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?
I
t 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.
