless there is permission in some situations), but other information contained in a Title IX case may be available to the public with a FOIA request or by other means when exceptions apply." Couldn't find anything on other types of claims. But you think the media would have asked about any investigations of administrators, and would have reported if there was any. It is apparent from the Report how the administrators handled complaints was an issue, but not in the scope of the Munger Tolles investigation. The only complaint they mentioned was the one filed by McKeever. The McKeever complaint and the references in the Report to certain complaints made to administrators suggest JK's conduct is is going to be examined in depositions, absent some form of quick settlement with McKeever. The University is required rot investigate if a swimmer files a formal complaint under Title IX or otherwise.


I would be surprised if none of the swimmers or their parents filed a complaint against Knowlton, they seemed VERY upset with his inaction and offended by his dismissive attitude. If the redacted portion (or any other portion) of the law firm's report indicates a possible violation on his part, shouldn't that trigger an investigation by the university even without a formal complaint being filed?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

stu said:

cal93 said:

Cause for canning Knowlton?
Please!

From the East Bay Times:
The report acknowledged that the law firm "was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever."


If you take a look at the actual report, there is a category entitled "PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO THE UNIVERSITY".

The law firm (MTO) viewed the "handling" of these previous allegations "outside the scope" of their investigation.
However, they did include a summary of the information provided to MTO about these events.

Unfortunately, Pages #16, 17, and 18 of their report are totally redacted.

MTO-Investigation-Report-re-Teri-McKeever-CPRA-Redactions-Applied.pdf (medianewsgroup.com)

As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unreacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up.


Exactly. Seems to me Cal is going to have to investigate, and if the administrators were informed of the accusations, dismissed them and did nothing (or proceeded to give McKeever a big raise and new contract) Cal is going to need to fire them or potentially lose lawsuits to McKeever and the swimmers (probably liable to the swimmers in any case).
Maybe. Lawsuits do get settled. I know employees can get big bucks for wrongful termination, so the McKeever lawsuit was coming if she was terminated. Maybe Cal opens up the checkbook to make it go away, as reprehensible as that sounds, or there is something in those redacted sections, or that Cal knows, that make McKeevr want to settle quickly and for not that much money. You just never know if you are on the outside looking in. But many lawsuits settle fairly quickly.

I'm less clear what the value of player lawsuits would be and if swimmers. especially swimmers that could not have a career earning money swimming, would find lawyers willing to take their cases, especially if the swimmers mitigated their damages by transferring. The other side of this for the plaintiff lawyers assessing the case is their litigation could become tied to an expensive and protracted litigation, if McKeever's case is not settled early. Some swimmers also will be limited by Statue of Limitation and/or possibly that there was no violation of University rules, since they didn't exist at the time of McKeever's conduct. I'm not a litigator, but I'm concerned that many of the swimmers don't have great cases or have some hurdles to move their case forward. The swimmers with documented medical or physiological damages have the best cases. Even then, the swimmers face a jury pool that has a portion of jurors that may sound a lot like the guys on the insider board who think a lot of the swimmers probably just couldn't cut it at an elite swimming program and school like Cal (don't judge me, not my comments), or think college students are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Long way of saying there may be fewer swimmers willing or able to file lawsuits than one might initially think.

Edit: Before I get accused of saying something I didn't think, I'm just trying to assess the litigation, not make factual assertions.


If it is found that the top administrators knew about the abuse and violations detailed in the report and did nothing, even rewarded McKeever, and even after this was publicly detailed they were retained and suffered no consequence, then the university is not enforcing its own rules or the law and id think the university is opening itself up to liability.

The possible swimmers' class action, with the attorneys taking the case on contingency, is then for violation of their civil rights by the university, pain and suffering (documented being near suicide), lost income (not just from possible pro swimming, but alternative degree (or no degree) versus Cal degree when they were forced to transfer because their complaints were ignored. As you point out, the statute of limitations is probably running out on most of the claims, but not the most recent and those are clearly the ones Knowlton was involved with.

