We acknowledge that student-athletes with trauma histories may experience certain coaching techniques differently. This is precisely the kind of nuanced issue that underscores why education and training are essential components of this policy.

The policy recognizes that coaching practices must be evaluated not only by intent but also by impact. Specifically, the definition of abusive coaching practices includes, “conduct that a reasonable person would find psychologically abusive.” This standard requires consideration of whether coaching techniques create harmful effects, even when the coach’s intent may be motivational.

Section 4(H) (“Procedures”) already includes a mandatory training provision: “SLCC will provide training to all athletic department staff, including coaches, volunteers, and administrators on recognizing, preventing, and reporting abusive coaching practices.”

While trauma-informed care principles are essential, we believe they are better addressed through robust training and implementation rather than codified in the policy language itself. Here’s why:

• Flexibility in approach – Training can be updated as best practices evolve, while policy language is more static and formal.
• Practical application – Training allows for scenario-based learning, role-playing, and discussion of real situations coaches face, which policy text cannot provide.
• Avoiding unintended consequences – Overly prescriptive policy language about coaching techniques could inadvertently limit coaches’ ability to adapt to individual athletes or could create legal ambiguities about what constitutes appropriate versus inappropriate motivation.

We will look at the possibility of convening a working group that includes Athletics Department staff, CHC clinicians, student-athletes, and representatives from PWC to develop a baseline trauma-informed training program for our coaches. This would ensure the policy’s training requirement is implemented in a way that directly addresses the concerns being raised.

I’d like to explain why we believe the current language is appropriately calibrated and why broadening the definition as suggested could be problematic. Coaching inherently involves elements of pressure and persuasion. Effective coaches challenge athletes to exceed perceived limitations, push through discomfort during training, and make sacrifices for team goals. A coach might pressure an athlete to attend early morning practices, persuade them to change their technique despite initial resistance, or strongly encourage dietary changes to improve performance. These actions, while involving pressure, are fundamental to athletic development and fall well within industry-appropriate coaching practices.

The policy’s current language, “Using one’s position of authority or trust to pressure, manipulate, or coerce a student athlete into engaging in behavior that is inappropriate, unethical, or in violation of SLCC policy” contains critical limiting factors:

• The behavior itself must be problematic – The pressure, manipulation, or coercion must be directed toward something that is already inappropriate, unethical, or policy-violating. This creates a clear boundary: coaching pressure toward legitimate athletic goals remains acceptable, while pressure toward harmful ends becomes abusive.
• It recognizes the power dynamic – The phrase “using one’s position of authority or trust” acknowledges that the concern is abuse of power, not merely the existence of influence itself.

If we are to adopt language stating that any pressure, manipulation, or coercion is abusive regardless of purpose, we will create several issues:

• Normal coaching becomes potentially actionable – A coach who pressures a student-athlete to stay late for extra practice, convinces a reluctant player to compete despite nervousness, or firmly directs a team member to follow a training regimen could face complaints under an overly broad standard.
• We eliminate coaching discretion – Coaches must sometimes make unpopular decisions that student-athletes may perceive as coercive, such as enforcing playing time decisions, requiring certain practice attendance, or setting performance standards for scholarship retention.
• The term “coerce” lacks clear boundaries – What one athlete experiences as motivation, another might perceive as coercion. Without tying coercion to objectively inappropriate outcomes, the policy becomes too subjective to administer fairly.

The policy aims to prohibit coaches from leveraging their authority to push SLCC’s student-athletes toward harmful, unethical, or policy-violating behavior, such as pressuring student-athletes to hide injuries, engage in hazing, tolerate harassment, or violate academic integrity. It doesn’t prohibit the legitimate use of coaching authority to demand athletic excellence, discipline, and commitment.

We believe this language strikes the appropriate balance between protecting student-athletes from genuine abuse while preserving the essential elements of effective coaching. The policy also includes other provisions that address harmful physical contact, psychological abuse, and harassment that would capture truly abusive coaching behavior even when not directed toward a specific policy violation.

I wonder if this is really what is meant. “pressure, manipulate, or coerce a student athlete into engaging in behavior that is inappropriate, unethical, or in violation of SLCC policy.” I think that any kind of invitation to participate in “behavior that is inappropriate, unethical, or in violation of SLCC policy,” whether coercive or not is abusive for a coach. But also “pressure, manipulate, or coerce a student athlete” into *anything* is also inappropriate. An athlete should never feel coerced, pressured, or manipulated, period.

We’ve seen athletes at the CHC in the past who, due to abusive childhoods, have had a rough time reacting to some coaching techniques designed to motivate them, but given their histories, were experienced as similar to their abusive past. Wondering if any education around “trauma informed” care or coaching would be advisable in this policy? Or something for department to think about…

Oops. Sorry for the triple post. It was not posting right away, so I kept trying again!