Andrew Perrin has published a year-end review of the UNC scandal from his perspective. I pretty much agree with him on every point. Maybe he's a bit harsh and uncompromising with respect to Mary Willingham, but I do agree with him about her in theory if not in tone. And I'm still open to the possibility that more may come out regarding her relationship with UNC leadership that may explain her manner and rhetoric during 2014.
(Here is my qualified apology to Mary Willingham, posted a few weeks ago; one which I'm pretty sure to which Dr. Perrin would not agree.)
Through the year, Andrew Perrin has seemed to me to be something of a centrist; a position with which I am quite familiar. I also know how difficult it can be to be in that position since opinions from that middle ground wind up upsetting everyone and satisfying no one in a debate where opinions are so strong.
But Perrin has consistently been the one I find myself in closest agreement with, including -- for the most part -- his blog article above. So it might seem incongruous that he has blocked me on Twitter.
I'm not a big social media participant. I have no Facebook or Instagram account. I don't even do LinkedIn. I dispensed with the silly screen name and the "Jump Circle Defending" banter/debate of rival fan message boards, and I created this blog and a Twitter account specifically to engage, seriously, in the UNC scandal topic.
Sara Ganim was the first to block me. My very first @yibyabby post was a loaded question directed to @sganim asking when she was going to correct and clarify the error in her January report, in which she'd miscast Willingham's claims about literacy as if applying to a broader student-athlete population than just the 182 that had made up Willingham's test sample size. Apparently, Ms. Ganim didn't like that and used Twitter's block function to silence me from her feed.
Next up was Mary Willingham, herself. I was critical of her response to the UNC "3rd party review" of her literacy claims, feeling like she was being obtuse about not sharing her methodology explanation. I felt that should be a critical component of her defense, and that she was being evasive. She didn't like that and I wound up on her block list too.
So there I was, in April, a (relatively mild) UNC critic, blocked by two of UNC's most noteworthy critics.
Andrew Perrin is the only other public figure I know of to have put me on Twitter block. I shrugged my shoulders over the Willingham and Ganim blocks; but the Perrin block bothered me. What had I said?
Here is my Tweet history with Andrew in its totality:
--------------------------------------
Jay Smith @jaysmith711 Apr 11
Will have much to say about UNC review of Willingham data; some expert observations understandable, but other ill- (or mis-)informed.
Andrew Perrin @AndrewJPerrin Apr 11
jay, they're national experts in their field. You're not, neither is MW. You have valid points to make but data claim is bogus.
B. Martin @yibyabby Apr 11
Even experts can err when only 1 side of the dispute provides input. Experts need to hear both sides.
VCU Heel @medboy76 Apr 11
The don't need to hear "sides." They used facts...something JS and MW don't care about.
B.Martin @yibyabby Apr 11
Facts supplied by 1 side. Tasking bounded by 1 side. Dialogue with only 1 side. Not independent.
Andrew Perrin @AndrewJPerrin Apr 11
data provided by MW. Claims assessed made by MW. Contracts not contingent on findings. No dialogue w UNC. Case closed.
B.Martin @yibyabby Apr 11
Perhaps you're unclear on the meaning of "Case closed." This case in not closed. Just watch.
(edit to add: was that too snarky? He may have blocked me after that post.)
Jacob J Jacobs @JacobJJacobs9 Apr 14
Oopsie! Looks like case not closed. http://t.co/Uiu6x8Xfz7
Andrew Perrin @AndrewJPerrin Apr 14
Vague innuendo, no evidence or facts. Typical.
(end of that thread. Picking up on a separate thread...)
Andrew Perrin @AndrewJPerrin Apr 13
@BillEPacker MW's own methodology is irrelevant. The question as is: do the data support the claims made. The answer is no.
B.Martin @yibyabb Apr 14
Methodology irrelevant? Data doesn't support claims even though reviewers didn't have all data used in method?
(Never garnered a reply. Then, weeks later...)
B.Martin @yibyabby May 7
Just noticed @AndrewJPerrin has blocked me from following him. Maybe he's as sensitive to criticism as @SGanim.
-------------------------------------
This was my last Tweet @AndrewJPerrin. Apparently he blocked me either after my snarky April 11th Tweet or the repetitive April 14th Tweet above.
Though I identify strongly with much of Perrin's perspective, we apparently depart dramatically over our assessments of the review of Willingham's data. Like Perrin, I'm critical of Willingham, but apparently not to the degree Perrin is. And though I'm skeptical of the soundness of her claims, and critical of the manner in which she presented (and has failed to defend) those claims via CNN, I still assess that UNC's review was not only flawed but calculated in its deception. Perrin doesn't accept that and has long since concluded that the UNC-directed finding was adequate, considering it 'case closed.'
This may reveal a fundamental difference in our centrist positions. While I have reached the conclusion (with help from other inside sources) that key leadership within the UNC administration has not been sincere or truly transparent in seeking answers to the scandalous questions raised, Perrin has maintained faith in the integrity and honesty of those leaders.
Since my influencing sources regarding the current Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor/Provost are some teachers and academics within the UNC faculty, and Perrin is part of the same faculty, this is yet another indicator to me of the deep schism within the faculty ranks. At one extreme there are faculty members who truly do resent athletics and wouldn't mind (or would actively campaign to) see athletic programs reduced, eliminated or separated from the academic mission of the University. At the other extreme are faculty who are as vested and active as fans (even boosters) of university athletics, providing the academic equivalent of "cash" by being complicit in erecting "soft spots" for eligibility enhancement.
"Schism" tends to connote a binary split, but with the complex intertwining issues and opinions in the UNC scandal, there are all manner of degrees between these two radical extremes. On top of that, the continuum isn't linear but rather multi-dimensional. Perrin and I may be on the same latitude situated between polar extremes, but we're apparently on opposite longitudinal lines when it comes to trusting the University's leadership and accepting the verdict of the 3rd Party Review.
