‘Playing volleyball here was a nightmare’: Inside the Dartmouth women’s volleyball team’s culture

[Anonymous]

No, recruited sports is its own special category, from a separate admissions process to special housing to extra academic support to NIL etcetcetc. It is treated as uniquely essential. More important than any other extracurricular (let’s leave academic research out of the discussion since research and education are, you know, the reason these schools exist).

It’s the money. Except most sports, like volleyball, don’t make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just more evidence of how hard-core competitive athletics really has nothing to do with college.

I think we need to stop pretending that these sports have a connection to undergraduate education.

The sports that people pay to watch are more obviously misaligned.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, please explain to me why the practice of semi-pro volleyball fits with a liberal arts undergrad education in New Hampshire.

What is the essential connection between these practices that I'm missing?

The modern university started out as theological and clerical training for men. With a splash of med school at some locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball

Volleyball seems to have been intended as basketball lite for YMCAs.

There is no necessary reason why NCAA teams need to exist. It's just "fun" for most and a future career for the top players. Universities do not need to prepare students for careers as pro athletes. That could be handled by non-academic minor leagues.

Sports coaching has a lot of body control, abuse, and scandals associated with it. It's even more shameful at a school where you'd hope for people to be a little smarter than average.

Please explain why these sports are a necessary part of the college experience. Not about the fun of them, the why they simply must be part of the experience. What with transfer portals, they are getting even more unhooked from whatever the original goals were. There was a post on here complaining a few weeks ago about too many European advanced soccer players going to some state college down South where Europeans would otherwise never bother with. That's ridiculous.

DP. The bolded part cuts into your argument. Just because the modern university started one way, it doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something different. Without evolution, the universities would still be doing theological and clerical training for men. Nowadays, the theological and clerical training for men is a minuscule part of the university (and programs are getting cut). I agree with the PP who wrote that universities offer choices: some of these choices may be great for some students and not that great for others. That's part of how they attract students - they will come if they have the choice they want.

PP. My point was just that the university is an ancient intellectual format with roots in religious education. And attaching serious, high-level sports to it is quite a graft. America has grafted more sports onto our higher education than anywhere else in the world and it doesn't fit very well. Drama, mentioned by a PP, actually is also ancient and evolved in part for religious purposes. There seem to be a lot fewer drama club "scandals" at colleges...but perhaps that's just because drama is mainly a cost center. My point about mentioning that the ancient university educated men was just to point out that it's a long way from educating male priests to preparing top quality female volleyball setters.

I'm very tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders who claim noble purposes (such as leadership training) and then exploit and degrade people. And leave them with permanent sports injuries. It also seems that at many schools the athletes have lower measurable academic qualifications (this may not be true at Dartmouth). I have a friend whose daughter is dropping out of D3 softball this year. The 20 hours a week of practice interferes with her schooling and has left her with a shoulder injury that's new since starting college. She is going to transfer colleges now.

From my perspective, it seems time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colleges do not seem to be producing the noble educational effects they claim by offering these sports. College football and basketball should go first, but are money machines that are too entrenched to get rid of.

And you have the right to have your own perspective. But you didn't address the evolution of universities to keep up with the times and to produce revenue. I would agree that a lot of athletes would not make it to good university based on their academic skills alone. Should there be a law baring universities to give degrees to students who are good at sports, but don't have a strong academic background? A lot of the college sport teams would be decimated. Even though athletes may not be among the best academic thinkers, they are contributing to the society in their own way, so they deserve some sort of recognition / degree. And this is where universities step in and give them a chance to pursue this recognition.

PP. I regret that universities use sports to produce revenue. That is a side effect/unintentional outgrowth of our unusual American system. Originally sports like college football were used to build school spirit and then that took off as a way to ensure the interest and loyalty of local politicians. In many states with D1 state flagships, the football coaches are the highest paid state employees. More than the university presidents and more than the governors.

I think college athletics has gotten out of control. That's all. I feel bad for the volleyball players in this particular situation. I would never want to submit my college experience to one person's close inspection and control like that.

I also agree that CEOs should not be paid 100x the compensation of a regular employee. A university president should not be paid more than 10x the salary of a university professor. And definitely a coach should not be paid more than the university president. But that's the results of the "community" we are building and the values we have as a nation. Taking competitive sports out of universities will not change that. The money will simply go somewhere else and universities will simply lose their athletic identities. And athletes would lose the option of getting a degree from a good institution, where most of them would not make it based on academic criteria alone.

