Abuse Testimony, but BOE Reappoints CHS Coach Anyway!

mod

Mar 25, 2015 at 8:15am

hankzona said:
In general, a problem with defining bullying is that those who are bullies (and that includes students/athletes, coaches and parents too who can be bullies) don't necessarily see themselves as such...and there may be instances too when those who benefited by or were not targeted by bullying behavior and said nothing only speak up when it impacts them or their children. Perhaps they actually failed to see it as bullying because they (or their children) were not the targets...or they failed to speak up about it at the time because they (or their children) weren't targets. There is a difference between tough and unfair/abusive...and it usually isn't that difficult to discern, if people choose to.

Agree

yahooyahoo

Mar 25, 2015 at 8:49am

It would probably qualify as hazing, which is illegal.

tjohn

Mar 25, 2015 at 8:51am Edited

yahooyahoo said:
It would probably qualify as hazing, which is illegal.

Army basic training is hazing. Sports training is hazing. Hazing done correctly is a positive, team-building activity.

From Dictionary.com:

haze
v.
"subject to cruel horseplay," 1850, American English student slang, from earlier nautical sense of "punish by keeping at unpleasant and unnecessary hard work" (1840), perhaps from hawze "terrify, frighten, confound" (1670s), from Middle French haser "irritate, annoy" (mid-15c.), of unknown origin. Related: Hazed ; hazing.

yahooyahoo

Mar 25, 2015 at 10:29am

tjohn said:
yahooyahoo said:
It would probably qualify as hazing, which is illegal.

Army basic training is hazing. Sports training is hazing. Hazing done correctly is a positive, team-building activity.

You must have been hazed as a student/athlete.

tjohn

Mar 25, 2015 at 11:40am

yahooyahoo said:
tjohn said:
yahooyahoo said:
It would probably qualify as hazing, which is illegal.

Army basic training is hazing. Sports training is hazing. Hazing done correctly is a positive, team-building activity.

You must have been hazed as a student/athlete.

There's hazing and then there is hazing. If the freshmen on, say, a football team, are expected to carry the equipment to and from the practice field, that is hazing, but acceptable hazing. What happened in Sayreville is also hazing, but beyond the pale.

Army basic training is a form of hazing although it has a pretty vital purpose.

mammabear

Mar 25, 2015 at 11:47am

DaveSchmidt said:
mammabear said:
But what if some of the parents think that's bullying??

I can't speak for those parents, but since you're taking this topic seriously, I can only assume this is an honest question and not an attempt to make light of complaints.

I played sports my whole life. And I had all kinds of coaches. This is an honest question. Clearly there are many perspectives on the topic.

tjohn

Mar 25, 2015 at 11:53am

Hazing is complex because each of us have different views of what constitutes hazing and we cannot come up with a standard definition. There are some things that we all would agree are hazing or we all would agree amount to bullying. And then there is a large gray area.

Of course, the BOE should still be able to come up with some standards and the AD should be able to work with coaches to address valid complaints.

Chalmers1

Mar 25, 2015 at 12:05pm

tjohn said:
Hazing is complex because each of us have different views of what constitutes hazing and we cannot come up with a standard definition. There are some things that we all would agree are hazing or we all would agree amount to bullying. And then there is a large gray area.

Of course, the BOE should still be able to come up with some standards and the AD should be able to work with coaches to address valid complaints.

The gray area includes the increased latitude that we afford coaches whose teams win. Bob Knight didn't start putting his hands on kids 29 years into his career at Indiana. What changed is that his teams had stopped winning championships.

hankzona

Mar 25, 2015 at 12:06pm

tjohn said:
Hazing is complex because each of us have different views of what constitutes hazing and we cannot come up with a standard definition. There are some things that we all would agree are hazing or we all would agree amount to bullying. And then there is a large gray area.

Of course, the BOE should still be able to come up with some standards and the AD should be able to work with coaches to address valid complaints.

something to keep in mind...the AD at Columbia really should be the AAAD since the position oversees "all afterschool activities" not just athletics (and he does a much better job at it than his predecessors). Any standards the BOE comes up with should encompass all activities, because this isn't just a sports related issue. One of the biggest high profile hazing tragedies recently in fact involved a college marching band in Florida. Adults overseeing all activities and adults with kids in all activities can be and have been guilty of inappropriate behavior, including bullying, favoritism, currying favor and turning a blind eye. The debate here is specific to a sport, but in general, it can and has cut across all lines where minors and adults are involved.

tjohn

Mar 25, 2015 at 12:08pm

Chalmers1 said:
tjohn said:
Hazing is complex because each of us have different views of what constitutes hazing and we cannot come up with a standard definition. There are some things that we all would agree are hazing or we all would agree amount to bullying. And then there is a large gray area.

Of course, the BOE should still be able to come up with some standards and the AD should be able to work with coaches to address valid complaints.

The gray area includes the increased latitude that we afford coaches whose teams win. Bob Knight didn't start putting his hands on kids 29 years into his career at Indiana. What changed is that his teams had stopped winning championships.

Yes, that is true. Kind of like a sense of humor. One person can tell a joke and entertain everybody. Another person can tell the same joke and offend everybody.

Although it is also true that standards of acceptable coaching behavior has evolved over the years. When I was growing up, more or less all of our fathers had gone to school in WW II. Things have changed since then.

susan1014

Mar 25, 2015 at 12:20pm

And hazing gets more complicated in the modern era, when we are perhaps less willing to have a kid who is good at athletics, but not so mainstream, driven off the team because of the culturally specific flavor of "friendly' hazing taking place.

So, when you think about what is acceptable, think about if it plays out differently if your student-athlete is of a different ethnicity than the rest of the team (or the coach), of a different sexual orientation than the rest of the team, or has special needs (learning disability, Aspergers, or even just shyness). Is it OK if our "standard" coaching model preferentially forces kids who don't fit the dominant cultural model off the team, in spite of interest and talent?