If the university can publicly announce, on the day before leaving for the NCAA tournament with our highest seed ever, an investigation into whether Cuonzo Martin was too slow to report a complaint about Hufnagel to campus authorities, the university can announce an investigation into whether Knowlton and other top administrators didn't report multiple complaints about McKeever at all.

I don't think there any chance of class certification. This is not a securities case where there is one common set of facts and breaches of law by the corporation impacting the same people. Or no overtime pay for a group of employees who do the same thing.

The allegations in the Report are breaches of different policies, with different acts over time against different swimmers, resulting in different damages. For example, you don't have the necessary 40 plaintiffs of "bad" swimmers who were targeted for abuse to force them to transfer to recover their scholarships (if you do, you better read the report). In fact, probably not that many after applying the state of limitations. The Report names specific lettered athletes. Do you have 40 swimmers that had personal information misused? Not even close, read the Report. Not even close. And you don't get to combine the personal information swimmers with the remove the scholarship swimmers, since they are separate issues of law and facts. There was only one swimmer who the Report could say Makeover forced to swim injured in violation of rules. Only a few were body shamed. The N word rap complaint way by swimmer K and may have been heard by 4 or 5 other swimmers, none of them black. Swimmer N said the N word was used once in small group meeting with primarily team captains and star player to discuss music that would be played. Again, your just don't have many plaintiffs for what is a very specific type of violation of school policy. But the plaintiffs who heard the N Word have a different complaint (no commonality) than the swimmers being pushed out for their scholies or the body shamed swimmers, use of personal information, etc. This is not even close to the type of case that is a class action lawsuit.

And none of this has anything to do with whether JK should be subject to investigation. It just takes complaints by one swimmer that JK broke university policies, which is the only way you get Hufnagel, Martin and the reporter into the same conversation. One person, the reporter filed a harassment complaint again Hufnagal and a complaint that Martin retaliated again her for disclosing information by not allowing her access to coaches. Has anyone filed a formal complaint against JK? Well....?




Thanks for your response. Yeah, agree it would not a class action, it would have to be individual lawsuits, but might still be taken on contingency, or maybe some of the swimmers' families can afford attorneys?

I thought the reporter accused Hufnsgel of retaliating against her by no longer meeting with her to give her inside info and it was the university that launched the investigation against Martin for failure to promptly report?

Beyond that, I would not know if any swimmer filed a complaint against Knowlton as that would not be public at this point unless the university released the information as they did against Martin, right?
Hufnagel was told not to communicate with her by Martin after she discussed inside information publicly. That said, here is an article on the investigation:

Cuonzo Martin to Be Investigated by Cal Regarding Yann ...https://bleacherreport.com ... Cal Bears Basketball

I could be wrong on this, but if a complaint had been filed against JK, then that would be public information, but by who and why would be confidential. In any event, on harassment and discrimination cases: "the identities of the parties involved in a Title IX case are almost always private and kept confidential (unless there is permission in some situations), but other information contained in a Title IX case may be available to the public with a FOIA request or by other means when exceptions apply." Couldn't find anything on other types of claims. But you think the media would have asked about any investigations of administrators, and would have reported if there was any. It is apparent from the Report how the administrators handled complaints was an issue, but not in the scope of the Munger Tolles investigation. The only complaint they mentioned was the one filed by McKeever. The McKeever complaint and the references in the Report to certain complaints made to administrators suggest JK's conduct is is going to be examined in depositions, absent some form of quick settlement with McKeever. The University is required rot investigate if a swimmer files a formal complaint under Title IX or otherwise.


I would be surprised if none of the swimmers or their parents filed a complaint against Knowlton, they seemed VERY upset with his inaction and offended by his dismissive attitude. If the redacted portion (or any other portion) of the law firm's report indicates a possible violation on his part, shouldn't that trigger an investigation by the university even without a formal complaint being filed?
Uh, they could, but I suspect most of the swimmers have moved on and don't want to burn more time and emotional energy on this (the parents might feel differently). You have precious little time to hone your athletic skills, excel in class, and train your body, and your need your head in the right place to do so in the few years that you have left.

