Analysis: Was It Bullying?

In its Nov. 18 suspension letter to the three volleyball coaches and its Dec. 17 ruling upholding the suspension decision, the Waitsburg School District charges that Jessie Buehler, Katie Buehler and Tressa Robbins purposely placed an athlete in a position of being harassed, intimidated and bullied by her teammates.

But the statements from team players on which the district's charges were based give a much more complex picture of the controversial team meeting of Nov. 13.

It's much less clear from these statements obtained by the Times under a Freedom of Information Act request, when, how or even if the coaches crossed the line from having a constructive meeting at which one player happened to bear the brunt of the criticism to one that constitutes "bullying, harassment and intimidation" under the district's own policies and under state law.

The Meeting

The team meeting took place on a Wednesday afternoon. Otherwise intended as a regular practice session, the players had their team picture taken. Then, the Varsity team was told to gather in the boys' shower room for a meeting.

During the 15 minutes they waited with assistant coach Katie Buehler, head coach Jessie Buehler had a meeting with one of the players in which Buehler told her she had lost her status as team captain, that she was benched for the next game (senior night) and that she might hear some unflattering criticism in a team meeting scheduled next door - criticism she would "have to take."

The head coach reportedly told the player that "fifty percent of the team has a problem with you" and that "community members are angry with you."

After the head coach and the player entered the room where the other players were assembled, the team was told they would have a chance to tell the benched athlete what bothered them about her behavior and address other concerns they had about the direction of the team.

At this point in the season, things weren't going well for the Cardinals volleyball team. They were 2-6, they communicated poorly on the court and their chances of going to state were shrinking with each loss. In interviews recapping several losing games at the time, Buehler was clearly frustrated with the team's performance.

Assistant coach Katie Buehler launched the meeting more or less apologizing to the benched player for making comments behind her back and proposing that such comments should be made in the open instead, a statement district officials argue was designed to encourage other players to criticize the former team captain as well.

Where the district effectively accuses the Buehlers of intentionally soliciting criticism, the coaches themselves contend they simply wanted to give the girls a chance to express what was already on their minds and try a new approach to a persistent team challenge.

Either way, it's unclear if such criticism adds up to harassment.

The Times interviewed Prescott Athletics Director Jack Smiley and five other coaches from different sports programs in the Touchet Valley about common team practices. They all said that meetings at which athletes are openly criticized by coaches or teammates are not unusual, and one said that often the coaches start out with some of the "confronting" or do most of it.

Only two coaches said they'd never done it, preferring instead to work with the player and his or her family and the athletics directors to improve their attitude or teamwork.

Some coaches said from what they know about the Nov. 13 team meeting, the volleyball coaches meant well but probably let the meeting get out of control and would have been better off reining it in, but they also though the school district's discipline of the women seemed out of proportion and has put other coaches on guard.

"They (district) set a precedent that they don't have the coaches' back," said one coach who preferred not to be named. "When a situation gets too hot, they drop the coach. It made me think about if I want to do this (coaching) in this community. It's a little scary."

Smiley, who disagreed strongly with the Waitsburg School District's suspension, said the women acted on behalf of the team.

"I don't see what they (Buehler sisters) could have done differently in that situation," he said.

"Life is not a bowl of cherries. You have to do what's right for the team."

The "situation" he referred to was the challenge of having a team captain whose actions, attitude and behavior significantly affected the team's morale, according to the coaches and a number of the players.

But Waitsburg Superintendent Dr. Carol Clarke argues the coaches could have used other, more discretionary means to discipline the player. They had just taken away her co-captain status and benched her for the upcoming senior night game. Clarke said that should have been enough. The public dressing down of the player by and in front of her teammates went too far and could not be tolerated by the district.

The Criticism

While some of the players said in their statements that the meeting seemed unfairly targeted toward the single player, others said the meeting was as much about discussing the team's entire collaboration as it was about a single player's counter productivity and that they did not feel egged on by the coaches to make hurtful comments directed at the singled-out player.

"I did not feel (the player) was attacked in any way, shape or form," one of the players wrote about the meeting. "No one ever said 'this meeting is about (the player)' or 'say what you don't like about her.'"

A few other players did suggest in their statements that head coach Katie Buehler tried to limit the comments to the subject of the single player's actions but also indicated the athlete in question had a history of poor teamwork, that her actions on the court as one of four team captains adversely affected the other players' spirits and that they believed the meeting was the only way to improve the team's chances for what remained of the season.

Although the meeting may have been couched as an opportunity to vent frustration about the captain in question and the team in general, none of the witnessing players' statements describe the comments made during the meeting as "demeaning, humiliating and harassing" the way they were portrayed in Clarke's ruling of Dec. 17.

One player wrote that "everyone was respectful to her," while another said that even though the player bore the brunt of the critical remarks, "both positive and negative things were stated about (the player)." Only a few of the players actually made comments to the embattled athlete.

But Clarke said singling out the player for public criticism in and of itself crossed the line.

