1. Do you think there is no smoking gun hidden by the College’s (necessary) commitment to confidentiality, or do you know that there is no smoking gun? If you know, how do you know? Do you have access to the College’s confidential decision?

2. Fundraising conducted outside of the appropriate office at Williams has always been incredibly actively discouraged. I wouldn’t be surprised if Coach White is being fired for being complicit with what sounds to be an “illegal” (by college standards) fundraising organization. I have mixed feelings about the College’s stubborn stance on these matters, but it has good reason for the policy.

3. If you want to make a difference at this point your best bet is probably to stage a sit-in at Hopkins. The track team’s huge and between the team and their friends I think it shouldn’t be too hard to take over, say, Morty’s office. Letters to the administration seem unlikely to do any good, and I doubt that the trustees will get involved even if you win their sympathy (it’s not really the appropriate sort of action). Given how incredible Coach White seems to be, I think this is a small sacrifice for students to make to save one of Williams’ greatest coaches.

lp,

the College’s (necessary) commitment to confidentiality,

The College’s so-called commitment to confidentiality is in no sense– other than “false”– “necessity,” and protects no one but the College (if that).

I doubt there is a “smoking gun” here.

Could you perhaps cite a “good reason” for the College’s alleged “position” on ‘independent fundraising’ other than stubbornness, ‘control issues,’ and the very narrow self-interest of certain corporate officers (in contrast to various alternative conceptions of the interests of the College and its constituents?)

Finally, if Suzanne’s account is substantively true,– and I am not, for now, assuming that– I believe it would indicate the need for actions somewhat stronger than a minor sit-in at Hopkins.

“The College’s so-called commitment to confidentiality is in no sense– other than “false”– “necessity,” and protects no one but the College (if that).”

The College’s commitment to confidentiality certainly protects the senior athletic staff members (other coaches, etc) — who I believe have a voice in faculty tenure decisions (correct me if I am wrong here!).

Would they be willing to speak candidly and honestly about a colleague if they knew that their potentially critical comments would then be broadcast to that colleague? That’s one instance where the College should keep things protected from the public eye…

The college must be confidential to protect those involved in the tenure decision and thus, like occaisonal eph reader points out, make sure that those involved feel able to speak honestly and candidly.

However, the policy also protects Coach White. Let’s say hypothetically that the Coach is being fired for having an inappropriate relationship with a student. The confidentiality of the proceedings here protects Coach White (as well as the student).

Even if we take a case where a Prof is being denied tenure primarily because of their bad teaching (obviously this isn’t the case of Coach White). If the proceedings weren’t confidential than the future potential employers of this Professor could obtain these complaints about his/her teaching.

Because such hiring/firing decisions amount to very important judgments on those being hired/fired, it is appropriate for them to be kept strictly between the College and the Faculty member in question. Such confidentiality protects both sides (I would argue that if it protects any one side more, it’s the Faculty member being fired, who typically has much more to lose from the proceedings being made public).

Thanks for posting Diana!

Please sign our petition if you support Coach White. It can signed by students, parents and alumni. You DO NOT need to be a former track team member. You just need to disagree with the college’s decision.

Here is the petition.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supportcoachwhite/index.html

If you have any questions about Coach and the situation please feel free to contact me. However, Suzanne’s letter states all the facts as I know them.
04smb at williams.edu

Um, Shamus, I was all ready to sign that petition, thinking it was a “we support Coach White for being awesome and think the College is making a terrible mistake” but then I read it in full:

Mr. White has provided extraordinary services to the College and the community over the last seven years, none of which seems to have affected the College’s decision. This decision is not without serious consequences as it will cause serious financial strain on Mr. White and his family, as the College has not offered severance. Accordingly, we have decided to provide a settlement on the College’s behalf: For the next five years, instead of contributing to the College, we the undersigned will contribute all monies intended for the College to a trust benefiting Mr. White and his family. We would have preferred to permit the College to resolve this issue directly. However, in light of the College’s conduct, we believe this the only decent resolution remaining given the College’s refusal to reconsider its decision.

I think that’s going to seriously decrease the number of people who will sign the petition. Perhaps it will have a greater effect on the College’s decision-making process, but still, I’m not ready to say that I won’t donate to the College; after all, I’m even a head class agent.

And is it really true that “it will cause serious financial strain on Mr. White and his family”? I thought he had been offered many other positions already, as would befit a coach of his caliber. Is the statement factually true? Unfortunately, I’m not ready to sign that petition, though I am fully in support of Coach White staying at Williams.

Do you want some avuncular advice? Probably not. But here it is anyhow. Don’t fight City Hall on this matter. No matter what the facts, no matter what the equities, no matter your outrage and no matter what you do, Coach White is gone! You can waste your effort - possibly embarass yourself - possibly cause damage to your reputation - certainly inconvenience the College, but all in vain. The handwriting is on the wall.

Frank — some of us won’t give up until it’s final. We want him to stay. Students who have never even seen a track meet want him to stay. We will fight it until Coach White receives a final decision, because until then, there is still hope.