As for the second sentence, maybe, depends on what was said in the Report and informally with the investigators. This is just the start for JK as he seems to be implicated, and I'm trying to be cautious since there is not a lot of public info, including ample redacted information and discussion in the Report. He could be formally investigated, but when (or if) he gets deposed, it will all come out anyway. Thus, I'm going to repeat my prior post:

"As I said in another thread, is seems apparent that the topic [administrators ignored complaints about McKeever's conduct] was discussed with the Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel, and would include more administrators than just JK. The Chancellor's Office and UC Counsel would see an unredacted version, and it is hard to believe they would ignore the subject that is discussed over 3 pages, and also is discussed by McKeever in her statements to investigators and in the Report, and discussed in a complaint McKeever filed against Cal alleging gender discrimination, which also is summarized in the Report.

Also, McKeever's attorneys have announced they are suing Cal and that administrators knew of the complaints and, in essence, ratified her approach towards her swimmers. So buckle-up."

Edit: there is a line in her defense where McKever complains any time she tried to discipline a swimmer, it would get back through some parent to the athletic director, which if true, turns the maybe in your second sentence into a probably.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?


Sure, I think that is the university's defense against McKeever's lawsuit.

I don't think that lets Knowlton off the hook for failure to report or investigation of the earlier complaints that were brought to him and for the extension. However, if anything that works against McKeever's claim, because how do you claim discrimination when they bent over backwards to protect her and reward her?

There is a huge conflict between trying to protect the university and trying to protect Knowlton. They are not the same, but I think some will conflate the two and try to do both. If the university follows that path it will cost the universty a lot of money and more bad publicity, but it would not be surprising in the least.

And the fault of having coaches that use authoritarian military-style coaching tactics in Berkeley in the 21st century is the person who hired a retired Army officer from a military academy to hire and oversee them.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.







calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.


Pure evil. That this type of crap happens at a place like Berkeley is almost unbelievable. The admins are actively protecting these evil coaches so the whole system needs to be redone. The AD HAS to be fired - I mean the women told him about what was going on he did not get this resolved in a timely manner. Screw this AD - just another reason not to support Cal athletics until this moron is gone.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.
They are really accused of different types of behavior, though we have lumped both coaches together as old school type coaches. For the most part you could actually print on this forum what McKeever was saying. Not so with Lou.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.
They are really accused of different types of behavior, though we have lumped both coaches together as old school type coaches. For the most part you could actually print on this forum what McKeever was saying. Not so with Lou.


Thankfully I have never seen the N-word here.

Regardless of language, I think the psychological severity of McKeever's abuse is far greater and crueler, because it was directed and personal with the victim intentionally isolated from the others. Those tactics are not used to motivate the victim, they are used to motivate the rest, through the fear of taking the victims place, so there is nothing the victim can do to escape, working harder won't work, starving themselves, groveling, fighting back, nothing, which is why the victims were on the verge of suicide.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.
They are really accused of different types of behavior, though we have lumped both coaches together as old school type coaches. For the most part you could actually print on this forum what McKeever was saying. Not so with Lou.


Thankfully I have never seen the N-word here.

Regardless of language, I think the psychological severity of McKeever's abuse is far greater and crueler, because it was directed and personal with the victim intentionally isolated from the others. Those tactics are not used to motivate the victim, they are used to motivate the rest, through the fear of taking the victims place, so there is nothing the victim can do to escape, working harder won't work, starving themselves, groveling, fighting back, nothing,
I appreciate your passion here, but you appear in this line of posts to be misstating history.

