Read full WilmerHale hockey report here
Posting the full WilmerHale report here. I'm the reporter on this story and genuinely do not care about getting more clicks for this story, but wanted everyone to have a chance to read the full report.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2022/08/read-the-full-report-on-the-investigation-of-the-university-of-michigan-hockey-program.html
Let me know if there are problems seeing the story.
Sadly no, I can read it just fine.
Unfortunately.
Such a bummer. I don't want to risk self-righteousness but did expect better. Also, I regard Mel as one of the few belonging to the category of "maybe the best coach (roster building plus scheme) in the NCAA." And had easily predicted more than one additional Frozen Four in the next five years.
Thanks.
To include a link: to the right of the B (for bold) and I (for Italics) at the top of the Comment box, you see a flat oval that looks like the link in a chain. Click that, then add the link and Save.
There is a lot here, but there is a super key thing that Bacon and everyone else is overlooking:
“Thus, our inquiry was a relatively narrow one: Did Respondent retaliate against Complainant because Complainant voiced concerns about the continued employment of staff members with knowledge of Dr. Anderson’s sexual misconduct and/or concerns about the mistreatment of female staff members. We conclude, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent did not take adverse actions against Complainant for raising concerns about those two issues.”
Case closed. Regardless of what the rest of the report goes on to say, Mel was cleared of the ONE thing WilmerHale was asked to investigate. Did the rest turn up things to be looked into? Yes, but those things themselves weren’t the focus of the investigation and fully explain why Warde said (recently, at that) that he expected Mel to be cleared. Because he was.
No, not "case closed." The reason WilmerHale was investigating instead of the University was because of the allegations that related to Anderson (Wilmer had done the Anderson investigation/report, so the University retained them to do this investigation as an offshoot).
Wilmer uncovered a damningly toxic environment, and they didn't draw explicit conclusions because that was outside of their narrow mandate. Nonetheless, the report wrote that it is "more likely than not that [Pearson] terminated [Shields] because he believed [Shields] raised concerns about COVID protocols and [Pearson’s] treatment of student athletes.” Page 65. The report explicitly states that action might have violation the University's anti-retaliation policy. And the report further advises the University to investigate the program's mistreatment of female staff, the fear among players of speaking up after what happened to Mann, and Pearson's apparent lack of candor during the investigation.
It's damning, and he should have been fired within days of the report being submitted to Warde.
I meant “case closed” in terms of what WilmerHale was charged with investigating. That is unquestionably true and cleared Mel of wrongdoing. Further work to do, yep, and you even acknowledge that. Key point of your own phrasing emphasized:
”And the report further advises the University to investigate the program's mistreatment of female staff, the fear among players of speaking up after what happened to Mann, and Pearson's apparent lack of candor during the investigation.”
Meaning, obviously, that this investigation didn’t investigate those points further - because it wasn’t within its scope - or reach a conclusion on the matter. No question the University needs to investigate these things diligently, expeditiously, and seriously. No question. These things are damning if true, but the report does not establish that they are true. Just that they warrant further investigation. The WilmerHale report cannot and should not be made to purport what it does not and the SOLE thing it actually did conclude was clearing Mel of its singular investigative charge.
The report explicitly states as fact with proof that Pearson lied to the investigating team. At most companies/universities/organizations that alone would be grounds for dismissal. That requires no further investigation to make a decision regarding Mel's employment status.
Can you provide that direct quote from the report please?
I see that my post stating that Brian Wiseman was acquitted of all sexual assault charges in 1996 as a member of the Chicago Wolves is gone. Since it is factual, and clears his name, I'll assume it was a mistake?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-02-29-9602290148-story.html
Wilmer's job was to find facts/investigate, they're not going to explicitly tell the University to fire Pearson. The language used by the report is a byproduct of Wilmer's limited role as an investigator not a decision-maker.
So while they don't explicitly tell the University to fire Pearson, they do say the University should "take steps to address a number of issues discussed in this report, including (1) the mistreatment of female staff members by Mr. Bancroft; (2) [Pearson's] inability or unwillingness to hold Mr. Bancroft accountable for his conduct; (3) pervasive fears among both student athletes and staff members of retaliation by [Pearson] for raising issues; and (4) inconsistencies in [Pearson's] recollection, perception, and/or characterization of key incidents and issues as compared with other participants."
I think it's pretty clear that the step to be taken is firing Pearson. I really don't understand what you're suggesting -- another outside investigation to confirm what Wilmer found?
Yes, Pearson was cleared of the narrow question that Wilmer was tasked with answering. But in answering that question, Wilmer uncovered egregious conduct that warrants dismissal.
