Anyone read McCallie's new book "Secret Warrior"?

[throatybeard]

I'll buy it, but that doesn't guarantee I read it. There's a stack so large it would send Marie Kondo screaming unto the hills.

[dudog84]

CC1974, thanks for the Twitter tweets (I don’t typically look for them.)

If I remember correctly, Elizabeth, Kendall and Ka’lia played before the. Internal investigation, and Faith after. Their comments seem to reflect that Coach P was
“better” after the investigation (although wasn’t Ka’lia on staff last year?)

Does this match your memories/information.

Mixed bag. Some quick research (don't ask me why I like research):

The investigation started in April 2016.

Elizabeth and Ka'lia were 2012-15. Kendall was 2014-17. Faith was 2016-19. So the investigation was after Kendall's junior year and Faith's freshman year, and I believe Elizabeth instigated it.

And you must have Ka'lia Johnson confused with Keturah Jackson (who incidentally played under G and P).

[CDu]

100% true, but they also aren't a get out of jail free card for bad behavior. You can simultaneously deserve compassion for your illness and criticism/condemnation for your bad actions (and it isn't necessarily true that the two are even linked, you can be mentally ill and a jerk independantly).

I also agree with this, which more accurately describes the intent of my earlier post.

I don't disagree that one can be a jerk separate from mental illness. However, it's virtually impossible to disentangle from afar someone's personality/character from their mental illness. And as such I think more leeway is warranted for the persons involved. You wouldn't, for example, condemn a PTSD victim from hurting someone during an episode of PTSD would you? Obviously they aren't the exact same thing, but I use it as an extreme example of the challenge of disentangling what is and what isn't understandable given the mental health issue.

I absolutely view the players as victims. As I said, it's an incredibly unfortunate situation, and I feel awful for the players that suffered abuse. They are certainly justified in not feeling kumbaya about the situation. It would take an incredible amount of resolve to do so, more than one should expect of anyone. But for the rest of us, we have a little more flexibility in terms of our emotional response.

I just don't necessarily agree that condemnation is the appropriate response to McCallie's actions if they were driven by her illness. It's certainly possible that the bipolar disorder isn't the cause. But I don't think we can know for sure if it is or isn't. And because of that, I don't think it's appropriate to condemn her for her actions. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; we can lament the suffering of the players and ache for them without having to condemn someone. If anything, I choose to condemn the disease rather than the person as the cause of the actions in this case. In the absence of a LOT more information, I think that's the appropriate response.

Full disclosure: I say this as someone who has suffered from clinical depression. It didn't result in me being abusive to others (fortunately for me that's not the typical outcome with depression), but it did affect my work and my relationships before I figured it out and got treatment. I'm fortunate that I've found a treatment regimen that has worked and I've managed to avoid more episodes for a long time now. Looking back, it seems obvious, and had I not been suffering from a disease I would have found it obvious too. But in the moment, the disease gets in the way of your ability to process the obvious.

[uh_no]

I don't disagree that one can be a jerk separate from mental illness. However, it's virtually impossible to disentangle from afar someone's personality/character from their mental illness. And as such I think more leeway is warranted for the persons involved. You wouldn't, for example, condemn a PTSD victim from hurting someone during an episode of PTSD would you? Obviously they aren't the exact same thing, but I use it as an extreme example of the challenge of disentangling what is and what isn't understandable given the mental health issue.

I absolutely view the players as victims. As I said, it's an incredibly unfortunate situation, and I feel awful for the players that suffered abuse. They are certainly justified in not feeling kumbaya about the situation. It would take an incredible amount of resolve to do so, more than one should expect of anyone. But for the rest of us, we have a little more flexibility in terms of our emotional response.

I just don't necessarily agree that condemnation is the appropriate response to McCallie's actions if they were driven by her illness. It's certainly possible that the bipolar disorder isn't the cause. But I don't think we can know for sure if it is or isn't. And because of that, I don't think it's appropriate to condemn her for her actions. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; we can lament the suffering of the players and ache for them without having to condemn someone. If anything, I choose to condemn the disease rather than the person as the cause of the actions in this case. In the absence of a LOT more information, I think that's the appropriate response.