The N word is an evolving unacceptable word, which probably escaped from players' and coach's mouths every five minutes when Lou was coaching, and often by black players to other black players. I recall Tedford being a trail blazer and saying that stuff was unacceptable, and actually having to say and reinforce that with every new frosh class and transfer players. But there is nothing when Lou was ranting, including your race, national origin, religion, your mother's or girl friend's sex life, suggesting you gender sexual preferences or anything else that was not off limits. Moreover, isolating players against the team and any other tricks used by coaches such as McKeever was fair game for Lou (and by other coaches at the time). Whatever it took to motivate and win. But what got Lou fired was his temper, which could be very personal, could be directed at having the team get angry at you and anything else. There simply were no boundaries. What you don't get is he was not fired because he said or did things that today would violate standards, but because he had a short fuse and was was unrelenting. Today, Lou would have what we call serious anger management issues. The point being things have changed, and the University has rules that you as a coach agree to follow. There was no such things in Lou's time, so the University fired him only after the team rebelled and the AD and others followed Lou around and saw how over the top his anger became constantly. If you think Lou didn't motivate by fear, didn't isolate players, or the rest of conclusions in your post, based on what I hear from players who played for Lou, you don't have a clue what your talking about. I'm happy to share with you the players I know and have talked to on a PM. I'm sure they would also say they had stress reactions dealing with Lou.

The other point I would make is that times have changed, and the University actually had rules which it asks coaches to follow. There is a section in the Report that discussed generational changes, and that athletes may be less able to handle criticism or even harsh realities, and that parents are more likely to interfere (which at some level may be good, and at some this maybe be having to deal with helicopter parents). So yes, maybe student athletes today overreact to things compared to those in Lou's time. That doesn't matter, as the Report points out, McKeever was found to not to comply with today's requirements set by the University. Indeed, if you look the Report, as what happened to McKeever, female swimmers in Lou's time at USC and other schools were weighed in front to the football team, and then suspended if they weighted too much. Today that likely would lead to an onslaught of adverse media attention and all sorts of repercussions.

As for suicide and certain other player reactions, you might well read the Report more carefully. For example, read materials submitted by McKeever on swimmers with pre-existing conditions and the skepticism expressed by many witnesses that McKeever's training or actions was responsible for any suicide attempt. I think you are better off not concluding things based on what you read in a newspaper article or other posts. Again, the point is the Report found McKeever violated University rules on many different occasions.

Another reason for reading the entire Report is it drops certain little nuggets about administrator actions, something that you have commented on before. For example, there is a submittal by McKeever from the Assoc. AD regarding the results of swimmer exit interviews (hint: McKeever isn't being portrayed in the same way as in the Report).





calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Oski87 said:

It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination. The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes

So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Am I reading that wrong?
It seems to me that the defense for Cal is not that they did not respond to McKeever's berating tactics - they apparently did have negative employee reviews for that. But that is not what caused the termination.

This is a narrative for which there is no evidence, not to mention is very dangerous. There is findings in the Report that the berating tactics constituted bullying and broke University anti-bullying policy, policy regarding body shaming , etc., which policies are set forth in the Report.

There is no evidence what was in her personnel reports. Worse, assuming you somehow have knowledge that the berating tactics were in her personal report, and you chose to publicly share that, you just admitted that senior University employees knew and supposedly documented serous violations of policy, and took no action, suggesting that this conduct was ratified by the employer. Exactly the arguments that McKeever is making in her defense provided in the Report. There is no evidence one way or the other

Moreover, the Report concluded: "MTO determined that a preponderance of the evidence, including the accounts of more than 40 swimmers, supported the conclusion that Coach McKeever yelled personal insults and epithets at certain swimmers and, with those certain swimmers, used humiliating and belittling language that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the University's legitimate business interests.... creating a hostile environment ... thereby violating University policy."


The termination was caused by using racist language and sexual orientation shaming. Those are clearly against the rules for coaches and that is what she was fired for. I think in Knowltons remarks, he made that perfectly clear - basically saying that NOW we are going to take a look at how we coach with regard to actual coaching techniques and using military-style tactics for college athletes


So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired. And they did ask her to improve the "culture on the team" to lessen the overt crazy.

Jk's letter does not detail reasons for termination, other than he " believe this is in the best interests of our student athletes, our swimming program, and Cal Athletics as a whole."

It is interesting to note that he then mentions that "[T] he report details numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination. The report also details verbally abusive conduct that is antithetical to our most important values. I was disturbed by what I learned in the course of reading through the report's 482 pages that substantiate far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior."