From the helicopter track mom:

Coach White can’t recruit someone who would not get into the College otherwise…

Uh, well not exactly. That’s specifically what the 66 low-band tips are for. To recruit and enroll athletes who would not be able to get into the College otherwise.

Does the track team get any Tips?

HWC: The track team gets a very low number of tips considering the size of the team, and even these have to be shared with cross country. I believe the number is one or two of each gender per year. For instance, it is known that the men’s track team did not get any male tips this year.

So Coach White is basically turning Academic 1’s and 2’s into All-Americans while keeping them on the Dean’s List and ensuring that they are good community members.

Could you perhaps cite a “good reason” for the College’s alleged “position” on ‘independent fundraising’ other than stubbornness, ‘control issues,’ and the very narrow self-interest of certain corporate officers (in contrast to various alternative conceptions of the interests of the College and its constituents?)

Ken:

I’m way out of my league when it comes to the relationship between the Athletic Dept and Williams College and I am certainly not going to speculate on the many possible reasons that a coach would be let go. However, it is possible that Morty saw things (including the independent organization of concerned track moms) that made him conclude the track program was coming a little too close to the proverbial Nike Camp.

Elite colleges fought this battle back in the 1920s when college athletic programs were run independent of the colleges with players recruited (and paid) by the independent organizations in a manner that severely detracted from the educational mission of the schools. The elite colleges moved, rather quickly, to wrest control of athletics back. Coaches were hired by the colleges. Players recruited by the colleges. Funding provided by the colleges.

I can certainly understand why Morty Schapiro could be concerned if he felt that the college was losing control of an athletic program. It wouldn’t be the first time in NCAA history that a winning coach was not renewed.

I believe the number is one or two of each gender per year.

So, between 8 and 16 members of the track team, at any given time, wouldn’t have qualified for Williams. Plus, whatever number of dual-sport tips also run track as spring training.

So Coach White is basically turning Academic 1’s and 2’s into All-Americans while keeping them on the Dean’s List and ensuring that they are good community members.

1s, 2s, and 3s. The “protects” are recruits with roughly average academic ratings. The “tips” are academic 4s thru 7s.

Be that as it may, nothing justifies coming up with flimsy reasons and then being inconsistent, hostile, and downright dishonest about not renewing someone’s contract who has brought nothing but success to Williams.

I decline to put my name to this now, but I will say that I have every intention of red-shirting next year if Coach White is not back. I would be ashamed to wear a Williams uniform and represent an institution that has absolutely crumbled in my eyes.

HWC, that’s spin. Many of the track admits are international students who are great students at Williams and who would have gotten in as domestic admits but who wouldn’t have gotten in as international students because, as we have gone over, international admissions is extremely competitive. International academic 2’s don’t always get in.

And while it seems likely that football and basketball tips would do track in the spring, it just isn’t so. We had a football player practice with the team all winter, but he never ran a race. Of those who are both track team throwers and football players, I think they are all track athletes first and football players second.

HWC, that’s spin. Many of the track admits are international students who are great students at Williams and who would have gotten in as domestic admits but who wouldn’t have gotten in as international students because, as we have gone over, international admissions is extremely competitive. International academic 2’s don’t always get in.

It’s not spin. Who said anything about guaranteed admissions for academic 2’s. Hell, there are many academic 2s from the United States who don’t get into colleges like Williams.

Thanks for clearing up the “need-blind” international aid policy though. It hadn’t occurred to me that this was really be used as athletic scholarships. Makes sense. Clever.

HWC, I am very confused by your comment because I didn’t say anything about aid or scholarships of any kind. Please clarify.

You said that many international students run track.

I know that Williams has signficantly increased its international enrollment in the last couple of years, thanks to a much larger aid budget. I’m just putting two and two together. Add in the international “recruiter” that your beloved coach hired and maybe there are some recruiting “questions” that would cause a national championship winning coach to not return. Wouldn’t be the first time in NCAA history a college has moved to lift the rug and sweep a little bit preemptively.

I’m with frank on this one. I figure that Morty probably has his reasons, one way or another.

hwc: your ‘putting 2 and 2 together’ is pretty much unfounded bs.

To answer an earlier question, independent fundraising, like it or not, cuts into the College’s own funds base. While it almost surely would net greater overall benefits for the college, it would also put the control of College projects into the hands of the alumni and take it out of the College administration. The administrative priorities would be relatively sacrificed in favor of select group of alumnae priorities.

There’s a real slippery slope argument here, but I won’t get into it; even in the best possible case, independent fundraising would hurt the administration’s ability to collect funds for its priorities.

I need to clarify a couple of key points in this discussion.
First, Friends of Williams Track and Field (FWTF)has stated from the very beginning that it HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in stepping into the donor relationship between alumni and the College, nor to compete with the College, nor attempt to earmark funds, nor pay anyone. In fact our total fundraising has been a few hundred dollars for paying for commemorative plaques and food for honoring our seniors at their final home meets. Our inquiry in August asking if there was any way to sell mugs, tee-shirts,etc to raise funds for the spring trip was clearly and reasonably answered, and totally impracticable, thus was readily and clearly abandoned by us. That was why we were stunned to hear another view of our conversation was circulating that completely distorted our position.

