The Truth Becomes Clearer
Revelations from John U. Bacon and Katie Strang make plain something that has seemed true for months now: Mel Pearson should no longer serve in the privileged position of head hockey coach at Michigan
Just after noon on Friday, primary spokesman of the cult of Michigan Men John U. Bacon dropped a tweet that returned the contract status of Michigan’s kind-of hockey coach Mel Pearson to the forefront.
I say “kind-of” hockey coach because Pearson has not had a contract for the job he is doing since April 30th, when his previous one expired. He still worked Michigan’s summer youth hockey camp. He’s tweeted his congratulations at various Michigan hockey alumni’s triumphs from Jack Johnson, JT Compher, and Andrew Cogliano winning the Stanley Cup to John Madden’s hiring as a new assistant coach for the Arizona Coyotes.
Most of Pearson’s comments on the situation have taken the form of banal denials, adamant that the choice was out of his hands and that further information would clear his name. If this is true, the University of Michigan has done Pearson no favors from behind the wall of secrecy where it conducted (and apparently completed months ago) its investigation into allegations of misconduct within the hockey program—ranging from skirting COVID regulations to a toxic work environment for women working in and around the program.
The one insight we have gotten from Pearson came in an interview with The Michigan Insider’s Alejandro Zuniga, where the embattled coach revealed that both he and the university have known the results of the investigation since May.
From this revelation, the question begged: What the hell are we doing here?
Bacon’s tweet suggests that the report—carried out by law firm WilmerHale—has been leaked to various media outlets (in a cruel and tragic twist of fate, Gulo Gulo Hockey was not among them). At the time, Bacon himself did not have the report.
Between Pearson’s assertion that the investigation was over in May and Bacon’s news about leaks, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the University of Michigan wanted to see whether it might get away with retaining Pearson by gauging initial reactions to the leaked report.
Let’s return to Pearson’s words to the Michigan Daily at the time news of the investigation emerged: “I'm disappointed, obviously, in what's being said. And the truth will come true at the end of the investigation, and I feel very confident that the allegations will be proved wrong.”
As it turns out, more clarity on the accusations only made Pearson’s quasi-retention less justifiable. This morning (August 2nd), a thread from Bacon, now in possession of the WilmerHale report, unequivocally revealed several incidences of serious misconduct on Pearson’s behalf.
First, Bacon reveals that former director of hockey operations Rick Bancroft bullied and harassed three different women within the program: secretary Lora Durkee, nutritionist Caroline Mandel, and communications director Kristy McNeil.
This behavior, even without any expounding details, is unacceptable and gross. Bancroft retired from the program in June, and we seem unlikely to know if he would have made the same choice in a world where this report did not exist. To a cynic, this choice opened the door to Michigan foisting blame onto the retiree in an attempt to justify keeping Pearson in his role.
Whether Pearson knew about this behavior is almost academic. Its (repeated) presence within his program is his responsibility. If he knew Bancroft was engaging in this behavior and tolerated it, that is unacceptable. If he didn’t know about something of that magnitude going on in his program, that is again cause for major concern.
Then, Bacon reports an incident of retaliation against the first and only goaltender to ever captain Michigan hockey: Strauss Mann. Apparently, Mann raised concerns to Pearson about team culture. Pearson’s response was so negative that Mann forewent his senior year at Michigan to play in Sweden, fearing that his former head coach would stonewall his hockey career by besmirching him to NHL teams who inquired.
Pearson’s handling of Bancroft’s harassment campaign is reprehensible in a way that fits closely alongside the allegations against Hockey Canada, which have spiraled out from an incident involving the 2018 World Junior team (content warning: sexual assault).
The allegations against Bancroft are not as severe as those against Hockey Canada and that team, but the theme of extreme hostility toward women in the world of hockey is not a new one.
Strauss Mann’s story does not fit this pattern. The hockey culture we have grown to revile is one of protecting your own at the expense of the well-being of anyone outside the team bubble. The incident with Mann inverts that narrative in service of a similar purpose: an oppositional voice within the team is silenced and dispensed with.
There is no sense in trying to rank the severity of the various allegations against Pearson, but each of these first two stories illustrate discrete and profound problems within Pearson’s program.
As if that weren’t enough, Bacon also reports that WilmerHale found multiple examples of deceit from Pearson, including the denial of the existence of a conversation until the presence of a tape recording rendered that position untenable.
On its own, this allegation feels minor compared to the incidents involving Bancroft and Mann, but it also offers the most obvious cause for Pearson to be let go. In discussing the allegations, Pearson insisted that with time the truth would exonerate him. His actions do not suggest that to be the case.
When we first wrote about the allegations against Pearson, we suggested that he was unfit to lead the program while an investigation was ongoing. Most people seemed to agree, but a few readers responded by using phrases like “innocent until proven guilty.”
