"you keep moving your point. Think it through and get back when you know what you want to assert."
Twitter's restriction on character-length frustrates me, and I'm simply unable to articulate myself as clearly as I'd like in that medium. Twitter debates favors pithy responses and force you to dispense with amplifying words or phrases that would help communicate a thought or tone. Plus, Twitter is not designed for threaded dialogue, which becomes a nuisance when an exchange extends to more than one reply or two.
So I'm going to take this approach to answering Mr. Starnes. Even though I was originally addressing Bradley Bethel, Starnes stepped in and Bethel endorsed one of his replies, so I assume they're in close to agreement.
I don't have to think it through, as David condescendingly advises; at least not to accomplish the task of stating what I intend(ed) to assert. Perhaps, with a good counter-point, I will think it through again and change my mind. Until then...
Last May, Bradley Bethel and I engaged in a Twitter-based dialogue where I was probing the boundaries of where he was assigning negligence and culpability in the UNC academic scandal as it was being unveiled to the public, both through media and through UNC-official releases.
Back then, he drew the line in such a way that he refused to assign any culpability for the scandal to the academic counselors supporting student-athletes. (If anything I assert with attribution to Mr. Bethel is incorrect, I welcome him to contact me with a correction, and I'll either make the correction here or publish his objection.)
Later, when I asked about his rationale for the passionate defense and criticism of Mary Willingham in contrast to his expressed sympathy for Debby Crowder who "cared too much," he explained that was he was angry -- particularly with Willingham and Dr. Smith -- for "defaming his colleagues."
He'd previously engaged in debates with several antagonists, including John Drescher, editor of the N&O, objected to the use of the terminology "steering" to describe the influence of counselors on student-athletes in the selection of their courses and choice of curricula. A principle theme of his has been the media's lack of even-handedness and exploitation of sensational conjecture to further a particular narrative.
In our dialogue, he did readily blame Crowder and Nyang'oro for the debacle. He assigned blame to deans of the College of Arts and Sciences for lack of oversight. He even allowed that coaching staffs were negligent in their relaxed recruiting standards (academically speaking) and that the university's special admissions process abetted that.
But any allegation that ASPSA had been culpable or negligent was refuted, claiming that there was no evidence to warrant such speculation. "No evidence of malfeasance or collusion" was his oft-repeated phrase.
But there was evidence that fueled speculation.
- There were emails made public in 2013, obtained through public records requests by the N&O, that showed questionable activities in the dialogue between ASPSA representatives and Crowder/Nyang'oro.
- There was Mary Willingham's testimony, bogged down as it was in her "research" claims about literacy, that asserted personal involvement in the sort of "collusion and malfeasance" Bethel resisted.
- There was Michael McAdoo claiming what Willingham was claiming regarding the academic support system while he was at UNC.
- There was Deunta Williams and Bryon Bishop both making the same claims.
- Finally, there was Rashad McCants, making the most egregious of claims of all.
He anticipated the truth to finally be revealed in the Kenneth Wainstein's report. Anything else presented -- if it came from someone with an axe to grind, or someone whose agenda he felt was suspect, or whose credibility on other matters was stained -- wasn't acceptable to him as an exhibit of evidence.
(In June 2013, UNC system president Tom Ross acknowledged the reports about those potentially damning emails, but said he wanted to withhold statement until he'd seen them for himself and examined them more. There has been no statement from Ross or any UNC public official since then that I've been able to find, commenting on what resulted from the further inspection of those emails.)
In light of this now publicly available orgy of evidence, rather than confess that Willingham was correct -- at least with regard to counselors culpability in the scheme and that some of Bethel's colleagues had, in fact, colluded with Crowder -- he now is utilizing the same rhetorical technique as before, except now, instead of defending them against speculation of "collusion and malfeasance," he's saying there was no athletic pressure involved, and that athletic eligibility was the same as academic focus on academic graduation.
By articulating it this way, Bradley can declare that he never said that the ASPSA staff definitely were not motivated or incentivized by athletic department staff. He's only insisting that there's no direct evidence of it, just like he was saying to refute counselors' "collusion." This isn't a neutral statement. It's a criticism of anyone who dare proffer the theory -- which many consider obvious and transparent -- that counselors were acting on athletic eligibility motive to please coaches or those representing coaches. It's the same rhetorical technique as before, only now the goal posts have moved in light of what IS evidenced in the Wainstein Report.
Bradley Bethel is just completely resistant to any theory that attaches "malfeasance" to the athletic department until he's presented with the smoking gun laced with fingerprints of the coaching staff. Just what master does Bethel serve? The academic side of the UNC house, which he has criticized and to whom he does not object to blame being assigned? Or the athletic department, which has garnered Bethel's most staunch defense? If he were simply arguing caution, admitting that it does look bad for UNC athletic department, choosing not to passionately argue "innocent until proven guilty" and take a more moderate "wait-and-see" tenor, I wouldn't be paying much attention to what he says via his Coaching the Mind blog or his Twitter posts. But he's become a celebrated unofficial defense spokesperson for the UNC athletic department, and I don't understand why.
I appreciate his passion for calm, reasoned discussion and distaste for the "journalism of outrage" that is fueled by scandal. I regularly see gross errors published as factual by media outlets, most egregious being Sara Ganim at CNN. And I totally understand why, if one is already defensive and feeling attacked, why that kind of sensationalistic and careless reporting or commentary would tick you off.
I also understand his displeasure with Mary Willingham. I, too, take umbrage at many of her exaggerated claims and have questioned why she won't present a proper defense of her literacy claims.
But emotion -- particularly when it's partisan protectionism -- can blind you from being able to take a fair and impartial look at evidence spilling out before you. It's like the parent who refuses to believe her golden boy could do anything wrong, and so when people make allegations, you rally the defenses and find excuses. That's emotional. That's what sports fans do. People committed to an academic mission shouldn't.