After advocacy for the Track which brought us together (us “trackie moms”,dads,amazing and legendary alums, and other interested members of the Williams community), our continuing interest was just to provide an online environment where all generations of this team can share encouragement, experience, wisdom, stories, old pictures, and to continue to document its long and rich tradition.

We would not have weighed in on this issue at all if it were not so clearly evident that things turned bad for Coach White almost immediately in retribution for our campaign for the track and indeed our very presence. When we heard that the two issues the administration was using were so completely misrepresented, and so far from any conceivable vision of this man, we felt we needed to add another voice.

There is a petition being circulated NOT by FWTF (which has no role and no intended role in donor matters)but by some very frustrated recent alumni who can not understand why this coach should be punished for trying to give his best to his team, and have chosen this means in response to the determined and premature conclusions by this administration, apparently by August, that Coach White is history.

The other correction is in the statement that was brought out in response to the LetsRun blogspot., implying Coach could bring in anyone he wanted. The statement that Coach can’t recruit someone that Williams will not admit was directed to statements over there that he can attract a whole separate group of people who are disimilar from the Williams population at large. Unlike other schools in D-III, as well as the Ivys,the admission standard for a Williams runner is waayyy higher than some of the schools in our division against whom Williams competes, in which admissions are virtually academically noncompetitive.

I am betting the number of T&F members at the annual scholar athlete banquet reflects little difference between those who were “protected” or “tipped” from those who sailed in with a “1″. Also, to my knowledge, financial aid is independent of recruitment status, and determined truly by family ability to pay, closely correlated with the FAFSA. This is consistent with the stated College policy to support students based on their reasonable ability to pay.

Unlike other schools in D-III, as well as the Ivys,the admission standard for a Williams runner is waayyy higher than some of the schools in our division against whom Williams competes, in which admissions are virtually academically noncompetitive.

I like a good hyperbole, now and then, but this strikes me as prima facie ridiculous. I find it difficult to believe that admissions standards (for track/cc athletes) are so different between Williams and Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin, Williams and Tufts.

Aidan,

Hyperbole from the parent of a current student who met that waaaayyy higher standard?

hwc: your ‘putting 2 and 2 together’ is pretty much unfounded bs.

Well…I guess that would a first for the blogosphere, huh?

Hyperbole from the parent of a current student who met that waaaayyy higher standard?

None of the NESCAC schools are going to be dumb enough to waste a lot of precious low-band tips on track when there are hockey goons to be admitted.

@hwc:

My hyperbolic position which you quote was based on Williams’ historical knee-jerk, dog-bite reaction on what is here called ‘independent fundraising,’ a reaction which may or may not have any causal relationship with (a) the reasons for Coach White’s non-renewal or (b) the groups, events and decisions represented above.

As Suzanne’s note above indicates, the reality of this situation is hard to very hard to judge. Whether the efforts above actually had anything to do with the renewal decision, or those efforts incidentally came up against (ahem and cf. David’s posts) typical (perceived) hostility from the College(’s employees) and that expressed hostility was then linked to these issues, is equally hard to judge.

Even with quite a bit of personal and inside knowledge of the actors and events. As usual, I have friends and colleagues on both sides, and deep sympathies and affinities with all.

My recently quoted extreme rant on similar IT issues notwithstanding, the College does seem to me to do a very poor job of mediating such issues (publically and ‘privately.’) This incident (not to mention others) is clearly alienating a wide number of potential supporters and donors, for the long term. And the reasons boil down to poor communications and insularity– institutional processes that I’ve heard critiqued and bemoaned for close to two decades by some of the people being named as key actors in this issue.

So once again– and I might as well be in my first year at Williams– I have people whom I know and trust, making highly contradictory and opposed statements, careers seemingly in the balance, and the governance methods of the institution on the side. (For that matter I could sidetrack into the complexities of the Nashville mayor race or two or three to me seemingly unnecessary, nonetheless quite heated and unproductive, contract disputes that I find myself mediating).

In the course of the vague Williams references I make above, one Dean of the Faculty and I spent a good deal of time considering how to represent the events in fiction, with all the irrational complexities and causal enchainments that lead to such decisions. (Without a few sentences spoken in front of Williams C, in my first days at Williams, two professors might still be at Williams, and many lives have taken drastically different courses).

(Nancy Shepler-Hughes taught me that I’m protecting myself, my “position” in the community, as much as anyone else, by not naming the specifics and individuals, “my informants” in the Anthropological lingo. “Confident-iality,” again.)

{…}

Which all boils down to frustration that we’re “here again.”

@lp: there are plenty of institutions which view alumni-organized fundraising efforts as something quite other than ‘independent’ and actively support and encourage them. That does not so much ‘challenge administrative priorities’ so much as temper them and require that they be communicated and balanced with active alumni and others groups. Yes, this means the President’s office cannot set policy in the same manner as a field commander…

but that is going down the wrong path. The reason that the reaction (not quite “policy”) exists is that it questions the authority and decision-making mechanisms in place; the rationales you seem to state, along with the seeming hostile (often rather awkward, unrehearsed and bumbling) reactions, are more defenses of entrenched positions, than well-reasoned positions and policies.

