Tuariki wrote:I also think there is a large element of truth in jazzcyclist's pondering on what would have happened if it had been a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend.
You guys apparently have not read the article carefully. She was forced to resign because she violated a university policy that required that she report any relationship with someone on her team:
UT faculty or staff members in supervisory positions must report any consensual relationship with an “employee, student and/or student employee who is directly supervised, taught, evaluated or advised by that employee.”
Since she coached only the women's team, had the athlete been male, he would not have been "directly supervised, taught, evaluated or advised" by Kearney and so she would not have violated UT policy by not reporting it.
That violation seems to have been the basis for her having to resign, and so I think it's pretty clear that nothing "would have happened if it had been a boyfriend".
Plenty of rules are made and ignored when it suits politically, economically or scoially. Universities are rife with coaches banging their athletes and the power that be turn their heads away of they can or pretent to not know publically when they certainly do know. By most accounts the rules are to get the institution to avoid being sued by claiming their policies were broken if push comes to shove. Plausible deniability is the name of the game not a particular desire to seperate staff from students. Of course a gay relationship made public gets far more interest and attention and makes such issues more difficult hence why it's been said nobody would give a damn if she had been plowed by some of the boys. It may not be right that it works like that but it is what it is.
RichC wrote:Here is the part that makes no sense to me. I distinctly remember hearing about this relationship (and I guess it was 9-10 years ago) from a group of coaches and none of the coaches were from the state of Texas. It was one of those things mentioned, ( a couple of the coaches went....hmmmmm.) and it didn't seem like any big deal to the group. So why 10 years later? What the heck triggers something like this to happen? Just strange.
That's an answer that we may never know... But I can imagine that once the information was made public, or once there was the threat that the general public would find out, the University had little choice.
Whether one thinks the feeling is warranted or not, there are still some parents who might not be willing to send their daughter to a school where she'd be coached by a coach who had a previous sexual relationship with at least one of her student athletes. And although my field isn't in academia or coaching, in any corporation I've worked for, a known intimate relationship between a person of authority and someone that person had authority over generally resulted in removal of one of the parties by policy, whether it be by termination or by transfer to a different site. Obviously the whole concept of possible favoritism and special treatment of an athlete by a coach due to an intimate relationship could open up a huge can of worms for the University too...
RichC wrote:Here is the part that makes no sense to me. I distinctly remember hearing about this relationship (and I guess it was 9-10 years ago) from a group of coaches and none of the coaches were from the state of Texas. It was one of those things mentioned, ( a couple of the coaches went....hmmmmm.) and it didn't seem like any big deal to the group. So why 10 years later? What the heck triggers something like this to happen? Just strange.
That's an answer that we may never know... But I can imagine that once the information was made public, or once there was the threat that the general public would find out, the University had little choice.
The timing of it with her new contract is curious, and I suspect not coincidental.
Master Po wrote:And, in any case, as I understand the Texas policy -- it didn't prohibit a relationship; rather, it required the relationship to be disclosed.
Not so sure about that: "Patti Ohlendorf, the university’s vice president for legal affairs, told the American-Statesman, “In the case of a head coach and a student-athlete on his or her team, the university’s position is that that cannot be condoned in any event. ‘It can’t happen’ is what the university’s position is on that.”"
Blues wrote:Whether one thinks the feeling is warranted or not, there are still some parents who might not be willing to send their daughter to a school where she'd be coached by a coach who had a previous sexual relationship with at least one of her student athletes. And although my field isn't in academia or coaching, in any corporation I've worked for, a known intimate relationship between a person of authority and someone that person had authority over generally resulted in removal of one of the parties by policy, whether it be by termination or by transfer to a different site. Obviously the whole concept of possible favoritism and special treatment of an athlete by a coach due to an intimate relationship could open up a huge can of worms for the University too...
