On The Pearson Report
Well, it's out: 70 pages of Wilmer-Hale billable hours on what went down with Mel Pearson and the hockey program over the last couple years. Pearson chased off team captain Strauss Mann, was ineffectual at best when dealing with a subordinate's abusive behavior towards women, instructed players to lie about positive COVID tests before the 2021 NCAA tournament, and repeatedly lied to investigators.
So what are we doing here? It is August 2nd. This report was issued to the university in May. Warde Manuel has done nothing either way since. The report was made available to the public by MLive, not the actual university. Mel Pearson costs zero dollars to fire. What could possibly justify the three months of limbo the hockey program has been in? A week, maybe two is understandable. Three months is absurd.
As for what happens now, I cannot imagine that Pearson is allowed to continue. I mean:
The evidence shows that, despite what [Pearson] us in his interviews, [Pearson] was aware of Complainant’s concerns about mistreatment of female staff members
That's on page five and should be a fireable offense. There are 65 more pages, many of which make it clear that Pearson shouldn't be in charge of Michigan's hockey program. John U Bacon is probably the most careful member of the media out there and he says it's "not clear to me how U-M could retain Pearson and claim it is serious about protecting students and employees." And well, yeah:
The investigators raise the question of Pearson’s “inability or unwillingness to hold Mr. Bancroft accountable for his conduct.” In other words, Pearson was well aware of the abuse, or should have been, and did nothing.
— John U. Bacon (@Johnubacon) August 2, 2022
He's got to go.
That Pearson is still Michgian's hockey coach brings Warde Manuel's competency into question. His reaction to Strauss Mann's situation seems naïve at best:
Manuel, the athletic director, testified that he confronted Pearson about the allegations of retaliation but that he “never felt (Pearson) was retaliating against (Mann)’” and that Mann left the university “on his own.” But that belief was not shared by some of the players and staffers who participated in the survey. “Several responses noted that Coach Pearson recently removed Strauss Mann, the former team captain and starting goaltender, from the team in retaliation,” the summary reads.
Manuel's been a cipher since day one, and while that's a huge improvement over his (non-interim) predecessor he hasn't exactly been the kind of bold leader who has much of a track record to oppose what appears to be an inexplicable do-nothing approach to this situation. Manuel's made a few obvious hires, extended some contracts, done nothing to improve the fan experience, and generally faded into the background. That provided an extended honeymoon that now seems over.
As for what future awaits the hockey program: if I was in charge I'd axe Mel immediately and just replace him with Bill Muckalt, who everyone seems to love. If that's not possible because he is implicated in the report—it does not seem like he is but it might be a tough sell to promote Pearson's right hand man—then I guess Brian Wiseman just left a job with the Islanders. At this point making a splash hire outside the program seems tough because, you know, it's August.
What’s the delay? You know what the delay is: lawyers-Pearson’s,Michigan’s. The Michigan lawyers are combing Pearson’s contract around “for cause” firing. Pearson’s lawyers have already communicated on what basis they’ll sue and, in the end, there will be a settlement. That’s what’s been going on: what’s our liability and how much will it cost to make it go away. On both ends.
He doesn’t currently have a contract. This makes zero sense.
Corrected. Pearson can still sue UM though
for what?
Did you not read the report that centers extensively around the circumstances surrounding the firing of a volunteer?
https://mgoblue.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/roster#sidearm-roster-coaches
funny he’s still listed as the head coach on the site. Why if he doesn’t have some agreement?
Pearson doesn’t have a contract right now. Michigan is free to open up the hiring for a new coach or an interim coach.
Welcome to Michigan Santa! Your first athletic department crisis.
The most decisive (and absolutely correct) comments from this blog on Manuel to date. With his three months of inaction, he made himself part of the story. I don't see the University parting ways with him, but man what a bad look.
What are the "culture" issues? People got yelled at? Players felt disrespekted?