And in fact I’d say they are rather hotly debated and contested internally, and the cause of great amounts of dissatisfaction, distrust, needless conflict and inefficiency.

As for “confidentiality,” why would the College ever maintain it for an employee dismissed “for cause” such as an inappropriate relationship? (Surely not to help the employee.)

Not to get into “piercing the corporate veil,” which usually only hides ill-conceived action.

@Frank: “justice for Coach White” aside, I don’t have enough information here to evaluate what has occurred and have a dog in the fight, other than to wish all parties might get along a little better, “for the good of the College,” and think “another fine mess the College has gotten itself into” through an entrenched pattern of decision-making.

The (likely unintended) references to professors dismissed for relationships with students, above, however, is all-too-relevant.

This is an issue to be decided by the administration, not bloggers.

@anon: which issue?

You seem nonetheless to make sort of the point.

If you are talking about “the fate of Coach White’s renewal,” that should be a matter of the CAP process and the constituencies which it serves and represents.

If you mean “undue Administrative influence on what should be independent (judicial) decisions”– a proposition that no one has proved in this case, and may be nay but wild and nasty rumor– well…

…in either case, conversations of this nature (online and off) have more sway in such decisions than you may think; and they are not merely “administrative,” but involve the whole community.

As usual in cases where advocates lack facts or logic to cite, the points/”arguments” raised by supporters of the Administration constitute their own refutation.

EG 1: “It’s secret.” The “hidden smoking gun” argument–the “real reason” for not renewing Coach White’s contract is a deep, dark secret that must lie hidden beneath “principles” of “ethics” and “the law” (feel yourself trembling already?)–itself refutes the reasons made public–Masters degree and the African assistant coach–by implying the existence of some other nefarious reason that can’t be mentioned. In other words, the “official reason” is a lie, but we can’t tell the truth–so trust us. The college thereby actively contributes to the poisonous crap engendered by speculating about this “real reason” and distributed on this blog, while pretending its hands are pristine. This approach is entirely familiar to anyone familiar with, say, the Bush administration’s modus operandi.

EG 2: “T&F tips wouldn’t otherwise get in and are, somehow, at the bottom of the heap, i.e. 3s or 4s.” Evidence? Even if there were evidence (none is cited and the T&F team overall has a strong presence on the Dean’s List), how is this relevant to firing Coach White rather than to the College’s policy on admissions (which includes tips, if these advocates are to be believed)? Is it true for T&F but not, say, for hockey or lacrosse? Since tips are irrelevant to the specific coach, why do admin supporters raise it? Ans: The admin. and its kneejerk supporters lack both evidence and reason, so they stoop to trying to besmirch the athletes whom White coaches. The result of this argument–as with this entire contretemps–is to generate contempt for admin. supporters and, by extension, for the college admin.

EG 3: “It’s a done deal.” In other words: well, the admin. can’t justify its actions, but you can’t argue with the powers that be. Again, undercuts the credibility of the admin. and raises the question: should these individuals be the powers that be?

This dispute is not about Coach White; it’s about Morty Shapiro & Co., which leads us to …

Whereas White’s supporters point to a) his performance as a coach; b) his strong support among team members, past and present, those supporters have not, heretofore, brought up the internal dynamics of how and who makes decisions about the athletics department, and specifically the dynamics of interactions between the Assistant Athletic Director and the (outgoing) Dean of Students (busom buddy, so to speak, to the College president). Wanna go there? Didn’t think so.

The admin. and its kneejerk supporters….

Hah. That’s a first. I don’t think anyone has ever called me a kneejerk supporter of the Williams administration before!

I don’t know anything about Williams track coaches and, frankly, don’t really give a damn.

I do know that, historically, when a championship winning coach is let go by a college or university, there are usually reasons. More often than not, the coach is being let go in order to avoid a public airing of those reasons.

We can’t possibly know the reasons. However, we can suggest the kinds of reasons. Recruiting is certainly a common reason in these kinds of situations. As are issues related to team culture, especially at elite LACs. In 1985, Swarthmore fired its football coach, Ted Lepinski, after compiling a 30-6 record.

Although Dean Roseman did her usual fine job of following along with her pooper scooper, I can’t imagine this bloody track team party two years ago won many brownie points with Morty Shapiro.

The simplest conclusion here is that, all things being equal, Williams would probably not fire a national championship winning coach unless they have reasons.

a couple of random comments

1) the “tips” discussion seems like a red herring to me. Are track tips any less qualified than tips for the other teams? And it strikes me that tips these days have decent entry criteria, even if it’s below par for williams. I don’t think coaches can rubber stamp recruits for admission anymore. If that is a reason White is not back, it seems lame on its face.

2) Was White “fired” or was his contract simply not renewed? I thought it was the latter. I think that’s significant especially if White’s supporters want to press the “retribution” argument. Under the non-renewal scenario, The administration’s timing might be viewed as appropriate and fair to allow White ample time to seek comparable employment.