My workplace is just like your workplace when it comes to boss/subordinate relationships. In situations where a married couple work alongside each as colleagues, and one of them gets promoted, the company always transfers one of the spouses outside the work group. Similarly, in situations where a boss and a subordinate get married, the company always transfers one of spouses outside of the group. In any case, the company does not allow boss/subordinate relationships to exist within the same work group. But college athletic programs can't employ this practice for reasons that should be self-evident, since the university can't transfer the women's track coach to the football team, nor can it transfer one of her athletes to the swimming team. So the only option left is to strictly forbid these relationships. Former LSU coaches Loren Seagrave, Dana Chatman and Cathy Compton all learned about this the hard way.
Whether the fall-out is hypocitical or whether or not Kearney knew about or violated the intricacies of her employment contract or that it happened 10 years ago is irrelevant. It is a blot on the university record and any adult in a supervisory position knows you just don't do that.
The individual reported it in October 2012. She does not know why it was done. It is unclear that it is connected to the timing of the new contract unless that person knew something.
The relationship was one that started in 2002 and apparently ended when she was in the horrific accident that left her paralyzed later that year (and thus might have only been a few months, although the Texas release indicates that it ended at least 8 1/2 years ago). She has adopted the young kid who was orphaned by the crash.
I suspect that there will be a non-trivial settlement with Texas that will provide for enough funds for that child's future. Clearly, Bev's earnings are going to be greatly diminished.
As for knowing what the rules were when she signed her contract, that is probably not literally true. The rule is one that had just gone on the books and which she might not have been really fully aware of.
26mi235 wrote:As for knowing what the rules were when she signed her contract, that is probably not literally true. The rule is one that had just gone on the books and which she might not have been really fully aware of.
The Penn State/Jerry Sandusky scandal changed everything when it comes to these matters.
By the way, I hear rumors just like a lot of folks on this board do, and what she's admitting to is only half of her problems if all of the rumors are true.
Since we're on the topic, here's an interesting article regarding problems associated with coach-student athlete relationships, and the NCAA's request asking schools to develop policies to prohibit them.
Bruce Kritzler wrote:Pretty common knowledge that Kearney was involved with Michelle Freeman at Florida, and Freeman followed her to Texas, without graduating.
Kearney has been at Texas 21 years and has won six national titles. Her current contract includes a base salary of about $270,000 plus incentives for winning championships, as well as bonuses for endorsements and her work conducting the school’s annual minority athlete symposium.
The contract changes school officials were considering would have paid her $397,000 in 2012-2013, plus a $25,000 longevity bonus. Kearney’s compensation would be up to $475,000 in minimum salary plus bonuses by 2017.
Might Texas be looking to combine the programs under a "director of track operations" situation, believing such would save a large amount of money, and thus acting on an unexpected opportunity to semi-clear house?
As Profound Trachea once said, "Follow the money"... .
26mi235 wrote:The individual reported it in October 2012. She does not know why it was done. It is unclear that it is connected to the timing of the new contract unless that person knew something.
I have to wonder if the former athlete reported it on her own initiative ... or did UT go on a "fact finding mission" which included contacting various alumni around the world for interviews in an effort to dig up something to be used against Kearney? So they could get out of that expensive contract?
I am amazed at all those "conspiracy" musings. UT did exactly what every other school would have done in today's atmosphere. No need for "ulterior motives."
Master Po wrote:And, in any case, as I understand the Texas policy -- it didn't prohibit a relationship; rather, it required the relationship to be disclosed.
Not so sure about that: "Patti Ohlendorf, the university’s vice president for legal affairs, told the American-Statesman, “In the case of a head coach and a student-athlete on his or her team, the university’s position is that that cannot be condoned in any event. ‘It can’t happen’ is what the university’s position is on that.”"
Yes, I think you are correct. Some relationships need to be disclosed; some are prohibited. This seems to be the latter.
Brian wrote:Might Texas be looking to combine the programs under a "director of track operations" situation, believing such would save a large amount of money, and thus acting on an unexpected opportunity to semi-clear house?
That would be more shocking that this story. UT likes to stroke big checks and has no issue doing so. They don't really believe in cutting costs. Also, the men's and women's athletic departments are separate entities. They'd have to merge them first. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Pego wrote:I am amazed at all those "conspiracy" musings. UT did exactly what every other school would have done in today's atmosphere. No need for "ulterior motives."
