Tue 8 May 2007
Reasons for Coach White’s Dismissal Factually Untrue
Posted by admin under Athletics
Posted at 4:38 pmOn April 26th, 2007, I received a letter from Dean of the Faculty William Wagner concerning the decision to not renew the contract of Coach Ralph White. Wagner assured us, in his letter, that despite our having “communicated very convincingly and even movingly [our] high regard” for Coach White, these concerns were largely irrelevant to the process. In fact, Wagner went on to claim that the firing process had “has adhered to the College’s highest standards” and that the College’s reasons for being close-lipped had to due with “Williams’ deep, principled commitment to personnel ethics and law.”
As reported in the Record on May 2nd, 2007 (”Coach Appeals for Contract Renewal”), and also discussed here, on EphBlog, the major reasons being put forward for White’s dismissal are a) his online masters from Rochville University and b) inadvertent violation of the College’s visa policy in assistance of a refugee from Benin.
Frankly, we find these claims to be broadly unsupported and factually untrue.
First, Coach White was informed, at the end of his first contract, that he needed to complete his masters. He attempted to go to MCLA for the last few credits, but was informed that they had expired and he’d have to start over. At this point, he approached Harry Sheehy, the Athletic Director, (Michelle Burgher, then an assistant coach, was present for the conversation) about taking an online diploma that would give him credit for the courses he had already completed. Sheehy gave him approval for this course of action. It is difficult for us to understand how Coach White could be held responsible for a decision that his direct supervisor approved.
Second, Coach White has been accused of violating College policy by arranging a second job, at Stop & Shop, for a man from Benin working as an assistant track coach. Antoine Agbra was hired with the full knowledge and consent of the College, and helped in recruiting potential students from Africa. However, because of medical expenses associated with Agbra’s small children, the Williams stipend proved inadequate, and Coach White helped Agbra find a part time position. This unabashed generosity, even if complicated by an innocent misunderstanding about the second job, hardly amounts to a firing offense.
Given that the college has largely refused to comment on this situation, we are left with these two enunciated–and roundly debunked–reasons and a good deal of conjecture. Some have postulated that the College was embarrassed by Coach White’s advocacy for the resurfacing of the outdoor track. Others have pointed to political disputes within the athletic department. However, none of this aligns, in any way, with the Colleges “highest standards,” and as such, hardly outweighs “moving” testimonials penned by current and former athletes and colleagues. We, and the College community, deserve a good deal better.
Respectfully,
Aidan
May 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
It is possible that Morty Schapiro finally decided that Harry Sheehy does not run Williams College.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Now, what reason might the College have, not to reveal the actual criteria behind the CAP’s decisions?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
hwc,
that’s not fair at all. From Aidan’s letter, White went to his boss (sheehy) who told him the course to take. You want him to go bother Morty over something trivial like that? I think that would have been a lot worse for White. What else should he have done? Now, as for whether or not his online masters program was a good one or a bad one to choose is a different issue that I am not taking any stance on. But he followed the traditional chain of command and should receive the benefit of the doubt.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Especially when the coach in question:
a) was extremely well-liked
b) was over-qualified for his job, and enjoyed wild success (multiple Coach of the Year awards, etc.)
c) ran an inclusive program that accomodated, as per Williams’ mission, athletes of varying skill levels and ability
d) ran a program that managed to win the 2007 NCAA Women’s Indoor Track and Field title with (count ‘em) 10 of Williams’ NESCAC-high 72 All-Academic selections. The men’s track team had nine.
So please, hwc, can it. The guy ran his Williams teams the right way, and the reasons given for his dismissal would be comically pretextual if they weren’t so cruel. If Aidan’s right that everything I mentioned above was “largely irrelevant to the process,” then guess what? The process is a piece of shit.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Unless I missed something, nobody has any idea why the administration opted not to renew the coach’s contract.
