Coach White came to the College in 2000 on a one-year interim appointment. He was then given two successive three year (junior faculty) appointments. The appointment in consideration would be a five year appointment to a senior faculty position, the equivalent to tenure of athletic staff, thus there is consideration of the qualities appropriate to the higher position.

Elements of the decision of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions

From what we understand, the College informed Coach White that it was replacing him for two reasons, which implied his intent to mislead the administration. The first example is that he attempted to satisfy the College’s advanced degree requirement with a Masters obtained from Rochville University, a degree mill. The second is that he hired an individual into an assistant coach position that he knew was unqualified, and in doing so jeopardized the College’s ability to obtain visas.

While the degree situation does not look good, the background of this is important. In 2004, Coach White was told to complete his Masters Degree by transferring credits accumulated over several years to a local institution. When he attempted to do so, he found that all of his credits had expired, and he would have to start from the beginning. Without the accumulated credits, meeting the timeline now was virtually impossible, particularly given his full commitment to his position. It is true that Coach White received a degree from Rochville University, which has now been exposed as a "degree mill."  However, 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, in combination with his professional experience, 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, and personally paid for surgery for the children.  The man helped Coach White with trying to recruit students from Africa, primarily.  He did not attempt to portray the man as having coaching skills, but rather as an assistant who could facilitate in bringing diversity (and world community perspective) to the team. Again, Harry Sheehy specifically approved these actions, and it was openly proposed as what it really was, a humane effort at international and ethnic diversity.

Participants in the team during the year of Antoine’s appointment have commented that they did learn much about the world through their contact with him. They had been given no expectation that he was a credentialed coach, but saw him as working hard with Coach White to reach out to international runners. We have heard only positive things from team members about the experience, which was all above board.

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.

Consideration of the objective deliberation by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, and the issue of confidentiality

The administration, in its listserv letter to the Friends of Williams Track and Field, outlined the process by which all appointments and promotions are considered. Appropriately, they state that confidentiality of the process is essential (we understand and appreciate all the reasons for that), and that the due deliberative process has been observed. We do believe that the faculty considering the information presented to them were most likely conscientious in their deliberations. Our concern, given what we know about the two points that have become public, is that the recommendation to be considered originated, in Coach White’s case, within the Athletic Department, currently headed by a person who opposed his original appointment and has since tried to replace him, and who has been on leave for half the time he has been there.

We also believe other issues are in play regarding the two other parties involved in the preparation of the recommendation to CAP. Just as the letter from Morty and Dean Wagner acknowledge the many good things that Coach White has done, we also acknowledge the many good things that Morty and his administration have accomplished. However, we believe that the campaign waged here for a new track embarrassed the administration, the existence of Friends of Williams Track and Field posed a threat to the decision processes of the College, and there was concern that FWTF would attempt to intrude into the relationship of the College with its alumni. We acknowledge that such problems exist elsewhere, as in Div I schools where such booster groups, particularly in other sports, campaign in competition with the institution. We have stated many times in many places that there was not a chance of that here. In fact, in contact with other administrative parts of the College, we have had some good interactions. For example, in planning a homecoming celebration for Williams Relays, the Alumni Office was supportive and encouraging of ways we could encourage alumni participation in events.

However, we have learned that the administration, particularly Morty, is angry about our existence, embarrassed about the track appeal, and blames Coach White.

With regard to the due process and confidentiality, we have received direct information that insiders already decided that Coach White was gone as early as last August. Inside information was already circulating that the administration had decided to get rid of him. The appearance, therefore, was that the case being built against him to be presented to the faculty for their consideration might reflect that bias. That appears to have happened even before the case was presented for faculty consideration.

In addition to stories we have heard, we have our own direct experience with this. As many of you know, the whole team goes on a spring training trip to a friendlier climate, and since this team is financially diverse, there were many members who could not afford the personal cost to do so. The team as a whole, works hard to raise money in various ways, e.g. volunteering hours in the Alumni office, opening the gym to family activities, babysitting and yard work for faculty, to contribute to a central fund, but still the personal fee is several hundred dollars, frankly out of the reach of many members. In August, FWTF contacted the AD’s office to see if there were some way in which we could raise small funds to support the trip, by sponsoring the sale of decals, mugs, tee-shirts, etc. without violating any principles or rules of the College or NCAA. The person with whom I spoke did an excellent job walking me through the complexities of money flowing through the Department, and it was clear that this would not be a solution to the team travel issue. Through this point, I felt it was a completely cordial conversation, and with the information presented to me, I acknowledged that we could do nothing to support the team in this effort, and reaffirmed again that we do not want to intrude in the donor relationships with the College.

I then was told in no uncertain terms that the administration was very angry with Friends, discouraged such organizations and that Ralph White would pay the ultimate price for our action for the new track.  I also learned shortly after that the contents of my phone conversation were completely misrepresented to the administration as though FWTF was moving full steam, College be damned.  Two days later, Coach White was ordered to have no further conversations with me, though my daughter was on the team.  For fear of making the situation even more precarious for him, we went dark on this website until all this was resolved so that could not be used against him, since that seemed to be the primary thorn in the administration’s side.

The administration’s concern about interfering with the Master Plan

In defense of the administration concerns about FWTF, I do understand their fear not only of being confronted by us as they were in the campaign for a new track, but of the reputation of such “booster” groups around the country, some of which have considerable presence in the athletic business of their colleges. We stated frequently that we are not a fund manipulating group, and wish to act within the spirit of Williams, and mostly want to provide a forum for history and ideas. It was not until we heard that the solution of the multiply deferred Master Plans was to build a temporary high school, noncompetitive track ten minutes away from campus, interim for an unknown number of years, that we became frustrated with the refusal to discuss the process openly.

We have been told that our campaign parallels the Smith Theatre debacle, forcing the administration into an uninformed plan with disastrous consequences. Even at $300,000 or whatever the track refurbishing cost and a three month project, it can not be compared to a $6 M or more, two year building project in the center of campus.

The sad part of this is that the administration response to this issue, possibly in the effort to quell discussion and to get rid of Coach White, has triggered the negative donor reaction that seems to be in the opposite direction of the good will generated by their upgrading the track.