What we feel we must emphasize here is that “innocent until proven guilty” is an irrelevant lens through which to understand Pearson’s status. He is not being charged with a crime; the University is attempting to determine whether he is responsible enough to handle a position of profound privilege—head hockey coach at the University of Michigan.
We appreciate that some readers will walk away from the WilmerHale investigation insisting that Pearson has been framed or that he deserves a second chance.
We at Gulo Gulo are all for second chances and empathy, but again we must insist that the question up for discussion is whether Mel Pearson is fit to remain Michigan’s hockey coach. We don’t believe Pearson deserves to live the rest of his life shrouded in darkness, but we do believe that he has shown himself to be insufficiently responsible—in his dealings with his players and his staff—to merit that privileged post.
In reporting for The Athletic, Katie Strang offers a number of other details on Pearson’s program. These revelations include an alleged anti-Semitic comment directed at a player based on his inquiries about scholarship money and WilmerHale’s description of Pearson’s “inability or unwillingness to hold Bancroft accountable for his conduct.”
Strang also revealed that the origins of the investigation lie in the courage of former director of player development Steve Shields. Shields tended goal for Michigan between 1990 and 1994 (when Pearson was an assistant under Red Berenson), then served as goalie coach for Pearson at Michigan Tech between 2011 and 2013. Shields also worked as a volunteer goalie coach at Michigan between 2015 and 2017, before moving to player development.
Strang reports that it was Shields who came forward (in September 2021, to Michigan’s Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX Office) and set this investigation into motion. We commend Shields for showing the courage and moral fortitude to stand up and address the disturbing realities of a program governed by someone he had worked alongside for over twenty years.
So, with all of that said, what’s next?
The obvious first step is letting go of Pearson, one which already appears months overdue. That this process has been so prolonged and devoid of clarity (due to conscious decisions made by the University) makes it difficult to feel any relief at resolution. That problem is compounded by the fact that there remains no official dismissal and hiring of a new coach.
Michigan could have authored a swift resolution to this process by acknowledging the issues underlying Pearson’s program, formally dismissing him (or whatever the equivalent of that is for a coach who doesn’t actually have a contract anymore), and moving on to a coaching search. It would not have been a pleasant procedure, but it could have at least offered some relief in its finality.
Instead, Michigan fans are now left once again to ask serious questions about the athletic department they ostensibly support. Based on the reporting of Bacon and Strang, there should have been no semblance of continued contract negotiations with Pearson, nor should he have been allowed to continue serving in his function as head coach, whether on Twitter or at a Michigan hockey camp. That conclusion should have arrived within days if not hours of the report’s release, which Bacon dates to May 5th.
While there may be legal issues to wrangle, the correct conclusion leaps off the page, based on what we’ve seen from Bacon and Strang. Michigan’s administrative feet-dragging leaves serious doubts as to its own fitness for leadership.
College Hockey News’ Adam Wodon speculates about fear of a CAA lawsuit as a possible cause of Michigan’s slow response.
Though we at Gulo Gulo are no legal scholars, we do not find that consideration to assuage our concerns about University leadership.
Meanwhile, this isn’t a story about what happened on the ice under Pearson, but we do feel a certain obligation to touch on what the on-ice future of this program looks like.
Mel Pearson’s on-ice legacy as Michigan’s coach is as an outstanding recruiter. Under his leadership, Michigan ushered unprecedented talent through Yost’s doors. It is also recruiting that offered something of a time crunch to this process, as rising high school juniors’ first day to commit to college programs was yesterday (August 1st).
Even with Pearson leaving though, there is ample reason to believe Michigan will remain a recruiting powerhouse.
First, the school is located in one of the three historic hotbeds of American hockey (the other two being Minnesota and Massachusetts). Second, in addition to being in one of the nation’s most fertile hockey states, the school is a short drive down State Highway 14 from the U.S. National Team Development Program in Plymouth, meaning that the nation’s top talent congregates within spitting distance of the program. Third, Michigan boasts as good of resources and facilities as any team in the country. Fourth, Michigan has the kind of tradition and fan engagement on display every game at Yost that excites prospects about the possibility of playing in Ann Arbor.
None of those recruiting advantages would walk out the door with Mel Pearson.
As for possible replacements, one name that makes a good deal of sense is Brian Wiseman, who abruptly resigned from his post as an assistant for the New York Islanders less than a month after accepting that position. Wiseman played for Michigan between 1990 and 1994, then returned as an assistant coach between 2012 and 2019 after a journeyman’s professional career. His sudden departure from the Island invites Windhorstian speculation about his possible return.
For now though, there is little to do or say, save that we are (hopefully) nearing the conclusion in another ugly chapter in Michigan athletic administration. The immediate steps forward are obvious and overdue. Let’s hope Michigan can take them at last.