We don’t know if it had anything to do with his bogus mail-order degree or not.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
From what I understand, the specific reasons offered for the contract denial were the two reasons addressed in my letter. If those are not the actual reasons (as seems to be the case), nobody is talking.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
There is another reason that I have heard of, which could just be a rumor but I doubt it. I can’t reveal it here because I am sure it will get blown out of proportion. Aidan, I am guessing that you are a track alum and I would suggest probing your teammates a little further.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
hwc: neither do I “know,” in the sense you imply, the specific reasons the Sarkozy campaign/administration introduced legislation banning “citizen journalist” coverage of violent events in the prelude to Sunday’s elections.
However, I would indeed be ‘missing something’ if I ‘bought’ the ‘line’ that it had nothing to do with the fact that same journalists are being put at the end of assault rifles in today and tonight’s riots.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
There are a good number of professors and grad students who read this blog, so I will pose this question:
How many of us would want our tenure decisions publicized in this manner?
My thoughts: I would prefer to go quietly and find a new job than have uninformed parties building, then demolishing theories at my behest.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Richard Dunn–
Ralph White specifically went to his team, and contacted alumni, explaining his situation in an honest matter. He encouraged the publicizing of his tenure decision because he felt he was being unfairly treated. (Although his refusal to comment to the Record might suggest he has now changed his mind?)
Aidan–
Those may not be the reasons for the non-renewal of the contract. Neither Wagner, nor White, were willing to comment in the Record article on their accuracy. Those reasons may even be two factors of many– since the College acknowledges it is being “tight-lipped” to protect ethical considerations…
May 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
OCR
Thanks for the info. If that was Coach’s decision, then the two of us obviously would have treated the situation differently.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
On further thought, Aidan implies that the College is not adhering to the “highest standards” by remaining close-lipped about the case. I disagree.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the members of the department also have a say in tenure decisions (so, in this case, senior coaches and members of the athletic administration) Would these coaches be forthright and honest in their opinions if they knew those votes would then be publicized? If they spoke negatively about their experiences with a colleague who was then re-hired with the knowledge of these comments, it would not make for a very positive work environment.
Certainly the votes/opinions of other athletic department staff are part of the information that is being witheld in order to remain committed to the principles that Williams holds so highly.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I assume Coach White has a fairly good understanding for the reasons behind his denial (obviously he doesn’t agree with those reasons, but that’s a different story). We don’t know (and it appears that we possibly can’t know) if the reasons stated by Aiden are the actual or even exclusive reasons for his denial. Those seem to be the two reasons speculated by the Record, who could very well not have any inside information.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
From what it sounds to me, Coach White got screwed. It sucks, and it shouldn’t happen, but it does.
EDITED BY DK: Politeness, please.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
1) Please be polite. Trollish comments — “Joe is a jackass” — will be edited without warning.
2) Endless advice on how to rally alumni. There is probably not enough time in White’s case to do much of this, but the advice is still excellent.
3) Is there still no video of the CBS segment on Youtube? Someone needs to do this.
4) White is probably doomed.
5) Key step is to find someone who knows at least one of the trustees very well and get her involved. Only a call from a trustee (or big money donor) could lead to an extension of White’s contract. A thousand e-mails will have zero effect.
6) In the previous thread, someone claimed:
True? Tell us more! I would have thought that the gender balance among coaches was already fairly even. What are the statistics?
7) If you are a coach at Williams, you should study closely the sad cases of Ralph White and Dave Barnard. You too can expect excellent guidance, advice and support from Harry Sheehy!
May 8th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
The College may have encouraged Coach White to obtain an online master’s degree. However, the College presumably had in mind a legal, accredited online master’s degree. There are many legitimate sources of such degrees.
Rochville University, however, is not one of them. Rochville has no degree-granting authority from any government anywhere in the world. It’s a blatant diploma mill, and one that has raised significant security concerns.
Rochville “degrees” have no more legal standing than a “degree” that you might design and issue using your PC and laser printer at home. The use of such “degrees” is literally criminal in some states (e.g. Oregon, Washington), though I can’t say if this is the case in Massachusetts.