3) I think the college’s silence is legitimate and appropriate, if frustrating. Even if White is out purely due a clash with the administration, the college publicly confirming that fact would be a disservice to White on the job market. Even with White’s supporters making plausible arguments why something fishy is going on here, it’s essentially White’s word against Williams College. Williams has a longer history of success and a nearly spotless reputation. The College wins that “he said/she said” game hands down. The fact that White clashed with the administration at a place like Williams (Which tends to have satisfied employees who stay) would make him unappetizing to a number of schools who would want coaches to operate within the framework they set up and not rock the boat. Potential employers of White will ask “if somebody can’t get along with others at Williams, how will he fare at our place?”

4) I think Frank U. might be right in the end: it’s probably over, although there are still dark shapes and suspicions running through the story and the college may well be in in the wrong here. I think White’s supporters, while pressing the administration, might also think hard about why a coach of this caliber would be so easily let go by the college (or decide to take a Division III job in the first place after winning at higher levels and coaching Olympians) and wonder if there are other inconvenient facts that have not seen the light of day.

I think I’m not understanding where the whole bit with low band admits and T&F fits into the picture. Furthermore, the fact that T&F has many scholar-athletes is expected, with or without a high number of low band admits. Why? T&F admits virtually everyone who is interested in participating, regardless of their athletic ability. Not only is T&F one of the largest teams in the school (that fact alone should lead us to expect more T&F scholar-athletes), but it is one of the relatively least selective, in that the ratio of “playing” members of the team (in this case I would count a “playing” member of T&F as a member who, at least several times each season, contributes to the team’s scores in meets) to the “sidelined” members of the team is fairly low.

If the ration of scholar athlete “playing” T&F athletes to total “playing” T&F athletes is greater than similar calculated ratios from other sports (so for lax, for example, we shouldn’t count a player who never gets into games as a “playing” member), than we can rule T&F as an unusually academically successful. However, even if we reach that conclusion, I’m not sure if it should significantly tie into Coach White’s hiring decision, as it could be the result of any number of factors unrelated to Coach White.

I want to emphasize that in pointing this out I’m not “taking the administration’s side” about Coach White; I think that the primary factors on which he should be judged are the overperformance/underperformance of the team, as well as the positive/negative affects of participating in the team on other aspects of the athletes’ lives. Given that Coach White appears to outperform not only other Williams coaches, but coaches at other schools on both counts…well I think it’d be a huge mistake to fire him, given none of the extenuating circumstances that the administration imply exist.

X on May 17, 2007 @ 11:34 AM urges that we “might also think hard about why a coach of this caliber would be so easily let go by the college (or decide to take a Division III job in the first place after winning at higher levels and coaching Olympians) and wonder if there are other inconvenient facts that have not seen the light of day.”

Here’s one inconvenient fact that has seen the light of day: “Morty” was enraged by alumni (read: Geo. Steinbrenner)/parent campaign to upgrade the outdoor track. Blames White unfairly. Instructs staff to find an excuse. Which fits in neatly with AAD’s long-standing passion to hire another female coach (4th in a row). Truth is inconvenient for whom?

hwc: As someone who was closely involved in the track party incident, I demand to know why you think you can comment on the administrative process that followed it. If you think Roseman did a “fine job” then you obviously don’t know even REMOTELY what actually occurred.

Don’t speak to highly charged, personal issues unless you know your facts. It is offensive and hurtful to those of us who were involved.

Secondly, it has been suggested several times over that the resurfacing of the track was the issue that caused the problem, and the administration fished for reasons to justify coming down on Coach White in retribution- for something he was not even responsible for.

A point of interest about the African family- apparently Lisa Melendy wrote a scathing report about that topic, except that the family was staying here during one of the THREE years that Lisa M. was on leave. Explain that one to me.

hwc at May 17, 2007 11:25 AM says: “The simplest conclusion here is that, all things being equal, Williams would probably not fire a national championship winning coach unless they have reasons.”

Any philosophy students here who can remind us of Occam’s razor? Something about simplest explanations being mostly likely ones.

Occam’s answer in this case is: Morty got pissed that George Steinbrenner (a T&F person in his day), among many others, asked about refurbishing the track. Morty decided to punish the coach in retaliation. End of explanation.

Putting this in the context of alumni donations is consistent w/ the facts and doesn’t require looking beyond the known facts, nor does it require endless speculation about secret reasons. Another advantage: Occam’s answer doesn’t require placing credibility in the incredible.

I think I’m not understanding where the whole bit with low band admits and T&F fits into the picture.

It fit into the conversation as a correction to the claim by representative of “Friends of Track” that the coach could not recruit players who would not otherwise qualify for admission to Williams. The whole point of the 66 tips is to admit recruits who aren’t academically qualified.

If you think Roseman did a “fine job” then you obviously don’t know even REMOTELY what actually occurred.

If you accept that Dean Roseman’s function is “pooper scooper”, then she did fine job. She kept charges from being filed and successfully swept it under the rug. Given the brouhaha over the last Williams rape case that went to trial and the criticism of the college for attempting to sweep that one under the rug (arguably in violation of state law), I’d say that Roseman probably deserves a “Pooper Scooper of the Year” award.