There are other institutional tools available for assessing and remediating those aspects. The fact that nothing has happened since May suggests strongly that they are using those tools and following the proper institutional channels for making such a decision.
Clarence, your analysis is sound but ever since that orange crop report I’m a little hesitant to trust you…
Edit: double post
It is a report written by a bunch of lawyers who generally are pretty cautious about what they put on a piece of paper. I would be very surprised if they raised a bunch of issues that were outside of the scope of their report if they were not quite confident that they were in fact legitimate issues. These are items brought up by multiple people in the course of an investigation. Either multiple people lied about multiple incidents or some of the allegations are true. Which seems more likely?
Well, let’s not lose sight of a very simple fact: the complainant had a major axe to grind and it just so happens the others making allegations (which no question likely DO have some basis in fact, let’s be clear) happen to be sympathetic with the complainant. In that light, it all kinda sorta paints a different picture. To ignore the motives and motivations of the complainant, which are CLEAR if you read the full report, and just damn Mel is completely unfair. What happened here is really pretty simple. Someone got something taken away from them that they thought was owed to them, THEY retaliated against the person they perceived as having screwed them over in having that thing taken away, despite a decade(ish) of working together, and in so doing played them oldest card possible: claimed retaliation to obfuscate their own conduct. That this ISN’T the front page news of the outcome of this report’s release is problematic, to say the least. Mel did some things wrong here, but he wasn’t the bad actor in this saga.
August 2nd, 2022 at 11:04 PM ^
That is a very generous reading of the report. Which I did read in full. You may have missed the part where the report concludes:
“Specifically, the University should review whether Respondent’s conduct violates other University policies, including but not limited to Standard Practice Guide 601.90, Protection from Retaliation. In addition, the Athletic Department should take steps to address a number of issues discussed in this report, including (1) the mistreatment of female staff members by Mr. Bancroft; (2) Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to hold Mr. Bancroft accountable for his conduct; (3) pervasive fears among both student athletes and staff members of retaliation by Respondent for raising issues; and (4) inconsistencies in Respondent’s recollection, perception, and/or characterization of key incidents and issues as compared with other participants.”
That doesn’t sound like the people who actually wrote the report agree with your conclusions.
They do and don’t, simultaneously, and it’s completely fine to be both. It’s real clear what they thought of the complainant’s motives. It’s also real clear they think there are issues. #3 is a really weird one to say “pervasive” about because of how limited their sample size was, and even the “retaliation” point itself is kind of weird when you really look at what is described and why the respondent might act adversely. For example, if the claim being pushed is complete BS by someone with impure motives, what does a reasonable person expect someone in the respondent’s position to do, just smile and move on as if it didn’t happen? Of course not - that’s why the complainant was let go. But then that’s why the complaint made the complaint: retaliation for being let go. Clear as day.
August 3rd, 2022 at 10:43 AM ^
1000000000% Truth. I would bet most commenters have not read anything more than the click-bait bullet-point assumptions, including JUB, to understand the root of the situation.
For those that have a hard-time focusing on the 68 page report, Shields was pissed he lost his paid job. He started sucking at his job and not showing up. He then started bad-mouthing the program, including Mel and tried to get Mann to start a player-organized mutiny, which failed. He then got fired, justifiably, and started this victim BS and making-up BS.
Did Mel make some mistakes? Sure, but none that would justify firing. Raise your hands if you've never gotten heated with a coworker or subordinate....I didn't think so. Should he have canned Bancroft? Absolutely. Did he lie about the COVID stuff, does not appear so according to the witnesses. Hearsay is not admissible. A few witnesses saying "it came from so and so, so I assume it must've come from Pearson" is straight BS.
Again, read the report before you make comments.
I'm quite surprised none of this was leaked. The fact that no one said anything made it seem like the report would be a nothingburger, but there is a lot of damning stuff in there
There IS a lot of potentially damning stuff in here that warrants further investigation, but the fundamental reality is that this report clears Mel of the singular question it was tasked with investigating.
This isn't a court case, though. If Mel created a toxic workplace environment, he needs to go.
There's no "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine or anything else in play. If they went beyond the scope of the initial inquiry and found cause for concern, it's still cause for concern.
Of course it is, but that’s all it is: cause for concern that should be investigated upon further (not concluded upon from this report). Which is what the report itself says.
The report says: “In addition, the Athletic Department should take steps to address a number of issues discussed in this report, including (1) the mistreatment of female staff members by Mr. Bancroft; (2) Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to hold Mr. Bancroft accountable for his conduct; (3) pervasive fears among both student athletes and staff members of retaliation by Respondent for raising issues; and (4) inconsistencies in Respondent’s recollection, perception, and/or characterization of key incidents and issues as compared with other participants.”