Full disclosure: I say this as someone who has suffered from clinical depression. It didn't result in me being abusive to others (fortunately for me that's not the typical outcome with depression), but it did affect my work and my relationships before I figured it out and got treatment. I'm fortunate that I've found a treatment regimen that has worked and I've managed to avoid more episodes for a long time now. Looking back, it seems obvious, and had I not been suffering from a disease I would have found it obvious too. But in the moment, the disease gets in the way of your ability to process the obvious.

I have great respect for people who deal with mental illness and people who interact with people who have mental illness.

In this case, the outcomes were what they were. Taking things in the most positive light, maybe her illness caused her to be abusive, vengeful in interviews with the chronicle, and to lie about being misquoted. Maybe those things ARE symptoms of bipolar disorder. But even if that is the case, they are still not acceptable outcomes for a coach and representative of Duke University, and if they cannot be controlled, I don't think the person would be qualified for the position.

[dudog84]

I don't disagree that one can be a jerk separate from mental illness. However, it's virtually impossible to disentangle from afar someone's personality/character from their mental illness. And as such I think more leeway is warranted for the persons involved. You wouldn't, for example, condemn a PTSD victim from hurting someone during an episode of PTSD would you? Obviously they aren't the exact same thing, but I use it as an extreme example of the challenge of disentangling what is and what isn't understandable given the mental health issue.

I absolutely view the players as victims. As I said, it's an incredibly unfortunate situation, and I feel awful for the players that suffered abuse. They are certainly justified in not feeling kumbaya about the situation. It would take an incredible amount of resolve to do so, more than one should expect of anyone. But for the rest of us, we have a little more flexibility in terms of our emotional response.

I just don't necessarily agree that condemnation is the appropriate response to McCallie's actions if they were driven by her illness. It's certainly possible that the bipolar disorder isn't the cause. But I don't think we can know for sure if it is or isn't. And because of that, I don't think it's appropriate to condemn her for her actions. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; we can lament the suffering of the players and ache for them without having to condemn someone. If anything, I choose to condemn the disease rather than the person as the cause of the actions in this case. In the absence of a LOT more information, I think that's the appropriate response.

Full disclosure: I say this as someone who has suffered from clinical depression. It didn't result in me being abusive to others (fortunately for me that's not the typical outcome with depression), but it did affect my work and my relationships before I figured it out and got treatment. I'm fortunate that I've found a treatment regimen that has worked and I've managed to avoid more episodes for a long time now. Looking back, it seems obvious, and had I not been suffering from a disease I would have found it obvious too. But in the moment, the disease gets in the way of your ability to process the obvious.

This is all good.

Question: If Duke knew about her condition, don't you think the situation should have been watched a little more closely to see if the students were being affected? Not to fire her, but to adjust her meds/counseling.

She was taking over a top 5 program and was responsible for a bunch of 18- to 21-year-olds. You can pillory me, but I think she was obligated to inform Duke. Though I understand why she may not have, I still think she should have.

[DU82]

Mixed bag. Some quick research (don't ask me why I like research):

The investigation started in April 2016.

Elizabeth and Ka'lia were 2012-15. Kendall was 2014-17. Faith was 2016-19. So the investigation was after Kendall's junior year and Faith's freshman year, and I believe Elizabeth instigated it.

And you must have Ka'lia Johnson confused with Keturah Jackson (who incidentally played under G and P).

Thanks for checking; I didn’t have time earlier. And yes, I had one KJ in my mind instead of the other.

[CDu]

I have great respect for people who deal with mental illness and people who interact with people who have mental illness.

In this case, the outcomes were what they were. Taking things in the most positive light, maybe her illness caused her to be abusive, vengeful in interviews with the chronicle, and to lie about being misquoted. Maybe those things ARE symptoms of bipolar disorder. But even if that is the case, they are still not acceptable outcomes for a coach and representative of Duke University, and if they cannot be controlled, I don't think the person would be qualified for the position.

I completely agree that the outcomes themselves aren't acceptable. And that's perhaps why she was probably pressured to resign - because whether it was the illness or not, her ability to do her job effectively made it impossible to allow her to continue at that role, and it was best for both parties to part ways rather than find an alternative position at Duke.