No where does JK say that the Cal administrators didn't know about "numerous violations of university policies that prohibit race, national origin, and disability discrimination." Rather he only learned of "far too many allegations of unacceptable behavior." I'm not sure how you possibly extrapolate that wording to in any way mean "So she can say that Knowlton knew about her coaching techniques -- but he can say he never knew she was a homophobe and racist, and that is why she was fired." He never says anything like that. If anything, his languee suggests the opposite about his knowledge, and says absolutely nothing regarding the reasons for her termination.

There is no evidence in the Report that McKeever was asked to "improve the culture on the team."

What is really extraordinary, that you could draw so many conclusions when the entire section titled "Prior Complaints to the University" is redacted along with two of the seven main allegations investigated.

One of the more disturbing parts is that one of McKeever's primary defenses is that administrators were aware of her (1) coaching style and (2) absolved her of wrongdoing after past complaints (almost quoting verbatim), which sounds on the surface to mean in fact administrators: (1) knew about her propensity for bullying coaching techniques and (2) there are individual action of wrongdoing conduct which could very well have been obvious violations of policy such as racist language (I mention this because McKeever admitted using the N word in the discussions about rap music and there clearly were complaints made about her language, not that I or anyone else outside the primary player at Cal, know what was known by administrators, in personnel reports, or was said to McKeever). Indeed, McKeever noted:"that when she has disciplined a female athlete in the past few years, she could not do anything right in the eyes of the team, and the athlete would tell their parents, who in turn would tell the athletic director."


The last kick in Mckeever's defense is about the distinctions made between men's and women's coaches, especially those in more physical sports, and is an interesting read complete with comments from football players who perhaps thought they were being macho. But there a lot of coaches, swimmers, staff people and the like who say what McKeever did would have flown if she was a male coach or was coaching males. One of the defensive allegations raised was that there are no clearly established coaching standards, particularly for elite division one athletics, and it is the responsibility of the university and its investigators to speak to and observe other coaches to develop an objective coaching standard. This probably explains why JK is now looking at standards among all sports. I thought the gender discrimination argument was total BS, until I read the discussion. Before buying into different narratives, I suggest reading McKeveer's defenses. That said, Munger Tolles probably did Cal no favors by saying double standards may exist, but even if male coaches would not get into trouble, or male athletes would not complain, and McKeever may face a double standard, "that would not allow us to conclude that a coach who engaged in such conduct with female athletes did not violate University policy" (which suggests there is a different policy for coaching men and women). Again, I can see why JK wants to to look at a universal set of rules of conduct when looking to the future.




It is an interesting coincidence that Lou Campanelli passed away this past week.

It was 30 years ago this week (Feb. 8, 1993) that Campanelli was fired for abusive language towards the players, their complaints to the AD (Kidd saying the stress was making him sick) with Campanelli then suing the university, the AD and the chancellor but losing (repeatedly) in court.

Because of what was allowed 30 years ago when Bobby Knight types could coach with impunity, Lou was allowed to go to an extreme that the adults had to step in. I have talked with players for Lou, and he did things that would never fly today, and make MeKeever look like a light weight. Seven scholarship players were threatening to leave, and the entire team demanded he be fired, not just a few aggrieved swimmers. It was more than just language. There were a lot of pretty tough guys that played for Lou (indeed one is a long time prison guard) and even they think Lou took it way too far - and the courts agreed.

The other thing is the court records showed Lou conceded he "engaged in temper tantrums directed at his players which included verbally abusive and profane remarks of a personal nature, to the extent that seven members of the team wanted to transfer unless he was fired. Through these concessions, Campanelli has admitted the essential accuracy [of Cal's case]." Try admitting that as a coach these days. McKeever has not. While she may have some points that women coaches are subject to different standards and there seems to be a double standard in sheltering female athletes more, that doesn't excuse what are clear violations of University policy (just one guy's opinion). If litigators like Bearister think she likely would lose at trial, I'm deferential to their opinion.


In some ways, what McKeever did, encouraging the young women to share intimate details of their lives, then singling out a scapegoat for bullying and abuse every year, using that shared information against her, and encouraging teammates to join in that abuse, or face becoming the new victim, Is more evil. At least Kidd et al had each other and could support each other and go to the AD together.
They are really accused of different types of behavior, though we have lumped both coaches together as old school type coaches. For the most part you could actually print on this forum what McKeever was saying. Not so with Lou.