But why should athletes who can't make it based on academic criteria alone, go to a school where they are at the bottom of the academic ability distribution? This isn't true of the drama kids, the instrument players, the real or fake non-profit creators. Athletics is one of the areas where kids with lower credentials get onboarded essentially for business reasons. I am not saying this is a Dartmouth issue. I'm just speaking generally.

I rarely hear about admirable scholar athletes like the Indiana quarterback who actually had the drive and academic talent to complete his undergrad degree before moving on to what seems like a potentially sketchier grad school arrangement at Indiana.

I am associated with a school well known and much loved for sports success. And I find the compromise in standards to be offputting and the occasional sports scandals to be enraging. They seem to be part and parcel of big money sports.

As a grad student (and TA) I had athlete students in my section who barely made it out with a passing grade. The constant practice and travel makes it almost impossible to keep up with the academics. Not that they were extremely interested in academics except to pass. I don't know how they were doing in other courses, but sciences were not their strong suit. But I can say the same for many other students who were not athletes. Some were doing better than others. They would pass as long as they were doing enough to pass. I was not there to criticize their life choices or whether they were playing sports.

[Anonymous]

The coach's name is Kevin Maureen Campbell, so I asked ChatGPT:
can kevin be a name for a female?

“Kevin” is traditionally a male given name, derived from the Irish name Saint Kevin (from Caoimhín).

That said, names don’t have strict rules—a woman can be named Kevin, but it would be quite unusual in English-speaking countries. More commonly, feminine forms or similar-sounding names are used, such as:

Kevina (rare)
Keva (uncommon but used)
Kendra or Kaitlyn (not directly related, but sometimes chosen for a similar feel)

So: possible, but uncommon.

[Anonymous]

There are likely many more stories like this that have not been made public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just more evidence of how hard-core competitive athletics really has nothing to do with college.

I think we need to stop pretending that these sports have a connection to undergraduate education.

The sports that people pay to watch are more obviously misaligned.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, please explain to me why the practice of semi-pro volleyball fits with a liberal arts undergrad education in New Hampshire.

What is the essential connection between these practices that I'm missing?

The modern university started out as theological and clerical training for men. With a splash of med school at some locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball

Volleyball seems to have been intended as basketball lite for YMCAs.

There is no necessary reason why NCAA teams need to exist. It's just "fun" for most and a future career for the top players. Universities do not need to prepare students for careers as pro athletes. That could be handled by non-academic minor leagues.

Sports coaching has a lot of body control, abuse, and scandals associated with it. It's even more shameful at a school where you'd hope for people to be a little smarter than average.

Please explain why these sports are a necessary part of the college experience. Not about the fun of them, the why they simply must be part of the experience. What with transfer portals, they are getting even more unhooked from whatever the original goals were. There was a post on here complaining a few weeks ago about too many European advanced soccer players going to some state college down South where Europeans would otherwise never bother with. That's ridiculous.

DP. The bolded part cuts into your argument. Just because the modern university started one way, it doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something different. Without evolution, the universities would still be doing theological and clerical training for men. Nowadays, the theological and clerical training for men is a minuscule part of the university (and programs are getting cut). I agree with the PP who wrote that universities offer choices: some of these choices may be great for some students and not that great for others. That's part of how they attract students - they will come if they have the choice they want.

PP. My point was just that the university is an ancient intellectual format with roots in religious education. And attaching serious, high-level sports to it is quite a graft. America has grafted more sports onto our higher education than anywhere else in the world and it doesn't fit very well. Drama, mentioned by a PP, actually is also ancient and evolved in part for religious purposes. There seem to be a lot fewer drama club "scandals" at colleges...but perhaps that's just because drama is mainly a cost center. My point about mentioning that the ancient university educated men was just to point out that it's a long way from educating male priests to preparing top quality female volleyball setters.

I'm very tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders who claim noble purposes (such as leadership training) and then exploit and degrade people. And leave them with permanent sports injuries. It also seems that at many schools the athletes have lower measurable academic qualifications (this may not be true at Dartmouth). I have a friend whose daughter is dropping out of D3 softball this year. The 20 hours a week of practice interferes with her schooling and has left her with a shoulder injury that's new since starting college. She is going to transfer colleges now.