How exactly do you justify extending someone’s contract in light of those conclusions?
Correct, but this is definitely a 'won the battle, lost the war' moment for Mel. I cannot see the university signing him to a new contract with all of the culture issues found within that report.
I definitely agree with you, and that’s an unfortunate outcome because the investigation that the report encourages, if properly done, might well prove those raised allegations and questions false.
I don't have time to read the full report while at work today, but I do have a question that is tangentially related: Is there a chance that the complaints about his 'culture' and/or retaliatory personality are being/have been voiced by remnants of Red's team and culture? This sort of gets back to a lot of the complaints about Rich Rod from Carr's boys - the culture changed and some people don't like it.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, or sling arrows at him. Just a question that comes into play on the basis of his employment. I would suspect there is a good reason that the report was held for a couple of months and then leaked out. We don't know that reason, yet (we will, eventually). Maybe part of that reason is that many of those that complained have now gone (or will be gone soon)?
Without getting into other specifics, I'm most of the way through the report, and: no. Among other things, he's basically on the other side of this from Brian Wiseman and Bill Muckalt (both interviewed), and Red was also interviewed in the report and did not agree with the assertions of Shields.
Possibility, yes. The seniors in question weren’t Mel’s recruits.
But Steve Shields, who filed a Title IX complaint, had worked with Pearson for most of the past decade. The seniors may not have been his recruits but he'd been here 4 seasons when that complaint was filed - longer than Rich Rod had been before being fired, and much longer than he had before being investigated. This is not the same as that.
Definitely true, but it’s hard to discount that something had changed with Shields in the year leading up to this confluence of events if you read the report. Heck, just look at Red’s own characterization. What led to that change is speculative, but there is enough in the report to draw some pretty strong conclusions.
I didn't read the full report, I read Bacon and the Athletic article which included excerpts - but short answer is no. From the report:
"We identified multiple instances in which team leadership acted unprofessionally especially in interactions with female staff members and in treatment of student athletes.”
3 things stand out to me. Some players raised concerns about how Covid protocols were being followed and felt they were retaliated or threatened against - including Strauss Mann, who went to Sweden because he was afraid of being retaliated against. There was a staffer who berated other staffers - not exclusively but more oftentimes female employees - and Pearson essentially ignored that was going on. Finally, Pearson was caught lying to investigators about these allegations and his knowledge of them.
Mind you: those articles and excerpts are highlighting allegations warranting further investigation, not establishing conclusions. Important distinction that the articles are omitting. It’s seriously as if literally not one reporter read the Executive Summary first.
I am not sure where you are reading that the report says they are allegations warranting further investigation. It says “take steps to address issues..” not “investigate allegations”. It is ironic that you criticize others for using excerpts, when all you do is continue to assert what you think the report says,
That’s fair, and it was inarticulate word choice on my part - inadvertent, not an intent to say something it doesn’t say. But also in fairness those steps to address are to investigate further. Which the university has done separately from the findings in this report.
Thanks for posting this swdodgimus. I also read the Athletic article by Katie Strang (https://theathletic.com/3468455/2022/08/02/mel-pearson-michigan). Worth sharing for the rest of MGoBlog to read as well.
Not sure where this ends, but I applaud Strauss Mann for taking a stand on improving the health of the culture of the program. It shouldn't have led to him being kicked off the team, essentially. I could also see how turning the older roster over to younger, high-profile recruits could lead to short-term conflict within the culture. But alot of Mel's problems appear to be the way he handled them - self inflicted. I'm encouraged that more damming revelations weren't turned up, such as sexual assault (see the CA National Junior team issues recently).
August 2nd, 2022 at 10:37 PM ^
This, every high school football coach in the state of Michigan that I know would be fired over this, and prolly about half the college ones too.
- Pearson “instructing students to lie on their COVID-19 tracing forms” ahead of the 2021 NCAA Tournament opener in North Dakota.
August 2nd, 2022 at 11:47 PM ^
Interesting that MLive posted an unredacted report that a) identified victims of sexual abuse by Dr. Anderson, b) identified individual staff members who say they were harassment victims.
Thought newspapers didn’t do that kind of stuff?
August 3rd, 2022 at 11:16 AM ^
I put my full reaction to the full report in Brian's thread, but here I will just ask a simple question: if this whole thing isn't a coverup of student-athletes being told to lie on contact-tracing forms, why does the person actually alleged in the report to have told student-athletes to lie on those forms still work for the university?