For more on Rochville, check out the CNN transcript at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/lt.01.html
CNN bought a Rochville MS in chemistry for $500 (plus honors for another $30) in the name of an al Qaeda chemical weapons expert, no questions asked. All of their efforts to trace the people behind Rochville failed, although they noted that the “diploma” shipped from the United Arab Emirates.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I don’t know what the gender balance is of coaches across the board at the College, but the track team in particular is male-heavy, considering it is a co-ed team. (Around 6 men and 1 woman coach I believe)
May 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
The State of Maine, Dept. of Education, explicitly regards “Rochville University” as a “degree mill”. Furthermore, Maine law explicitly prohibits “the use of a false academic degree to obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment”.
Obviously Maine law has no applicability in Massachusetts. But I want to emphasize that this is not simply a matter of the College finding a degree to be unsuitable. In at least some states, the use of a “degree” like this would qualify as a criminal act. You could face legal penalties worse than simply losing your job.
Regardless of your state law, degree fraud is an obvious ethical concern for a college. MIT just fired a popular admissions officer when it was discovered that she had never actually earned the degrees she claimed to have.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Six years ago, when we had our first letter writing campaign to get Coach White hired past his year as interim head coach, we definitely were under the impression that the hiring committee was looking for a female (and/or a minority). Once Kristin Morwick left to head the Tufts team, the track team had no women and at least four white men on the coaching staff: Pete Farwell, Fletcher Brooks, Dick Farley, and John Moyer.
If there were some other issue at the time, I was certainly not aware of it. I wrote that I was completely comfortable with Coach White, and would not want to settle for anything less than this amazing coach and outstanding team chemistry in order to meet some specific criteria that might, all else being equal, be a benefit to the team. The point was that there was not a situation of “all else being equal”. We had complete faith that we already had the best coach for our team.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
If I may weigh in, as a former track alum who was right in the middle of another high-profile track coach sacking from the early 90s, the problem is that we do not really know what the problem is. And that is unfortunate and frustrating, but it also is precisely how we would all hope that out own cases would be handled if something similar happened to us at Williams or anywhere for that matter.
What frustrated me back in my bygone era as a defender of due process and as someone deeply committed to that coach was that the administration’s line was that we would have to trust them, that there was a lot of evidence on their side, but that they could not share that evidence. They frankly made it very hard to trust them — those damned critical thinking skills that are a hallmark of a Williams education came back to haunt them, much to their chagrin.
At the same time, my guess is that the administration would not so something like this capriciously. They might be wrong, but they are likely not being arbitrary. Coach White seems like an admirable, noble, wonderful coach and person. And I want to help defend him — or at least to defend a process in which everyone is treated fairly and the best result emerges. But what will that result be? Professor/Dean Wagner seems to imply that the public reasons are not in fact the main or the only reasons for Coach White’s non-renewal. If there are other, more nefarious goings on, we would all love to know, but it is possible that we never will.
Back in the case I mentioned earlier, the coach in question pulled a handful of us into his inner circle after the hammer fell and we were able to learn a bit more than we otherwise would have, but even then, without the admin’s version, we never could get the full picture.
The degree issue seems problematic and probably signals a death knell if what everyone says about the quality of the degree is true. It might, however, merely provide the administration putative justification to mask any other issues that might exist.
Again — this is simnply frustrating because we do not even know what we do not know, and those who do know aren’t likely to say, those that are likely to say probably do not know.
dcat
May 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
If I could weigh in on several of the above comments-
First of all, yes, Roseman, Melendy & co. wanted to hire a woman. The contender for the job was a woman who had literally just graduated from college, with no coaching experience at all. I am all for diversity, but asking someone like that to head a combined men’s and women’s team would have been preposterous. Coach White has hired 5 female assistant coaches during his time, AND he has hired more minority coaches than the rest of the athletic department COMBINED.