From my perspective, it seems time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colleges do not seem to be producing the noble educational effects they claim by offering these sports. College football and basketball should go first, but are money machines that are too entrenched to get rid of.

The “long way from training male priests to female volleyball setters” line is not the profound point you think it is. It just restates that universities evolved. They also moved from excluding women entirely to educating them, from theology to modern science, from classical languages to engineering and public policy. For some reason, all of that evolution is acceptable, but women competing at a high level in sports is where you draw the line. That reads less like a historical argument and more like selective discomfort.

The “I’m tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders” point also falls apart once you apply it beyond athletics. Those same dynamics show up anywhere there is hierarchy and pressure. Theater programs have had recent repeated harassment and misconduct cases at places like University of Oklahoma, Indiana University, University of Michigan, University of Central Oklahoma, Central Connecticut State University, Salve Regina University, Mesa Community College, and Columbus State University. Research labs and graduate studies programs have long-standing issues with abusive advisors. Music and dance programs produce real, sometimes permanent injuries. ROTC does as well. Universities do not respond by eliminating these areas. They impose oversight and hold people accountable.

Then there is the suggestion to “start with football and basketball.” At many schools, those programs help fund large parts of the broader university ecosystem, including non-revenue academics and arts. So the proposed fix for problems in one volleyball program is to remove revenue streams that support everything from niche departments to student services. That is not a targeted solution.

What you’re really arguing is not about structure, it’s about personal preference. You don’t value athletics, so you’re comfortable treating it as disposable. But once you apply your own logic consistently across campus, it takes down far more than sports. That’s why no serious institution operates the way you’re suggesting.

+1 To put it more succinctly, but less eloquently, this poster sounds like someone who doesn’t like sports and resents their presence on college campuses when the vast majority of students and alumni love their college sports teams and that component of their educational experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just more evidence of how hard-core competitive athletics really has nothing to do with college.

I think we need to stop pretending that these sports have a connection to undergraduate education.

The sports that people pay to watch are more obviously misaligned.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, please explain to me why the practice of semi-pro volleyball fits with a liberal arts undergrad education in New Hampshire.

What is the essential connection between these practices that I'm missing?

The modern university started out as theological and clerical training for men. With a splash of med school at some locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball

Volleyball seems to have been intended as basketball lite for YMCAs.

There is no necessary reason why NCAA teams need to exist. It's just "fun" for most and a future career for the top players. Universities do not need to prepare students for careers as pro athletes. That could be handled by non-academic minor leagues.

Sports coaching has a lot of body control, abuse, and scandals associated with it. It's even more shameful at a school where you'd hope for people to be a little smarter than average.

Please explain why these sports are a necessary part of the college experience. Not about the fun of them, the why they simply must be part of the experience. What with transfer portals, they are getting even more unhooked from whatever the original goals were. There was a post on here complaining a few weeks ago about too many European advanced soccer players going to some state college down South where Europeans would otherwise never bother with. That's ridiculous.

DP. The bolded part cuts into your argument. Just because the modern university started one way, it doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something different. Without evolution, the universities would still be doing theological and clerical training for men. Nowadays, the theological and clerical training for men is a minuscule part of the university (and programs are getting cut). I agree with the PP who wrote that universities offer choices: some of these choices may be great for some students and not that great for others. That's part of how they attract students - they will come if they have the choice they want.

PP. My point was just that the university is an ancient intellectual format with roots in religious education. And attaching serious, high-level sports to it is quite a graft. America has grafted more sports onto our higher education than anywhere else in the world and it doesn't fit very well. Drama, mentioned by a PP, actually is also ancient and evolved in part for religious purposes. There seem to be a lot fewer drama club "scandals" at colleges...but perhaps that's just because drama is mainly a cost center. My point about mentioning that the ancient university educated men was just to point out that it's a long way from educating male priests to preparing top quality female volleyball setters.

I'm very tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders who claim noble purposes (such as leadership training) and then exploit and degrade people. And leave them with permanent sports injuries. It also seems that at many schools the athletes have lower measurable academic qualifications (this may not be true at Dartmouth). I have a friend whose daughter is dropping out of D3 softball this year. The 20 hours a week of practice interferes with her schooling and has left her with a shoulder injury that's new since starting college. She is going to transfer colleges now.