Agree 100%. If, as 18.99 suggests, UT was "looking to get out of the expensive new contract", why would they offer it to her in the first place?
Pego wrote:I am amazed at all those "conspiracy" musings. UT did exactly what every other school would have done in today's atmosphere. No need for "ulterior motives."
I think it's a hard pill for many to swallow when we all know dozens of male coaches who have done the same or worse with no more than a slap on the wrist.
Pego wrote:I am amazed at all those "conspiracy" musings. UT did exactly what every other school would have done in today's atmosphere. No need for "ulterior motives."
I think it's a hard pill for many to swallow when we all know dozens of male coaches who have done the same or worse with no more than a slap on the wrist.
Loren Seagrave might disagree with you...
Again, the key question is what were the circumstances surrounding this particular relationship coming to light. I'm sure there's "dozens" of female coaches who've done it as well with no repercussions.
lonewolf wrote:Whether the fall-out is hypocitical or whether or not Kearney knew about or violated the intricacies of her employment contract or that it happened 10 years ago is irrelevant. It is a blot on the university record and any adult in a supervisory position knows you just don't do that.
This is true, but Track and Field is rife with coach-athlete relations globally.
Pego wrote:I am amazed at all those "conspiracy" musings. UT did exactly what every other school would have done in today's atmosphere. No need for "ulterior motives."
I think it's a hard pill for many to swallow when we all know dozens of male coaches who have done the same or worse with no more than a slap on the wrist.
Actually, are there any male coaches we know of who have had a same-sex with an athlete (that was open enough to have received a "slap")? I'm guessing that still sets of major alarm bells everywhere, given the conservative nature of athletic departments.
But PVP is dead-on in her double standard analysis. My all-time favorite in our sport comes from he early '70s. I won't mention the two athletes in question, other than to note that both were "famous." On a national-team trip to Europe he was caught in her room one night. The AAU women's committee suspended her from all competition for a year, and he received nothing (probably other than a wink and a nudge).
What happened to Loren Seagrave, who's a fairly respectable sprint coach? I've seen him mentioned three times now without any detailed explanation. Help out some of us who don't know.
As a coach,I believe it's unprofessional,and and against Coaching Ethics to be involved at the collegiate level with a relationship with your athlete.Second the University has a standard as well which does not condone consensual,or nonconsenual relations.Third,when your school recruits said athletes across the country,and all over the world,do you tell the parents,high school coach,and high school that there might be a possibility that I may get sexually involved with your daughter but I still want you to send her to my school;because she'll be legal age ? NO,NO NO ! It's wrong and we know it !!
While I won't justify the relationships because college staff and athletes, being sympathetic you have to empathise that in sport it must be hard for coaches who are essentially moulding female bodies into physical perfection. Top class coaches of nay sport, college level, professional, whatever have to be in the heads of their athletes, they have to be friend, father figure, life coach, relationship advisor, physically touching them for technical purposes, massage, injury checking, in their events for the greatest performances and you both have to be driven, giving it all and passioante at all times. That has an emotional effect and feelinsg develop.
You almost have to be so intensely close to them mentally as well as physically you are forming a close and passionate relationship and in young athletes possible the deepest relationship outside their family they have known. The opportunities for tempetation are far greater than a professor dictating and showing a slide show then marking and going over an essay. It seems to requirements need to be the very best are also those that when coach-athlete partnerships are of the opposite sex or someone is gay it can very hard not to have some feelings especially when the athlete has a body of a greek goddess. In the wrong moment and circumstances anybody could break and cross a boundary without a second thought.
Seagrave's case is by far the exception rather than the rule when it comes to how inappropriate conduct between coaches and athletes is handled (especially back then).
I would say the vast majority of the time, there are rumors, but the athlete does not complain about the situation (either because they are not unhappy with it, or because they fear the consequences of doing so) so nothing happens. Schools have traditionally turned a blind eye to suspicious behaviors in this arena.
Coaching in the college track world generally requires a lot of moving around. If the complaint against Kearney involved conduct at another school, would she have been fired from the current school? My guess is probably not, unless there was something criminal involved.
