Notre Dame stands up and takes responsibility for tragic loss of life

A few weeks ago a young student at the University of Notre Dame died while on his part-time job— filming the school’s football practice.

The young man was filming from a hydraulic lift, which collapsed under extremely high winds.

It was a sad, tragic event for all concerned. The family has been very forgiving of school officials. They have a younger daughter who also attends the school, and a younger son who also dreams of attending Notre Dame.

The school can certainly be criticized for not taking the proper precautions to ensure that this kind of terrible incident never could have happened. They clearly failed in their responsibility.

Often times, a company or organization will stand behind legalities and say nothing, or very little, when such a terrible incident occurs. And certainly they say nothing in terms of responsibility, for fear of legal reprisals.

However, on this occasion, the President of the school, Fr. John Jenkins, said

"Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe. We at Notre Dame and ultimately I, as President are responsible. Words cannot express our sorrow to the Sullivan family and to all involved."

Companies and institutions are often told by lawyers never to take “responsibility”, because it opens legal doors that can be very costly. So it was revealing to see how school officials, perhaps instinctively as opposed to listening to legal “advisors”, responded.

No comment can not bring back a life, or make things right. Yet it was somehow important that the University officials, at the very least, took public responsibility for a grave error.

Communication has become far too easy

Like most organizations and big businesses, the National Hockey League likes to see itself as running a tight ship. Few, if any “slip-ups” is the expectation, when they handle any kind of public relations situation.

When a Vancouver player recently engaged physically with a fan in Minnesota, the league was quick to step in. They suspended the player and apologized to the fan for the behaviour.

The league is always very careful about what it sends out in terms of press releases. When executives representing the NHL are interviewed, for example, they tend to be rather dull and serious, not taking any risks and sticking very closely to their approved script. Image is very important.

Businesses always want to be seen to be doing and saying the “right” things. They go to extreme lengths to protect their credibility and reputation. And that is largely understandable, since losing those attributes can harm a business irreparably.

So it was a bit of a surprise this week to see that Executive Vice-President Colin Campbell finds himself in a mild controversy. The issue stems from some now three-year-old e-mails that he sent. The content of the e-mails seemed to lead some observers to question whether Campbell was as “objective” as he needed to be in his role as the league’s chief operating officer and disciplinarian.

While one can argue whether or not Campbell made a “mistake” by evidently being too flip and personal in some of his comments in a private e-mail about particular players or officials, there is likely a larger lesson for all of us, including those in positions of responsibility—and it’s not quite as simple as “be careful with your e-mails”.

The reality is that modern communication is everywhere around us. We are all part of it. When people with a reputation to care for (and that’s most people) are out in public, cameras are everywhere. You may well find yourself on “You Tube”. People watch and listen to conversations and the next thing you know, something you thought you said in private is posted on the internet.

The days of formal letters as the popular choice for inter-personal communication seem long gone. Most daily business correspondence is now indeed done by e-mail. As a result, the language many individuals utilize has slowly become more and more casual. The attitude around communication has become very relaxed. Fewer people make the time to check to ensure if they may have said something that they would prefer not be made available for public consumption.

Campbell faces scrutiny now because people are calling into question his judgment and impartiality, related to comments he made that he obviously never thought anyone would see, other than fellow NHL executives. While he is no different a person today than he was yesterday, and no more or less competent, e-mails he wrote several years ago, fair or not, are being used now to judge him through a different lens.

While communication has been made “easier” than ever before on the one hand, it has also led to problems that we couldn’t even dream of thirty years ago.

He’s not the first person to face rebuke (some have been fired in the media and business world for less) and surely won’t be the last. But every time this type of situation occurs, it should be a reminder that when we communicate in any fashion, we are almost always “on” and need to keep that in mind before we open our mouths in public places—or hit that ‘send’ button.

Body checking in youth hockey: No right answers?

I must acknowledge that I have been a passionate hockey fan all my life. I love the skill on skates, the vision that good players demonstrate, their ability to think ahead, the artistry and yes, the power that players can exhibit in making moves while making a play or a good, clean hit.
However, like many others, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the state of the game, including at the youth levels.

The issue of “body checking” at the youth levels has been hotly debated now for many years across Canada. Some believe allowing it at the so-called ‘rep levels’ (very competitive) is a good idea, because it gets players to learn how to “take a check”, and makes it safer for them in the long run.

Others suggest that it takes some of the the skill out of the game (because small players may be fearful), causes unnecessary injuries and actually pushes a lot of talented kids into other sports.

It’s a difficult issue.

When I was a kid fifty years ago “hitting” was barely part of the discussion. I learned to play the game on frozen ponds in the dead (cold) of winter in the small town where I lived. The game was fun and it was largely about skating, competing with friends and staying out on the ice until your feet were so frozen you couldn’t bear it any longer.

Things have changed dramatically, of course, and in many ways for the better, I suppose. Organized competitive hockey has pretty much ended that bygone era. That organized aspect brings many good things for kids and families, but it, not surprisingly, has eventually led to a host of other issues.

I read recently where a young Canadian player was injured in an NCAA college game. A big hit that he took caused a broken neck, and it took some time for the young man’s injuries to stabilize in the hospital afterwards. It was a very sad event, and horribly frightening for any hockey parent to contemplate.

I didn’t see the play so I can’t comment on whether it was a “dirty” hit or not. (The offending player was given a major and a misconduct penalty.) But the point, for me, is that we have reached a stage in hockey, even at the pro levels, where hitting has become too pervasive a part of the game. The NHL, all the way down to youth hockey, is trying, they say, to crack down on “head shots”, for example. This follows a similar focus on “hits from behind”.

But the culture of the sport is a concern. The macho sense that a player must be “tough”—and I acknowledge I like a good clean hit at the pro level— seems to be permeating the sport to a worrisome degree.

This is not entirely new, of course. The actions of the “Broad Street Bullies” (the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1970s), set the game back for years. Young players copied their brawling, fighting style.

But in this day and age it’s about not just fighting, but hitting.

That pressure to “hit hard”, from management, coaches and fans alike, combined with the ever-increasing speed in the game, conspires to make a bad cocktail. Throw in the hard, large equipment that players wear and is it any wonder we have concerns about serious injuries— including life-altering concussions—right across the board in the sport of hockey?

The only way this really gets solved is if certain aspects of the sport are somehow de-emphasized, and that would take a major shift in attitude.

And I don’t think that is forthcoming.