From my perspective, it seems time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colleges do not seem to be producing the noble educational effects they claim by offering these sports. College football and basketball should go first, but are money machines that are too entrenched to get rid of.

The “long way from training male priests to female volleyball setters” line is not the profound point you think it is. It just restates that universities evolved. They also moved from excluding women entirely to educating them, from theology to modern science, from classical languages to engineering and public policy. For some reason, all of that evolution is acceptable, but women competing at a high level in sports is where you draw the line. That reads less like a historical argument and more like selective discomfort.

The “I’m tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders” point also falls apart once you apply it beyond athletics. Those same dynamics show up anywhere there is hierarchy and pressure. Theater programs have had recent repeated harassment and misconduct cases at places like University of Oklahoma, Indiana University, University of Michigan, University of Central Oklahoma, Central Connecticut State University, Salve Regina University, Mesa Community College, and Columbus State University. Research labs and graduate studies programs have long-standing issues with abusive advisors. Music and dance programs produce real, sometimes permanent injuries. ROTC does as well. Universities do not respond by eliminating these areas. They impose oversight and hold people accountable.

Then there is the suggestion to “start with football and basketball.” At many schools, those programs help fund large parts of the broader university ecosystem, including non-revenue academics and arts. So the proposed fix for problems in one volleyball program is to remove revenue streams that support everything from niche departments to student services. That is not a targeted solution.

What you’re really arguing is not about structure, it’s about personal preference. You don’t value athletics, so you’re comfortable treating it as disposable. But once you apply your own logic consistently across campus, it takes down far more than sports. That’s why no serious institution operates the way you’re suggesting.

+1 To put it more succinctly, but less eloquently, this poster sounds like someone who doesn’t like sports and resents their presence on college campuses when the vast majority of students and alumni love their college sports teams and that component of their educational experience.

I agree this is less eloquently put and it sounds more like a personal attack. The original post focused on why the ideas don't make sense rather than attacking the poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just more evidence of how hard-core competitive athletics really has nothing to do with college.

I think we need to stop pretending that these sports have a connection to undergraduate education.

The sports that people pay to watch are more obviously misaligned.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, please explain to me why the practice of semi-pro volleyball fits with a liberal arts undergrad education in New Hampshire.

What is the essential connection between these practices that I'm missing?

The modern university started out as theological and clerical training for men. With a splash of med school at some locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball

Volleyball seems to have been intended as basketball lite for YMCAs.

There is no necessary reason why NCAA teams need to exist. It's just "fun" for most and a future career for the top players. Universities do not need to prepare students for careers as pro athletes. That could be handled by non-academic minor leagues.

Sports coaching has a lot of body control, abuse, and scandals associated with it. It's even more shameful at a school where you'd hope for people to be a little smarter than average.

Please explain why these sports are a necessary part of the college experience. Not about the fun of them, the why they simply must be part of the experience. What with transfer portals, they are getting even more unhooked from whatever the original goals were. There was a post on here complaining a few weeks ago about too many European advanced soccer players going to some state college down South where Europeans would otherwise never bother with. That's ridiculous.

DP. The bolded part cuts into your argument. Just because the modern university started one way, it doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something different. Without evolution, the universities would still be doing theological and clerical training for men. Nowadays, the theological and clerical training for men is a minuscule part of the university (and programs are getting cut). I agree with the PP who wrote that universities offer choices: some of these choices may be great for some students and not that great for others. That's part of how they attract students - they will come if they have the choice they want.

PP. My point was just that the university is an ancient intellectual format with roots in religious education. And attaching serious, high-level sports to it is quite a graft. America has grafted more sports onto our higher education than anywhere else in the world and it doesn't fit very well. Drama, mentioned by a PP, actually is also ancient and evolved in part for religious purposes. There seem to be a lot fewer drama club "scandals" at colleges...but perhaps that's just because drama is mainly a cost center. My point about mentioning that the ancient university educated men was just to point out that it's a long way from educating male priests to preparing top quality female volleyball setters.

I'm very tired of pastimes that attract scandalous leaders who claim noble purposes (such as leadership training) and then exploit and degrade people. And leave them with permanent sports injuries. It also seems that at many schools the athletes have lower measurable academic qualifications (this may not be true at Dartmouth). I have a friend whose daughter is dropping out of D3 softball this year. The 20 hours a week of practice interferes with her schooling and has left her with a shoulder injury that's new since starting college. She is going to transfer colleges now.