“If you accept that Dean Roseman’s function is “pooper scooper…”

Seems HRC is an expert on poop, and believes it should be hidden instead of dealt with. Let’s reward doing so!

That’s one vision of Williams College. We’re learning a lot about HRC on this thread!

As per information published elsewhere, e.g the Record, Coach White’s second three year contract ends June 30, roughly six weeks from now. He is not being offered another contract, for the justifications also stated in the Record, suggesting a “pattern” of behavior… Therefore, it is also unlikely that he will find a similar position this year, given the timing of the hiring sequence.

From what we understand, the College informed Coach White that it was replacing him for two reasons: (1) he attempted to satisfy the College’s advanced degree requirement with a masters obtained from Rochville University, a degree mill; and (2) he misled the College about the hiring of an assistant coach, and jeopardized the College’s ability to obtain visas.

First, Coach White had accumulated a number of credits toward his masters, and when he sought to finish it in 2004, found his credits had expired and he would have to begin completely from scratch. That would be impossible in the 2 year window, especially given that he gives 150% to his job. It is true that Coach White received a degree from Rochville University, which has now been exposed as a “degree mill.” But, when Coach White dealt with them at the end of 2004, he had no idea that it was an unaccredited institution. They accepted his transfer credits that he had previously earned and awarded him the degree. It would be months before that school was exposed for what it was. The College made the very same mistake as the Athletic Director, Harry Sheehy, approved the degree. The College even gave him a raise for it. It was an unfortunate incident all around, but now the College is trying to suggest that Coach White tried to defraud the College. There is simply no evidence that this was anything more than an honest mistake for all parties.

Second, it is true that Coach White hired a man from Benin to serve as an assistant coach for one year. Coach White’s daughter met the man and his family, who were in abject poverty, when she was in the Peace Corps. Coach White paid to bring the whole family over out of his own pocket. The man helped Coach White with trying to recruit students from Africa, primarily. Again, Harry Sheehy specifically approved these actions. Coach White also helped the man get a second job at the Stop & Shop in North Adams, as other College visa recipients have worked there in the past. The College now claims that he should have known that that would jeopardize the College’s visa status.

Put simply, these are honest mistakes which in no way justify replacing a man like Coach White. We urge the College to reconsider before making a serious error.

On Let’sRun, there are all kinds of sideways (and direct) “I know personally…”suggestions of hidden proof of drugs. That is ridiculous, especially considering the several implied athletes (pretty much anyone who won), but such sideways comments can’t be proven only suggested. .

Now Ken Thomas implies from possibly knowing inside information that the real deep and dirty secret is an improper relationship. If there had been any credibility about how the first two allegations were presented, then perhaps this too would be a real concern. Seeing how the first two were distorted for convenience, and played to show willful dishonoring of the hard work of his students, I am unable to believe anything but that this too (and even more disgracefully so for the implication) if it is indeed part of the record, has been distorted and shamefully misrepresented to serve the administration’s purpose. If this is being casually offered as the secret reason, I am really hoping they have evidence that stands up in court, because that kind of allegation is potentially career ending.

In spite of all my strong previous words, I am in awe of the wonders of this College, and the kids (and alums!), the staff and the faculty that I have met have every reason for their passion for this school. In this incident, however, I have to believe that truth is being sacrificed for relief.

What people don’t seem to be accepting is that Morty is the decider and he has already announced his decision. It no longer matters how much White is an excellent coach and loved by his team. He will not return when his contract expires.

The rest of the speculative gossip is a waste of everyone’s time.

Suzanne,

First, I would like to thank you for your letter above and your subsequent posts here. It does much to bring aspects of this complex situation “to light,” and inform all of us of your experience.

With regards to:

Now Ken Thomas implies from possibly knowing inside information that the real deep and dirty secret is an improper relationship.

I’d like to immediately dispel one interpretation of the above. I have no knowledge that would in the least suggest that Coach White has engaged in such and in no way wish to potentially impugn Coach White in that regard or any other.

My rather verbose, pedantic, self-centered, unscripted and unedited comments meant only to suggest, in this incident, that the “institutional dynamics” of handling previous incidents and “confidentiality” of many parties are very much at play in handling this incident, and indicate both its difficulties and that the College continues to struggle with how to address complex issues and difficult situations.

“Truth is being sacrificed for relief” is a very nice phrase, and while there may be a simple truth here– Coach White’s merit– what I’ve called “the complexity of other issues” blurs where that truth lies.

hwc brings up the College’s interest in regulating the position of Athletics and the behaviors (purportedly) surrounding athletics. All else aside, this is a valid concern.

In turn, we have the assertions that decisions regarding Coach White’s renewal were influenced by such concerns, and that, through a path of human errors, the difficulties of negotiating through such practical issues led to Coach White being impugned for various actions and circumstances not entirely in his control (if at all).

To look back to the cases of faculty-student relationships, one thing I can say is that the decision-making processes– which were very wrought-out for all parties– proceeded largely from the “best intents” of all parties, and proceeded largely on rumor, highly contradictory and conflicting personal views of the situation, and a great deal of conflict and pain.

