Today's short interview on ESPN was one such case.
Starting at 1:09 of the clip, ESPN's Kevin Negandhi begins to ask his second question of the interview, setting up with a restatement of some of the findings from the Wainstein report.
Kevin Negandhi (ESPN): "Some students benefited from "paper classes" in this African and Afro-American Studies department. Some athletes, including basketball players, were steered toward fake independent study classes to help boost their grade point average according to this investigation...
Roy Williams (UNC Head Basketball Coach): No no, Kevin. Let's not go there. That's not what the -- that's not what the report said. And it's a -- when the kids are taking these classes -- when I was there -- 'cause -- independent studies was not a negative. You know, I, in fact, thought it was harder.
I didn't want my guys in the independent study courses because there was no schedule. There was no structure, so I didn't even want them in those classes.
But the bottom line is that we have a problem, we're trying to fix the problem; but, if you want to talk basketball I'll talk basketball. That other crap is going to have to be taken care of. And we've made some mistakes. We're not proud of it. I'm very very sad. I'm very, very hurt. But I'm not going to rehash all that crap and that's -- if you want to talk basketball we'll do that, but I've already had a hundred million press conferences, I think, on this other stuff.
Roy cut Kevin off before he could ask a question. Roy didn't agree with Kevin's opening and attempted to contradict it. But did Roy actually say anything that actually did refute what Kevin had said?
1. Kevin said "Some students benefited from 'paper classes' in AFAM." Yes? No? Roy doesn't say. I doubt Roy would actually believe this was false.
2. Kevin said "Some athletes, including basketball players, were steered..." Roy bristles at this notion, though when he's objected to it he mistakenly believes the "steering" allegation is being levied at him or his coaching staff; but that's not what the Wainstein reports is saying. It's referring to student-athlete support program counselors "steering" some student-athletes to the irregular courses. There was pushback by some UNC defenders before the Wainstein report regarding the characterization of advisors' suggestions as "steering"; but not now (that I've seen, anyway). Is anything Roy saying refuting that? Does he disagree with the Wainstein's report on the "steering?" No. So far, so good.
3. "...toward fake independent study classes..." This seems to be where Roy goes off the rails. His response stumbles around, first disputing that that's what the report said, and then disputing the negative connotation of "independent study," glossing over the key element of independent studies in question being "fake," which was the crux of the scandal and confirmed by Wainstein. I don't even know what he's trying to accomplish by first touching on his own experience with independent study and then arguing that he didn't like his players in those classes -- presumably even the non-fake ones -- because...why? They didn't have schedule or structure? They were harder than regular lecture classes? Which? Both? And what does that have to do with aberrant courses of the sort addressed in the Wainstein report? Does Roy even understand what the scheme was?
4. "...to help boost their grade point average according to this investigation..." He never gets around to anything resembling a contradiction to this before moving on the declare that he doesn't want to talk about this "crap." He's hurt. He's sad. But why? He's not taking any ownership. There's no shame or apology. Not even any vicarious apology for what other agencies within the University might have done wrong. It's victim hurt; but who's hurt Roy Williams and his program? Wainstein? Media? Liars who are questioning his integrity and that of his players or his long-time admired friend Wayne Walden?
Roy said "we have a problem." You do? There's STILL a problem?
Roy said "we're trying to fix the problem." What is (or was) the problem needing to be fixed, if not what Kevin was trying to ask you about before you cut him off?
Roy said "We're not proud of it." Not proud of what?
Roy Williams is exhibiting the kneejerk defensiveness of someone who doesn't want to come out and say the Wainstein report was wrong in some regards, or appear to be protesting too much when confronted with challenges to his own integrity or those for whom he vouches. (Bubba Cunningham, too, seems in a quandary about how to characterize the accuracy of claims found in the Report, at times acquiescing to its authority and, in almost the same breadth, undercutting its findings.) From a tactical standpoint, UNC should probably muzzle Roy since the more he speaks, the more confused he seems to be, or the greater the risk is he's going to go full COL Jessup and admit that he ordered the Code Red.
From a non-UNC advocate point of view, though, I am perplexed at how any UNC defender can listen or read things like this and come away feeling good, justified or vindicated. If "liking" or giving a thumbs up to an interview or expression of opinion like Roy's here means you're on the same wavelength as Roy, then we're living on different planes. Roy's response here makes no sense to me.
