King James Bible: Russell’s Firing Serves as Ominous Warning for All Future Crimson Coaches

Scott Russell approached the Harvard water polo coaching position like a weary parent charged with the task of cleaning a child’s room.

He took a glance at the mess. The former occupant of his position had taken the once proud program and mired it in mediocrity while engaging in wild financial mismanagement—a burden which fell upon the players to resolve in the form of checks made payable to Harvard University.

Despite accepting the coaching offer on Aug. 15, 2003—under a month before the men’s team traveled to its first meet of the season—Russell had a plan for turning the program around.

He focused on the budget to ensure that the incident from the year prior would never be repeated. At the end of the year, Russell had come in under budget in almost every area.

He sought to increase the competitiveness of Harvard water polo and make it a player on the national stage. The men finished off their season with a win over rival Brown, and the women closed out their season ranked among the top 20 teams in the nation.

He increased the involvement of Crimson water polo alumni, by producing quarterly newsletters and sending out short game summaries.

And now he has been unwillingly relieved of his duties.

One second he’s primed to take the Harvard water polo program to the next level. The next second he’s in Associate Athletic Director Steve Staples’ office fighting for his job.

The implications of such a shift in relations between a coach and the administration are rather ominous.

If this is the manner in which coaches are treated, who would want to accept such a position at Harvard?

If someone like Russell, who led the women’s water polo team to one of the most successful seasons in its history, can be fired at a moment’s notice, how can any coach feel like his or her job is safe?

The truth is they can’t.

The athletic department has proven through this incident that they can fire any coach at any time without even the slightest advanced warning. It’s not about winning or losing. It’s about inconvenience.

In the spring the Harvard General Counsel and the President’s Office were notified of a complaint filed by a former member of the women’s water polo team. In an e-mail sent to the members of both water polo teams, Staples denied that this incident had anything to do with Russell’s termination.

According to Russell, the reasons given for his termination were the inappropriate communications with a high school guidance counselor about a recruit, the violation of a department policy limiting travel and the verbal abuse of referees.

But are these transgressions enough to get a first-year coach fired? It’s doubtful.

If an administration already wanted to relieve a coach of his or her duties, however, such reasons would give it the perfect reason to do so.

Maybe the administration felt that the complaint levied by the former team member was a nuisance that must be eliminated. Maybe they felt that the best way to do so would be to eliminate the source—the coach.

Such a conjecture seems logical, but due to both sides’ unwillingness to comment on that issue in particular, it must remain just that.

Either way, this situation should be enough to send a scare into prospective coaches. If Russell was fired as a sacrifice in order to rid the University of an unseemly complaint, then one must question the level to which the athletic department has the back of its coaches. Such a lack of support sends dangerous warning signals in terms of one’s expected job security.

If Russell was fired for the reasons he gave, then Crimson coaches better watch their step, because it’s apparent that every mistake they make is being recorded on a list to be referenced when an impromptu investigation into one’s coaching habits becomes necessary.

Is that the type of situation in which a prospective coach wants to get him or herself involved?

I know I wouldn’t.

—Staff writer Michael R. James can be reached at mrjames@fas.harvard.edu.