I'm new to Twitter, being more used to threaded dialogues and debates on community message boards or Web-based bulletin boards; not to mention the frustration of trying to be concise in 140 characters or less without losing the essence of what I want to convey.
In the light of the next day, I wanted to revisit what Bradley and I had discussed, but found it hard to see it all in context from the Twitter display. So, I've reconstructed the chain of comments here. I don't think either of us altered our position, but it was engaging and I hope this won't be the last.
Bradley Bethel: Jay, you want Athletics and ASPSA held accountable; when will you demand deans held accountable?
Bethel: To be clear, I point out deans' culpability because educational quality important to me...not because I am merely defending Athletics. I am an educator, not a fan.
Bob Martin: Was the educational quality for some student athletes at UNC broken before you arrived?
Bethel: Deans unaware of paper classes for a decade means educational quality was compromised for all students.
Bethel: In other words, UNC scandal was a banal academic scandal rather than the sensational athletics scandal propagated by media.
Martin: So that would be a yes. It was broken. And the fault for that rests squarely with the faculty. That's your position?
Bethel: I wouldn't say "squarely." Athletics had problems, too. Many were complicit in neglect; so far no evidence of malfeasance.
Martin: No culpability on part of athletic department or academic support? Not athletic department? Not ASPSA? Not administration?
Bethel: So far, no evidence of malfeasance. That's my point. Maybe Wainstein proves otherwise. Until then, presume innocence.
Martin: So...UNC athletics/ASPSA was complicit in neglect, but no evidence of malfeasance. No penalty deserved for that failure?
Bethel: ASPSA counselors believed professor was exercising his right to teach as he wanted; deans' tacit approval confirmed ASPSA belief.
Martin: How do you know that? Why isn't clustering of athletes in anomalous classes "tacit" complicity of academic support staff?
Bethel: Fallacious reasoning. ASPSA counselors presented choices; some athletes, not all, chose AFAM.
Martin: Again, how do you know these things about the honest intentions of the academic support staff before you arrived, yet...
Martin: ...yet, you ascribe fault to faculty, dean and even student-athletes now for what was broken. ASPSA and AD just negligent?
Bethel: I've seen ASPSA staff's dedication to educating students. Again, no evidence of malfeasance on either academics or athletics side.
Bethel: Correction: Besides Nyang'Oro and Crowder, no evidence of malfeasance.
Bethel: Deans didn't know but should have; ASPSA staff believed Nyang'Oro was within rights, based on deans' tacit approval.
Martin: Scoreboard: JN and DB = malfeasance. Dean/Faculty = negligent. SAs=culpable. Athletic dept.= negligent. ASPSA = innocent?
Bethel: I never said athletes were culpable. Like non-athletes, some chose AFAM classes for legitimate reasons; some chose as easy way.
Martin: But I'm asking about what was broken. If SAs were taking the classes that were anomalous and choice was theirs=complicit. No?
Bethel: For the last time, Wainstein may prove some guilty, but until then presume innocence.
Martin: Can we presume negligent?
Bethel: No. Athletes and non-athletes alike probably believed just as counselors did: professors have the right to teach as they want.
Martin: Clustering in an anomalous course is symptomatic of something wrong, but neither SAs nor advisors can be faulted. Who then?
Bethel: Here's some reading for you: http://t.co/qSyc7oQVEr I've enjoyed this chat.
The discussion ended at this point, until I followed up the next morning after trying to read the article Bradley had recommended:
Martin: Not a subscriber. Can't access the article.
Bethel: The point of the article is that the concept of faculty autonomy had become sacrosanct and pervasive at UNC
Martin: "Has become." But I was challenging you for answers on culpability for state of affairs prior to all this.
Bethel: No, the article was about the past, during the years of the scandal.
Martin: No way to read without a subscription?
Martin: Found a partial reprint. Do the first 11 paragraphs provide the gist of it?
Martin: Found a complete reprint. Reading now.
Martin: Read it twice. U pointed me to it in response to my ? about S-A clustering in there. Not seeing relevance.
And that's where we ended.
The article Bradley suggested I read can be found here.