In short, yes. White collar workers were yelled at - not hockey players on the ice - and this wasn't a one off moment of fury, it was repeated. And players were asked to lie about health issues in a pandemic, and behaved as leaders should - honestly. And they were threatened with reprisals for it, leading to a senior captain to leave the team.
Where does it say who told them to lie?
What if the captain was trying to get the coach fired, as is alleged in the report?
“What if the captain was trying to get the coach fired, as is alleged in the report?”
It’s really hard to come away from the rest of the full report NOT wondering this. And anyone who dismisses that out of hand has very likely not been on a team before.
Losing a locker room is forgivable - especially when it was a COVID year and you follow it up with a frozen four. A toxic white collar culture for a coach is at least as serious, and on its own something that can be improved, especially since coaches spend less time "in the office." Coupled with losing the locker room, it certainly raises my hackles, but reasonable managers can disagree on how to handle that. But lying on its own is often a fireable offense in most workplaces, and makes him less trustworthy in the he-said-he-said with Strauss Mann. And his lying to investigators shortly after being caught in a lie about the GLI gives him a pattern of dishonesty. I'm sorry but that's 3 strikes, one of them borderline, one of them less so, and one of them as clear cut as can be on right and wrong.
The locker room was "lost" in a year they went to the final four?
No, you misread my comment in an attempt to be snarky. Clarence suggested that internal team politics are what drove Strauss Mann from the team, which I'm characterizing as "losing the locker room" in the aftermath of the 2020-21 season. I explicitly state this can be forgiven in the most charitable understanding since he managed to motivate the team for a frozen 4 run.
Totally agree.
- The Mann issue alone isn't enough to warrant firing.
- Fostering a bad work environment by allowing an assistant to behave poorly isn't enough to warrant firing.
- Losing the locker room isn't enough to warrant firing.
- Asking players to lie about covid contacts is probably fireable (although sadly, I believe this happened a lot w/ various athletic programs around the country.
All of these combined are enough to warrant firing. Then LYING repeatedly on top of it - is enough to make this a no brainer.
Somewhere Mary Sue Coleman is talking into a microphone drunk.
Honestly, I'm starting to think Manuel's problem isn't inaction; it's that he's not working at all.
I think Brian is perhaps imagining Manuel was informed of this problem and has been sitting on his hands because it's a "difficult" situation, but the way he's handled basically everything else so far, it's like he's got his phone turned off and isn't checking e-mails. He probably never even read the report. Hell, he might not be aware it exists.
Manuel sits up in his chair and verrrrry reluctantly does AD-ish things when he's absolutely required to. As in, "you will lose this cushy job if you do not do something and/or fuck it up" level of pressure. Reading a report that would require his initiative would get in the way of whatever fart-all he does instead of actual work.
In other words, Warde Manuel heard about Bill Martin's sailboat episode and decided that it was an aspirational goal, not a cautionary tale.
No. Rather, people who don't learn from history are generally the sort too lazy to bother learning the history in the first place. It's not that they didn't learn, or didn't know. . . it's that they're tuned out.
Even if someone tried to warn Manuel about Bill Martin, he probably just heard "blah blah blah" while he doodled erections on his notepad.
I can't believe you wrote all of that based on....what, gut feel?
Well sure, why not? What’s the capital offense here? And let's be honest; "he does things when he has no other choice" is a rather accurate encapsulation of his time as UM's AD.
Either way Manuel’s inaction is inexcusable, we got an abusive coach to fire, but your biggest problem in all this is that someone on the Internet is shitposting the guy for not doing his job??
So, he's acting like most bureaucrats?
To be fair, after Dave “if it ain’t broke, break it” Brandon, his lack of initiative was like a breath of fresh air at the time. (Yes I know we had an interim AD.)
I've noticed most of the blog also has a collective memory lapse when it comes to Brandon's first few months on the job too. He got a lot of props for handling Stretchgate well.
I have no opinion on Manuel. Unlike most of the vocal people here I understand there are a LOT more inputs into the system he has to account for than I could possibly account for.
He does fit the "bureaucrat just trying to keep his job" mold pretty well though.