This situation, where I would say that I have more “personal relationships with some actors” more than any “inside information,” seems to me very parallel. Everyone– all good people– seems to me proceeding from their own beliefs, to best of their abilities, but…

I am thus reluctant towards attempts to skewer Morty, Nancy, Bill, Harry or anyone else as “villains.” We all make mistakes, sometimes great ones with lasting consequences. Some mistakes have surely been made here, some in the past. The inability to recognize that and move on to solutions {…}

[tbc after next meeting]

If you think Roseman did a “fine job” then you obviously don’t know even REMOTELY what actually occurred.

I didn’t offer my opinion about Dean Roseman’s performance.

I said that, if you accept Roseman’s role as a pooper scooper (i.e. cleaning up messes efficiently and without notice), then she did a fine job.

Friends of Williams Track and Field is a SHAM. What started out last year as an organization providing snacks and food at meets quickly morphed into a political action committee. I’m not sure if anyone on here looked at the FWTF website last year but it was completely political with a huge list of necessary “issues” that needed to be acted upon. While you would like to think it was just a few enraged parents, the supposed facts that they used had to come directly from Coach White. FWTF was really just a pawn and it’s no wonder that Sheehy asked Coach White to refrain from talking with them. Someone brought up a good comment earlier…most DI coaches find a school and spend the majority of their career there (especially when they are successful). While Coach White has had an endless number of olympians and all americans why has he stepped out of the DI limelight? Maybe it wasn’t a choice but more of a necessity.

A pattern emerges: MAYBE it’s a deep dark secret, MAYBE it’s inappropriate relationships, MAYBE it’s all the fault of those tips, MAYBE it’s someting in Coach White’s D-I past just now coming to light (only it’s not coming to light, but never mind, we don’t want to be confused by facts when we have a huge quota of poop to produce), MAYBE it was Thor, or was it Hermes, who told Morty to do it…

There’s a need for a pooper-scooper all right. The quality of intellectual rigor on display here leaves much to be desired.

re: FWTF’s shamhood
Sorry, that is not what happened, and actually we never got to the point of hosting participants before our very existence seemed to be making Coach White’s life hard. We did develop an advocacy effort because the college was continually turning a deaf ear. Other than the new track, we aren’t even militant. Just as this site does, we were creating a place to talk, and we had several hundred communications going back and forth among the team (old and new) that was beginning the base the original twelve of us hoped would happen.

As stated before, we did not EVER want to be between the donors and the college, never wanted to be in money issues, and still do not. We did not consider ourselves a threat to the college, and perhaps some of the consequence for Coach White would not have been so dire, but all our initial attempts to build constructive communication were rebuffed. I hope that some of the many wise alumni who have been in communication with us (and each other) will pick this up and carry if forward in the constructive manner in which it was originally conceived.

Regarding D-I coaching, maybe it doesn’t offer the kind of direct influence this coach values. My older daughter ran D-I at one of those Ivy places, and watched bodies being thrown at the track with little regard for academic and personal development — if you were hurt or had an issue, get out of the way because we just recruited your replacement. This did not happen to her, but it contributed to her losing her taste for running, and wishing she had taken the invitation to come to Williams. Somehow, I just don’t see Coach White in that setting.

I think a lesson to be gleaned from all this is that the trustees (and administration so charged) have both the duty and obligation to ensure the integrity of the College’s functioning: Williams as an institution is bigger than any one individual — or group of individuals — and will persevere despite the actions of “outsiders” (and others transitorily associated with the College), whether well-meaning or otherwise.

To nip any speculation on Coach White’s D-1 experience in the bud: Coach White was selected several years ago to head a new olympic development program in Dubai. He took an interim (1 year) position at Williams to help the coaches here until his departure. However, with the U.S.S. Cole bombing, his wife got cold feet and Dubai was suddenly nixed. Having liked Williams during his 1 year stay, Coach applied for the full-time position. It is as simple as that.

perhaps the college’s anger comes not from FWTF being between donors and the college, but the second guessing of college priorities implicit in trying to raise funds for a capital project. however well-intentioned such an effort is, an institution does not want to hand its priority setting power over to the well-connected or highly diligent. Such a debacle was behind much ill-will during the planning of the ‘62 center for theater and dance. They might have wanted to avoid anything even hinting of a similar experience.

Ms. Ivey:

How do you square this:

“As stated before, we did not EVER want to be between the donors and the college, never wanted to be in money issues, and still do not.”

with this:

“Accordingly, we have decided to provide a settlement on the College’s behalf: For the next five years, instead of contributing to the College, we the undersigned will contribute all monies intended for the College to a trust benefiting Mr. White and his family. We would have preferred to permit the College to resolve this issue directly. However, in light of the College’s conduct, we believe this the only decent resolution remaining given the College’s refusal to reconsider its decision.”

Jared,

Friends of Williams Track and Field, the group associated with Ms. Ivey, and “The Williams Track and Field Team,” the online petitioners with the exceedingly misleading name, are two different groups. Thus no squaring is necessary.