"We cannot tolerate our students being placed in situations where others are allowed to criticize them," she said.

Don't Quit

Several players said the meeting was designed to overcome the team's obstacles, and the benched player's attitude seemed to be the single biggest issue. As one player put it: "They (coaches) hoped that if (the player) heard what the entire team had to say, she would better understand the problem," as previous one-on-one meetings had not improved her teamwork.

"Sometimes, you have to make tough decisions as a coach," said one local coach who preferred not to be named. "These (critical) meetings happen more often than people think."

Apparently, some of the team members' frustration with the controversial player dated back well before the volleyball season - one said as many as two years.

"(The player) has repeatedly been warned, and I feel this was the only way to finally get through to her how much of a problem her attitude is," one of the players wrote.

Team members said the player would refuse to give her teammates high fives, was usually negative, didn't seem interested in the sport and got down on others for making mistakes while simply smiling while she made one herself.

"Her attitude was becoming a big problem to the team, people were continuously going up to Jessie with complaints," one player wrote.

Another wrote: "People may say that (the player) was attacked, but if it was a real job, (the player) would have been fired by now...but that's not what our team wanted. We wanted to help out a teammate. So it took a little discipline for our meeting to get everyone on track again, and some people just took it too personally."

Yet another teammate said she felt bad for the player but that "most of what was said was true, and the meeting should have happened a week ago."

Several of the 10 players whose statements were released by the district, said no one on the team encouraged the benched player to quit. To the contrary, several said the meeting felt like family members getting together to address what makes their household dysfunctional.

"The meeting was about trying to get things out in the open and then overcoming any obstacles in our way," a player wrote.

Quiet at first, the player defended herself toward the end of the two-hour team meeting but was clearly upset, uncomfortable and some said simply "angrier" than before.

The afternoon ended with a 20-minute practice session. One player said the meeting managed to get everything out in the open, though she said the players weren't sure how to respond to what had just been discussed. Another player said the team played better on Thursday night, possibly as a result of the meeting.

Blindsided

On Thursday, the day after the meeting, high school principal Stephanie Wooderchak received an email from the player's mother, who announced her daughter would no longer be on the WP volleyball team.

"Yesterday, during practice, she (the player) was blindsided by a team meeting which the coaches put together," the mother wrote to Wooderchak. "The coaches basically formed a gang to bully (the player). I consider the coaches' behavior completely unprofessional and potentially psychologically damaging to my daughter."

After Wooderchak, who is both principal and athletics director for Waitsburg, wrote back that she would investigate the incident, the player's mother said her daughter would be adversely affected in other ways.

"Because she was basically forced to quit, she will not letter her senior year and she will not be able to participate in senior night," the woman wrote. "She has missed out on a possible chance of All Conference or an Honorable Mention either of which she deserves."

In her investigation, Wooderchak took statements from the Varsity players. Many of the statements start with a chronology of events summarized by Wooderchak followed by individual remarks from the players first interpreted by Wooderchak then corrected and supplemented by the individual players.

The Test

Regardless of whether the coaches should have resorted to a different form of discipline or left it at the actions they took before the team meeting, as some observers of the incident have suggested, the true "harassment" test lies in the district's own policies, which are closely linked to state law.

Nowhere in its correspondence does the district explain how the coaches' actions constitute bullying, intimidation and harassment under the policies and laws, but officials did say they crossed the line.

"Your actions were intentional," Clarke wrote the coaches in her decision upholding Wooderchak's suspension.

"Indeed, Coach Jessie Buehler told her (the player) privately that you were going to place her in a situation whereby she would have to listen to others tell her things she would not like hearing."

The coaches are further accused of failing to stop and even encouraging the comments the district said were hurtful, though none of the witnessing Varsity players indicated they felt the coaches were out to upset the benched player during the meeting.

The district's anti-bullying, harassment and intimidation policy, which is taken directly from state law, defines the offense as any intentional written, verbal or physical act that either physically harms an individual or damages their property; has the effect of substantially interfering with one's education; is so severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening educational environment; or has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school.

Attorney Mike Hubbard, who represents the Buehlers, said legal opinions, which Clarke's ruling amounts to, should link the allegations back to statutes or policies.

No physical harm was inflicted upon the student or her property, the meeting didn't interfere with her education, it wasn't persistent or pervasive since the coaches only had the one meeting, and it didn't threaten the educational environment, he said.

"There was no evidence that fits into the statutory factors," Hubbard said.

In a separate interview, Clarke explained that singling out a player in and of itself amounted to harassment and that allowing more than one comment to be aimed at her made it persistent and pervasive.

But exactly how the team meeting differed from other humiliating or ego-bruising situations in which coaches often put their players is still unclear.

Post-game team meetings often include a critical review of individual players seen making mistakes in game footage on video.

One of the coaches interviewed by the Times asked rhetorically how often a football coach can be seen hollering at one of his players from the sideline in front of his teammates and in full view (and sometimes in earshot of the spectators). Is it humiliating, he asked. Of course, he said. But is it harassment?