Thankfully I have never seen the N-word here.

Regardless of language, I think the psychological severity of McKeever's abuse is far greater and crueler, because it was directed and personal with the victim intentionally isolated from the others. Those tactics are not used to motivate the victim, they are used to motivate the rest, through the fear of taking the victims place, so there is nothing the victim can do to escape, working harder won't work, starving themselves, groveling, fighting back, nothing,
I appreciate your passion here, but you appear in this line of posts to be misstating history.

The N word is an evolving unacceptable word, which probably escaped from players' and coach's mouths every five minutes when Lou was coaching, and often by black players to other black players. I recall Tedford being a trail blazer and saying that stuff was unacceptable, and actually having to say and reinforce that with every new frosh class and transfer players. But there is nothing when Lou was ranting, including your race, national origin, religion, your mother's or girl friend's sex life, suggesting you gender sexual preferences or anything else that was not off limits. Moreover, isolating players against the team and any other tricks used by coaches such as McKeever was fair game for Lou (and by other coaches at the time). Whatever it took to motivate and win. But what got Lou fired was his temper, which could be very personal, could be directed at having the team get angry at you and anything else. There simply were no boundaries. What you don't get is he was not fired because he said or did things that today would violate standards, but because he had a short fuse and was was unrelenting. Today, Lou would have what we call serious anger management issues. The point being things have changed, and the University has rules that you as a coach agree to follow. There was no such things in Lou's time, so the University fired him only after the team rebelled and the AD and others followed Lou around and saw how over the top his anger became constantly. If you think Lou didn't motivate by fear, didn't isolate players, or the rest of conclusions in your post, based on what I hear from players who played for Lou, you don't have a clue what your talking about. I'm happy to share with you the players I know and have talked to on a PM. I'm sure they would also say they had stress reactions dealing with Lou.

The other point I would make is that times have changed, and the University actually had rules which it asks coaches to follow. There is a section in the Report that discussed generational changes, and that athletes may be less able to handle criticism or even harsh realities, and that parents are more likely to interfere (which at some level may be good, and at some this maybe be having to deal with helicopter parents). So yes, maybe student athletes today overreact to things compared to those in Lou's time. That doesn't matter, as the Report points out, McKeever was found to not to comply with today's requirements set by the University. Indeed, if you look the Report, as what happened to McKeever, female swimmers in Lou's time at USC and other schools were weighed in front to the football team, and then suspended if they weighted too much. Today that likely would lead to an onslaught of adverse media attention and all sorts of repercussions.

As for suicide and certain other player reactions, you might well read the Report more carefully. For example, read materials submitted by McKeever on swimmers with pre-existing conditions and the skepticism expressed by many witnesses that McKeever's training or actions was responsible for any suicide attempt. I think you are better off not concluding things based on what you read in a newspaper article or other posts. Again, the point is the Report found McKeever violated University rules on many different occasions.

Another reason for reading the entire Report is it drops certain little nuggets about administrator actions, something that you have commented on before. For example, there is a submittal by McKeever from the Assoc. AD regarding the results of swimmer exit interviews (hint: McKeever isn't being portrayed in the same way as in the Report).




Yeah, my comment was not a legal one. It is more a moral and ethical one. Agree that Campanelli was more anger issues. What McKeever did was more calculated which is why I called it more "evil."

Similarly context is important. You cannot remotely compare the use of the N-word by an African American and its use by a White person (or the use of the F word or other similar terms by someone who is not LBGTQ). The later was never acceptable. Never. It use by people who are part of those groups is not for others to decide.

I think my other point in bringing up Campanelli, which you confirmed, is that in the past 30 years Cal HAS added written coaching standards, which makes Knowlton's public statement that "now" we will add them more than a bit disingenuous.

One final thought, I still can't believe that after he was fired and lost a couple of bitter lawsuits against us, the PAC-12 put Campanelli in charge of officiating.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.