Secondly, the speculation about “reasons” may be fun but it’s not at all to the point. Coach White found out about this decision in early February and waited for more than TEN WEEKS to tell his captains (and only the captains- not the team as a whole) and he only did so once an administrator had already leaked the story. Organizing letters and such was the exclusive work of the team captains. He did also show them the letter that he received from Wager, in its entirety, and the two reasons we have already mentioned (the coach and the degree) were the only two reasons given by the school. Sorry to tell you, but there are no deep secrets hiding underneath.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Good riddance! Why should division three athletics ever take precedence over academics?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Anonymous,
They shouldn’t. And they don’t on Coach White’s teams, which makes this situation all the more unfortunate.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Occasional Eph Reader said:
I would like to echo “!” in saying that this is entirely inaccurate. Coach White told only the captains. The captains then told the team, and organized the parents and alumni. Coach White did not go to his team, contact alumni, or encourage the publicizing of his tenure decision. He simply told his team captains what the situation was, and they did the rest.
At Williams, faculty and coaches do not go out and drum up letters of support for themselves when their tenure decision is coming up, and Coach White is no exception; his athletes are dedicated enough to him that they have done all of this on their own, without prodding.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:25 am
! and Diana: Let’s tell the truth. I am a track alum. White contacted one, or a few alums directly and then had these individuals spread the word.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Division III athletics might take precedence over academics based on the decision of the individual student-athlete - especially where that person finds athletics more interesting than academics. And that condition might occur because that person’s coaches do a better job of teaching than his professors. Of course, Williams can reduce the likelihood of this possile effect by getting more academically oriented students, less athletically oriented students, better professors, worse coaches or a combination of these.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:20 am
A now-famous quotation in economics;
“When I entered Columbia, I was going to specialize in public finance. Then I met Gary
Becker and decided to specialize in whatever interested him. He and Jacob Mincer taught me
80% of what I learned about economics at Columbia, and my fellow students taught me the
remaining 80%. The sum is greater than 100% because I had to unlearn all the wrong things
I had been taught as an undergraduate.”
A rigorous undergraduate education is a great thing, as long as it’s not taken too seriously.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
You know all those spam e-mails that you get, promising fast and affordable college degrees? (if you don’t know, then just look inside your spam filter). Many of those “degrees” come from Rochville “University”, or affiliated “institutions”.
People have literally gone to prison for fraudulent use of Rochville “degrees”. For an example of a recent high-profile case in the UK, try:
http://www.afr.org.uk/index/news-app/story.30/title.timeline-of-a-forensic-fraud
Suppose I forged a phony diploma to meet a job-related degree requirement. Most people would find that to be unethical, and it could be criminal as well, depending on local laws. Now, suppose I paid Rochville $500 (that’s their rate for a Master’s, according to CNN) to print a phony diploma for me, rather than doing it myself. Is that any better ?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The difference is, it was approved by Sheehy, and later by the administration as reflected in the extension of his contract at that time. No one is arguing that the degree should be allowed to stand per se, but the bottom line is that there was no intent of committing “fraud” so don’t even go there.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
!, are you saying that the administration and Sheehy approved “Rochville University” specifically and by name, or did they just approve an online degree?
There are many accredited, respected institutions that offer legitimate online degree programs, such as UMass (http://www.umassonline.net/ ), as opposed to the degree mill called “Rochville University.”
May 9th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
As reported in this week’s Record article:
It sounds very convincing that, no matter the dubious qualifications of Rochville University, Coach White was explicitly told that it was fine for him to get his degree from there. “Can’t recall” sounds like “oops, I made a big mistake there” to me.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Richard: For a time I have been practically applying (I believe more or less successfully) a corollary to Gary Becker’s rotten kid theorem - let’s call it the “consciously undisciplined good kid theorem”. I will not bore you with its details.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
In response to ‘?’, I don’t know what the circumstances were, but shouldn’t Sheehy be pretty liable if he DIDN’T check to see the name and look into the place? I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but it seems to me as he was the one to approve the degree, he would be at fault for not checking into it as the athletic director.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Maybe you trust that the person who asks for the leeway of an online degree isn’t purchasing one from a mill. If a student asks for the option of a take-home exam because of circumstance X, we don’t expect the prof to check on X. If trying to pass off a bought degree from a little known company isn’t an honor code violation, why have an honor code. Stop passing the buck.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Coach White was told to do something by his boss. He did it. He is being fired. His boss is not being fired.