I don't know the right answer, but I think we need to be aware of the cultural biases we are perpetuating when we strive to defend a certain model of coaching.

Tom_R

Mar 25, 2015 at 2:59pm Edited

tjohn,

I'm curious as to why you believe that Army Basic is a form of hazing; particularly so, as you readily concede that it has a vital purpose.

Thanks for any help in better understanding your point.

TomR

tjohn

Mar 25, 2015 at 4:14pm

Tom_R said:

I'm curious as to why you believe that Army Basic is a form of hazing; particularly so, as you readily concede that it has a vital purpose.

Thanks for any help in better understanding your point.

TomR

You know, I have just looked at a number of definitions of hazing, and I guess military basis training is not hazing although hazing may take place during training. Is deliberately stressing and wearing out a trainee hazing when the purpose is to prepare the soldier for combat? It defies a simple explanation.

BaseballMom

Mar 25, 2015 at 5:20pm

tjohn obviously called the Code Red.

tjohn

Mar 26, 2015 at 12:10am

BaseballMom said:
tjohn obviously called the Code Red.

Actually, I never experienced anything I would call hazing except for punches in the shoulder on promotion to E-4. Never saw or experienced anything like the SEAL training depicted in the movie Sniper.

phenixrising

Mar 26, 2015 at 1:53am

hankzona said:
In general, a problem with defining bullying is that those who are bullies (and that includes students/athletes, coaches and parents too who can be bullies) don't necessarily see themselves as such...and there may be instances too when those who benefited by or were not targeted by bullying behavior and said nothing only speak up when it impacts them or their children. Perhaps they actually failed to see it as bullying because they (or their children) were not the targets...or they failed to speak up about it at the time because they (or their children) weren't targets. There is a difference between tough and unfair/abusive...and it usually isn't that difficult to discern, if people choose to.

+1! So true.

JCSO

Mar 27, 2015 at 5:05pm Edited

susan1014 said:

I don't know the right answer, but I think we need to be aware of the cultural biases we are perpetuating when we strive to defend a certain model of coaching.

Not sure some of the gentlemen posting here quite heard you when you said that, so maybe it needs amplification.

mammabear

Mar 31, 2015 at 5:15am

DaveSchmidt said:
tjohn said:
Was it boys being boys (that is to say, roughhousing and causing collateral damage) who need to be helld accountable? Or was it intentional vandalism which your initial post certainly doesn't rule out?

Boys on both teams being boys -- territorial and none too gentle in clearing space for themselves -- upon discovering that they have to share a locker room during practices.

So let me ask...were any punishments handed out for the damages?

DaveSchmidt

Mar 31, 2015 at 5:43am

Not that I know of (not that I would know if there were, either). The players were called to a meeting for reprimands and instructions on how the teams must accommodate each other.

straight_life

Apr 7, 2015 at 5:09am

Happy to see the team is off to a 4-0 start. First real test is today against Roxbury. Up until now they have beaten teams they should have beaten.

Go Cougars.

jimmurphy

Apr 7, 2015 at 5:34am

Cedar Grove on Saturday was a quality win.

The team is off to a hot start - let's lend the boys our support on this thread in the Sports section

http://forum.southorangevillage.com/discussion/115601/columbia-baseball-off-to-a-hot-start

Go Cougars!

straight_life

Apr 7, 2015 at 9:05am

Sorry. Did not know about the other thread.

Cedar Grove is 0-2. It is also Group 1. Columbia should not lose to Group 1 schools.

wendy

Apr 7, 2015 at 9:26am

You wouldn't have known about it since it was started after your 10:39 post about the good start. It's in the right place to support the team. And there's no such thing as "should not lose" in high school or the pros. Anything can happen on any given day. Go Cougars! Go CHS baseball!
Wendy Lauter

agnes

Apr 7, 2015 at 1:30pm

And Columbia beats Roxbury. 3-2.
Go Cougars!

rhw

Jun 2, 2015 at 4:08pm Edited

and now this......

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/02/hs-baseball-coaches-accused-bullying-players/

callista

Jun 2, 2015 at 5:12pm

And the beat goes on...

Graf

Jun 2, 2015 at 5:29pm

Next BOE meeting should be interesting. I expect a parade of apologists coming out in defense of the coach given that the team had a good season.

What the apologists need to understand is that 99 great experiences do not offset 1 case of real bullying.

Now, is it bullying - well, the district's counsel certainly has the ability to make that determination. Coach misconduct is hardly a new phenomenon.

uncleb

Jun 2, 2015 at 5:45pm

hankzona said:
I have no horse in this race (or kid in this program), and retribution may very well be possible, because I have seen instances of it in other programs...but it is not really unheard of that seniors get cut from a varsity sport. A main reason I think is because you can play JV through junior year (which wasn't something that existed where I grew up...JV was for through sophomore year), which allows more wiggle room for playing time for juniors but not for seniors who may be straddling the JV/Varsity line. I also believe that at least the freshmen team last year had a bigger roster than in recent years and there were already a number of freshmen/now sophomores not just in the varsity mix, but playing significant roles. It is sometimes unfortunately a numbers game and as the commercial goes "past success is no guarantee of future performance". A possible reality is that there has been better development of the players coming up combined with a large number of them and there are only so many slots on a varsity roster.

Hank is right on, particularly in the last part... talent in any high school sports program is cyclical. For example, there is already talk about how to deal with the smaller numbers of 8th grade baseball players coming into the Freshman program. This has nothing to do with coaching, and everything to do with the fact that there are just smaller numbers playing, particularly at a "high level". To confirm this, just look at the declining numbers in the rec leagues.