Though, I am interested to know who deputized Mr. Brady to speak so forcefully on behalf of such a large group, especially with neither their knowledge nor permission.

Setter of Record: You are taking your eye off the ball entirely. The people, whoever and however many they may be, who sign the petition will “speak for the group.” Not everyone on the team will sign; no one assumes this petitition “speaks for” anyone who doesn’t sign it.

The irony here is that having successfully caused the Friends of T&F to shut up and go away a year ago, Morty has now succeeded in reviving precisely the sentiment that annoyed him in the first place! Except instead of “please give” it’s become “don’t give.”

Will this mean in the future that contributors will (a) shut up and let Morty be the Decider about how to spend their contributions; (b) ignore the pleas for contributions completely; or (c) redirect their contributions to areas they want to see supported. In the case of (c), since contributors aren’t allowed a voice at Williams, and in fact may see favored programs penalised for even giving voice to a preference, I suspect “Williamstown” won’t be on the envelope containing the cheques from this group!

So let’s calculate what Morty’s little fit of pique about the track program stands to accomplish: Williams loses a repeated “coach of the year;” the track program and 140 or so students who participate suffer; the reputation of Williams as a place that strives for the best in all areas takes a hit; and the president of Williams achieves a reputation as a petty tyrant whose working motto is “cross me and be fired.” Oh yeah, and that petition: maybe the alumni contributons are diminished by some unknown amount; TBD.

Congratulations Morty! That’s better than bringing home a national championship! What other coaches can you fire? Shall we go for the first female football coach in the nation (sure to be popular with some on your staff)? Or is everyone suitably intimidated now?

Can’t wait to read all about it in the Globe or Times or Sports Illustrated. “Win a National Championship, Fire the Coach.” Hard for media types to resist unique angles.

I’m chuckling at the “Nike Camp” crowd giving Morty indigestion.

140 students on the team won’t suffer. more than 2/3 of the team does just fine with the superb coaching skills of Pete Farwell, Dick Farley, Matt Campanelli, et al.

and NOT all the “140″ students support coach white

Before I heard from Shamus about the petition, I was already planning to write Morty a (second) letter, this time saying that I did not plan to donate to the Alumni Fund again until the College corrected its mistake and made this reappointment process honest and transparent.

However, I will not be signing the petition. I fully agree with the first paragraph, but I do not think it is appropriate to be paying Coach White directly, and requesting a severance package is missing the real issue. I don’t want the College to give Coach White a severance package, I want them to renew his contract for years to come.

Not signing the petition certainly does not equal a lack of support for Coach White

“and NOT all the “140″ students support coach white”
-anon

Yes, many of us silently support the administration’s decision. Obviously, we empathize with the sprinters who are losing their coach, because this transition is inherently difficult. However, the long-term benefits of finding a personality better-suited to Williams outweigh the drawbacks (in my and many of my teammates’ opinions).

There’s a big difference between preferring to have a different head coach (and silently being happy that it looks like you’ll get one) and supporting the dishonest and inappropriate ways the administration has gone about its business.

Whatever you may think about Coach White’s personality, that doesn’t mean that the administration is doing the right thing in approaching this issue as they have. Furthermore, if you do not practice with him on a daily basis I don’t think you are necessarily in the best position to evaluate his value as a coach.

Personally, if nothing changes, the upcoming national meet next week will be my last in a williams uniform though I’m not a senior. It is a trememdously hard decision, but given the way all this has developed I would be ashamed to run for whatever puppet the administration brings in.

They cannot expect one RED CENT from me either. My whole opinion of Williams has entirely changed, which is a sad thing.

To Rachel H and her fellow upset T&F buddies:

I am sympathetic to the coach, I really am! Personally I don’t care if he hurt the College’s chances of obtaining visas, violated fundraising rules, got sassy with the administration, violated the College’s policy on degrees, slept with a student, or simply failed to conform to the desired gender for the administration. He appears to be an amazing coach, an amazing role model, and overall an amazing leader, and for all of these reasons, should be kept.

However, I am not sympathetic to the amount of anger I see here directed towards the College as an institution. Hate the administration–fine. Stage a sit-in in Hopkins. Take over Morty’s house. Piss them off as much as you want until they give you back your coach. However, refusing to donate to Williams does not hurt Morty or Dean Roseman. It hurts the students–both future and current–of Williams.

I’m graduating in two weeks, so your decision not to donate won’t really affect me (other than by marginally dropping the prestige of my alma matter). However, it will affect future generations of Ephs, and for that reason, I ask that you reconsider your decision. It’s unlikely that the people who made this decision–Dean Roseman is a perfect example–will remain in their position as “Deciders” or even remain affiliated with the college in any way by the time your “boycott” of the college has any noticeable effect. Regardless of the specific motivations or intentions of this “boycott” I only ask you to consider WHO your refusal to give to Williams affects: the students or the administration.

“if you do not practice with him on a daily basis I don’t think you are necessarily in the best position to evaluate his value as a coach.”

And, you, I assume, are in the best position to judge his merits? How do you reconcile that most of the athletes on the team that support him are sprinters? Do you find it strange that most others won’t be that sad to see him go? I don’t.