Sounds like when President Bush tells someone to do something stupid and then they get fired. He of course does not.
Ain’t this country grand?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Williams did not say, “Go get a degree from a mill.”
Williams said, “You need a degree.”
I don’t know how much we know, but if White said, “Is it okay if I purchase my degree from a mill?” he would have gotten “No” as a reply. If he said, “Can I get one from X” and has hoping no one knew that getting one from X involves $500, no questions asked, you are in a different ballgame.
Depending on someone’s ignorance of your scheme does not absolve you when they figure it out.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Richard,
I’m not sure you have the facts quite correct. From what I understand, Mr. White had nearly completed his degree when he reached Williams. He then found out that his credits had expired and that MCLA would not accept them. The account that Mr. White has given the school is that he called Rochville, thinking it legitimate, and explained his circumstances with MCLA. They agreed to accept his old credits and to give him credit for his experience (a not unusual notion at legitimate institutions). He then presented this to Harry Sheehy, who specifically approved it. The College even gave him a raise for it. I think Mr. White freely admits that he erred in thinking Rochville legitimate, but that he never intended to defraud the College and believed what he had done was appropriate. The College may disagree, but it seems that there’s no evidence that he tried to mislead anyone. Given those facts, and that Mr. Sheehy now “can’t remember,” this seems more an unfortunate error than an ethical issue.
Richard, you don’t know if there was “a scheme” and the facts suggest otherwise. I agree that more research was probably warranted, but it seems an honest mistake, and not one that justifies the College’s actions. I would submit that you pause before impugning a man’s honesty. He may have made an error, but it does not appear to be the one you and the College suggest.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I submit: no one has the facts correct because no one has the full set of facts from each side (sides rarely have the same facts, it seems).
I submit: It becomes a scheme when you find out that it is a diploma mill and still proceed like it isn’t.
Unidentified submitter (and I detest people who don’t have the guts to put their name to their ideas), YOU ARE RIGHT that Coach White may have never thought that Rochville was an illegitimate institution. That would speak to negligence (of which we are all guilty) rather than malfeasance. If the former, then maybe the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. If the latter, then good riddance. If we can all agree on that much, good.
The problem becomes He said/He said and who any one individual believes in that fight really isn’t worth shouting over.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
One lesson: if a commitment is, or is likely to be, important, get it in writing, or run the risk of a “misunderstanding”.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Here is the CBS sports feature on the women’s team and coach on youtube- brings a more touching perspective…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YqhrhoUAd6E
May 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
William Wagner, dean of the Williams faculty, says in the student newspaper: “As a senior member in the athletics department you’re responsible for mentoring and evaluating junior faculty members.” Doesn’t it follow that the athletic director should have been mentoring Ralph White? It seems irrelevant whether or not White asked Harry Sheehy if his master’s degree process was acceptable. Sheehy should have been guiding the process from the start.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
IF the college should adopt a policy that male faculty members MUST wear blue boxer shorts under their trousers while attending meetings with trustees, and IF a faculty member dyed his green shorts sort of blue and was fired for it, would this be defensible? The Masters degree issue in Coach White’s case is clearly a convenient excuse and bears no relationship to his ability to do the job for which he was hired. No one doubts that, not even the administration! Form over substance? Or a hidden agenda on the part of the dean of students and the assistant athletic director? Your choice. In this case, it isn’t Ralph White’s reputation at stake; it’s the reputation of Williams.