August 3rd, 2022 at 12:42 AM ^
Of course he got props for handling stretchgate well. Doing that work made it harder for him to call plays and make roster decisions.
Brendan Quinn has mentioned on his podcast that Warde doesn’t use a smart phone and that he’s completely removed from online chatter. When Brendan has asked him about the optics of a situation in the past and what his thoughts are about what people are saying online that Warde is oblivious. I think as much as that can help a guy in his position ignore the noise he may also benefit from taking the temperature every once in a while.
Mel’s gotta go. That hurts to say considering he had a great chance to bring a title back to Ann Arbor but you cannot sign him to a new contract with this (independent) report out there now. Absolutely no way to justify it. This wasnt a one time oopsie!, this is a pattern of poor leadership. You just cannot condone that behavior
i honestly do not know what Warde is waiting on. Hellooooo
I've never been very impressed with Warde Manuel. This whole saga and past ones make it clear he is a weak AD. Michigan can do much better.
Serious question - what is "culture" issues and what is "enforcing / creating accountability"? How do we draw the distinction between a transition cost and a bullying/intimidation/etc.?
From the Athletic article - “32.4 percent of respondents reported not feeling “respected and treated fairly” by Pearson” - meaning 67% didn’t feel disrespected?
You would be hard pressed to walk into any job or corporate environment and not hear that 25% of people are feeling disrespected – that’s the nature of many jobs when you’re fighting for finite resources, or get passed up for a promotion, etc.
I have a hard time reading this report – which is mainly he said, she said – and coming to the conclusion that Mel has to be fired. Why? Where is the room for improvement or fixing mistakes?
I would be fine with probation, suspension, or something similar – I don’t see why there needs to be someone falling on their sword here, other than this attitude that we’re Michigan and we’re holier than all.
I would expect, as an employee, to be treated fairly and the same as anyone else in a similarly situated position – and I don’t think there is any other university that would fire someone for the exact same set of circumstances. For some reason, we at Michigan love self-flagellation.
On a 26-man roster, 33 percent disrespected would be the guys getting scratched every night (and, one would assume their parents). Amazingly these investigators couldn't interview a single recent player to find out what any of that meant? Nor does it seem like they asked the players, "How do you know Mel was behind telling you what to say on your Covid form? or how do you know Mel was talking to agents about you? A lot of incomplete and misinterpreted information.
Coco, why do you think Mel continuously lied to the investigators? It wasn't because he thought he was doing the right thing these past few years.
I work for a big state university and if I had just ordered subordinates to lie on their contract tracing forms, I would be fired. Let alone the other more serious stuff here. So I don’t see this as a bizarre double standard, unless you meant other universities won’t fire millionaire coaches for the same stuff. I’m not sure that’s true either, but I’m sadly not a 7 figure salary coach.
Do we really know he told them to lie?
What if he said (and to me this is perfectly plausible). "If you want to play, you better not mention you had contact with someone who tested positive"
What would you say? Understand, these hockey players aren't working in a nursing home, they are playing in a hockey tournament.
In other words, if you had contact with someone who tested positive and you want to play, lie.
That kinda sounds like the definition of telling them to lie.
The absurdity of the claim that that isn’t telling them to lie suggests this is just trolling.
August 2nd, 2022 at 10:13 PM ^
Did he actually tell them to lie? Admittedly I only read the athletic article and not the entire report. Anyways, they forfeited the tournament because of Covid, so I’m not sure what was gained by him allegedly telling them to lie.
here’s a real life example of someone i know: they were following the CDC guidelines of a close contact which was something like 6 feet for 15 minutes, or something along those lines. An employee who tested positive had a passing contact with some people, maybe one or two minute brief conversation. It wasn’t considered a close contact by the CDC definitions so the employer didn’t alert these specific employees, but the employee who tested positive told them. Yada yada yada the employees thought the workplace was trying to keep Covid contacts lower, the employer was saying they were following CDC Guidelines and all hell breaks loose.
anyways, unless there’s a smoking gun e-mail im a bit skeptical of these Covid allegations because people feel way differently depending on where they are on the risk spectrum
August 2nd, 2022 at 10:51 PM ^
Yeah, that's the one part of this report that is pretty much beyond discussion in terms of gross actions by Pearson - telling athletes, or even strongly encouraging them, to lie on a COVID form so that they can keep playing. Fire him for that and I wouldn't be remotely surprised or unhappy even if I'm sure there's a healthy contingent of fans (both here and more generally) who have different views than myself as to the relevance of caring about COVID years ago.