But that doesn't seem to be the general tenor of folks here, which is why I posted it. There seems to be a sense from many that condemnation of her is an appropriate response. And I simply don't think it's that simple.

Condemnation for the outcomes, absolutely. Abuse is terrible. Condemnation of the individual given that said individual has a mental illness is not appropriate in my view.

This is all good.

Question: If Duke knew about her condition, don't you think the situation should have been watched a little more closely to see if the students were being affected? Not to fire her, but to adjust her meds/counseling.

If Duke knew, they probably would have done more, yes. However...

She was taking over a top 5 program and was responsible for a bunch of 18- to 21-year-olds. You can pillory me, but I think she was obligated to inform Duke. Though I understand why she may not have, I still think she should have.

I am not going to pillory you, but the law disagrees with you here. McCallie has no obligation to inform her employer of her health issues. Individual privacy is a big deal. Conversely, Duke has no obligation to continue to employ her if she is unable to do her job... UNLESS she discloses her illness to them. Then, she is afforded some degree of protection in the form of a job, albeit not necessarily her current job.

[Phredd3]

I am not going to pillory you, but the law disagrees with you here. McCallie has no obligation to inform her employer of her health issues.

You are correct that McCallie had no legal obligation to disclose. I believe the point of the statement was that not all obligations are legal obligations.

[Acymetric]

I completely agree that the outcomes themselves aren't acceptable. And that's perhaps why she was probably pressured to resign - because whether it was the illness or not, her ability to do her job effectively made it impossible to allow her to continue at that role, and it was best for both parties to part ways rather than find an alternative position at Duke.

But that doesn't seem to be the general tenor of folks here, which is why I posted it. There seems to be a sense from many that condemnation of her is an appropriate response. And I simply don't think it's that simple.

Condemnation for the outcomes, absolutely. Abuse is terrible. Condemnation of the individual given that said individual has a mental illness is not appropriate in my view.

I just don't necessarily agree that condemnation is the appropriate response to McCallie's actions if they were driven by her illness. It's certainly possible that the bipolar disorder isn't the cause. But I don't think we can know for sure if it is or isn't. And because of that, I don't think it's appropriate to condemn her for her actions. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; we can lament the suffering of the players and ache for them without having to condemn someone. If anything, I choose to condemn the disease rather than the person as the cause of the actions in this case. In the absence of a LOT more information, I think that's the appropriate response.

So, I think I was the first one to use the word "condemnation", and that wasn't the right word although I can't quite figure out what word I want to use, but I maintain that mental illness does not absolve you of personal responsibility (I also have some first hand experience in this area, lest you feel I'm arguing from ignorance). Your arguments here would at least be stronger if she was undiagnosed while at Duke. Once you are aware of your behavior, you are personally responsible for either controlling that behavior (things like therapy, medication, or having people around you that you can trust to reign you in if you start going off the rails, etc.) or by not putting yourself in that position (if you compulsively abuse the people under your authority as a result of a mental illness and find you are unable to reliably control it, your next responsibility is to not put yourself in those situations). If my eyesight is so bad that I can't safely drive without glasses but I do it anyway and end up hitting someone, I don't get to blame the vision impairment. Or consider things like alcoholics going to bars or gambling addicts going to casinos.

TLDR: I was wrong to use the word condemnation, but strongly disagree that having a diagnosed mental illness absolves you from responsibility for your actions.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

TLDR: I was wrong to use the word condemnation, but strongly disagree that having a diagnosed mental illness absolves you from responsibility for your actions.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

[dudog84]

I am not going to pillory you, but the law disagrees with you here. McCallie has no obligation to inform her employer of her health issues. Individual privacy is a big deal. Conversely, Duke has no obligation to continue to employ her if she is unable to do her job... UNLESS she discloses her illness to them. Then, she is afforded some degree of protection in the form of a job, albeit not necessarily her current job.

The law often disagrees with me (unfortunately)...and I'm not one to pass up the chance at a Clash video (fortunately).

[Acymetric]

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

It is definitely possible that I misinterpreted, but it certainly seemed like people were coming close to that at least. Anyways, I don't want to beat a dead horse, I've staked out my position on the issue, and it isn't exactly a discussion I'm enjoying so I'll go ahead and bow out.