From my perspective, it seems time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colleges do not seem to be producing the noble educational effects they claim by offering these sports. College football and basketball should go first, but are money machines that are too entrenched to get rid of.

Agree with this. College age students playing, especially those playing small, non revenue sports like volleyball, should be dropped back to club level.

Get a dorm floor team together if you want to play in college.

"Small, non-revenue sports like volleyball" - women's volleyball is the fastest growing sport in the country. Here you are participating in a thread in a dedicated forum about it.

[Anonymous]

Volleyball doesn’t make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball doesn’t make money.

Tell that to Nebraska and Kentucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball doesn’t make money.

Tell that to Nebraska and Kentucky.

I think even UMD made money from volleyball when Nebraska and Penn came to town. The UMD team may become better and better if they can stick long enough in this competitive environment.

[Anonymous]

"""
Fitzgerald said that she believes her and Mattox’s dismissals come from their leadership roles on the team. She said she only took on an “advocate” role in conversations with Campbell during her last term on the team.

“I think the evidence lies in the change in behavior and attitude that I felt from Kevin towards me,” she said.

Mattox said that she had been vocal on the team since her freshman year.

Campbell “has brought up instances where she says I’m not committed to the team, and her examples are religious commitments,” missing practice for Mattox’s sister’s high school graduation and “when we didn’t have time to get food,” Mattox said.

Mattox included screenshots of these examples in the document she sent to administrators on Dec. 16, 2025.

“This whole culmination of me being outspoken and trying to advocate for food, religion and family has now led to me not being able to play the sport that I love,” she said. “Looking back on it, I think if I were to keep my mouth shut and not have said anything, I would still be on the team.”
"""

Yet another example of an incompetent, insecure, control-freak coach punishing players for speaking up. Try to avoid playing for these idiotic coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"""
Fitzgerald said that she believes her and Mattox’s dismissals come from their leadership roles on the team. She said she only took on an “advocate” role in conversations with Campbell during her last term on the team.

“I think the evidence lies in the change in behavior and attitude that I felt from Kevin towards me,” she said.

Mattox said that she had been vocal on the team since her freshman year.

Campbell “has brought up instances where she says I’m not committed to the team, and her examples are religious commitments,” missing practice for Mattox’s sister’s high school graduation and “when we didn’t have time to get food,” Mattox said.

Mattox included screenshots of these examples in the document she sent to administrators on Dec. 16, 2025.

“This whole culmination of me being outspoken and trying to advocate for food, religion and family has now led to me not being able to play the sport that I love,” she said. “Looking back on it, I think if I were to keep my mouth shut and not have said anything, I would still be on the team.”
"""

Yet another example of an incompetent, insecure, control-freak coach punishing players for speaking up. Try to avoid playing for these idiotic coaches.

This is totally doable. Use your sixth sense and you will be fine.

[Anonymous]

"""
Grace said team culture meetings with team culture consultant Theresa “Tree” Beeckman — who was hired independently by Campbell — were “not 100% focused on problems that we would actually have on the team.” The team and coaching staff met regularly with Beeckman on Zoom.
...
On several occasions, the team had five-to-six-hour in-person team culture meetings with Beeckman. Beeckman said this was a “mischaracterization,” and that these longer meetings were broken up into her “observing practices,” “interactive” team-building “workshops” and “lecture” with breaks built in.
"""
The most laughable thing about this coach is that she makes the team attend many “team culture meetings,” yet she is the very person who destroyed the team culture.

From my DD’s volleyball experience, I’ve found that coaches who like to talk a lot are often the worst.

[Anonymous]

“I personally was vocal in those meetings because I cared about the team and I cared about the culture,” Fitzgerald said. “I trusted Tree to create a space where we were allowed to be open and honest. And I received, from Tree and from Kevin, many times, ‘Thank you for being so open, I’m so glad you brought this to our attention.’ … Then I was told later on that my voice is too much and it got turned against me.”

How many times have we seen petty coaches pretend to be open-minded, only to punish players for speaking up?

[Anonymous]

I should start by saying that I don't agree with this coaching style. At the same time, I have no sympathy for players who miss (part of) the practice because of church. Every time I hear how important religion is to people, my mind goes directly to the book Fantasyland. I get the same feeling when people complain on this forum about the conflict between some tournaments and Easter.