Agree with Brian and JUB, Mel needs to go. And the three month foot drag, makes me think I’ve had enough of Warde too. Sigh.
Could someone please breakdown the facts for me? Not the allegations. Allegations and hearsay are never reasons to fire anyone. I'm not against firing Pearson if the facts show wrongdoing, but I haven't actually found any facts and legalese is adept and stating things in ways that sound like facts without actually providing facts. So, I am hoping we have a lawyer here who can actually decipher this and bring out the collaborated facts against Pearson so we can all move on.
Agreed. This all reads like hearsay to me. What we can agree on is that some players did not like Mel and, in turn, Mel may not have liked them back. Is that because Mel wanted to clean house and felt that some of these players didn't meet his expectations? Or was it more of a toxic environment at hand? If it's the latter, how come only 30 or so percent felt disrespected - and why hasn't there been mass exodus of players?
It just seems so easy to say that Mel fostered a poor culture, when the evidence is much more nuanced.
I found this breakdown by Alex helpful
"Could someone please breakdown the facts for me? "
Absolutely, probable fact with recording - he lies to the investigators.
That alone is a firing offense.
August 3rd, 2022 at 12:19 AM ^
"Allegations and hearsay are never reasons to fire anyone"
So if every employee under a manager has the same separate complaints of abusive behavior that's not reason to fire them? What a hilariously awful take. You probably bemoan "cancel culture" unironically.
The whole purpose of the report was investigative fact-finding to determine if Pearson violated the University's Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy when he fired Shields, so if you want the facts, all you have to do is read the report. It's 70 pages, so not exactly easy to summarize succinctly, but the SparkNotes version is that Pearson didn't violate the policy in question in firing Shields, but he cultivated a toxic culture of fear and retaliation, refused to take action against a subordinate that was mistreating female staff members, and lied to investigators. These actions likely violate other University policies, but the report doesn't make those determinations because they are outside the scope of the report.
On a sidenote, I'm puzzled by your distinctions between facts, allegations, and hearsay. Hearsay is a legal term that refers to out-of-court statements being offered in-court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rules of evidence contain various exclusions and exceptions to the hearsay rule, so plenty of statements that meet the baseline definition of hearsay are still admissible as probative evidence. The term has limited applicability to an internal investigation setting where there is no courtroom proceedings or any proceedings with cross-examination.
As for allegation and facts, the allegations are the claims Shields made in his complaint. The facts are what Wilmer concluded actually happened based on their investigation. Wilmer made their factual determinations based on the preponderance of the evidence, but their findings are still factual findings, not allegations. Just because there isn't a secret recording of Pearson threatening Mann or protecting Bancroft doesn't mean those findings aren't factual.
Please state the specific facts then. I still haven't seen one person actually do that. A bullet point fact sheet would help everyone. I haven't seen anyone post facts yet.
As for Wilmer, the report isn't a fact, but an opinion. You don't need recordings, but you do need actual facts. Once again, they stated their findings as a fact without presenting clear facts and maybe I missed them in their legalese speak.
I am not for or against firing Pearson. I'm for the facts. I just want to see them presented as what facts they have and how the collaborated said facts.
This whole report seems to be written in a way to say they think something is wrong, but they don't have concrete facts, so they wrote it in a way to hopefully not get sued.
I love how I got downvotes because I want facts and not follow mob mentality. Instead of downvoting for asking for something simple, please provide the facts I've asked for so I can make an informed decision.
Absolutely, provable fact with recording - he lied to the investigators.
Comments