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.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Another Anecdote
After sharing the story of my niece's experience at Athletic U., I thought I'd dredge up another one.
About ten years ago, a neighbor family who used to live down the street from us had a son--I'll call him Mike--who was CIF All-State First Team offensive lineman. We were good friends who followed and cheered for him, and we were excited when he decided to pass on the many scholarship offers he'd received, and instead opted to leverage his football talent to gain access to an Ivy League education. "Mike" was no muscle-head in the classroom, but neither was he Ivy League material based on his scholastic merits only.
Sadly, his first year at "Ivy College" was a disaster. He was third string on the team, dealing with injuries during his freshman season, during which he failed a class, got a D in another, and had to struggle during the Spring term to get his grades up in time to be eligible to play in the Fall.
Not too surprising a story so far. I'm sure it happens a lot, even at schools not known for being collegiate football power houses. And I'm fairly sure his academic struggle wasn't strictly confined to the rigorous curriculum or the competitive student-body. College -- even at a sedate Ivy -- can supply enough distractions outside of the classroom even for non-athletes, that can affect that first year away from home.
What happened next ought not be typical (I hope), especially for an institution of the academic caliber of an Ivy League.
At the end of the Spring semester, he and his mom approached the head coach and director of player personnel to propose that Mike take a red shirt during his sophomore year to help adjust to the rigors of Ivy College's classroom. Mike had managed to bring his GPA up to a 2.3 so he was eligible to play; but he felt he was still treading water, and knew that the demands of football could likely put him back into a similar situation as he'd faced his first year.
The athletic staff was not supportive of that idea. They recommended a change of major, transferring from the School of Engineering. He had declared his major field of study to be Environmental Engineering, but his athletic department counselors offered a handful of suggestions they felt would be less demanding. The practical fact of the matter, as far as football was concerned, was that the offensive line depth was thin and they couldn't afford, from a team roster perspective, to give him up, even though he was still projected to be mostly a bench player.
Ultimately, the athletic department rejected the red shirt proposal. Mike, for his part, agreed to alter his curriculum, and he switched to the College of Arts & Sciences. (I can't remember his new choice of degree, or if it was one that was suggested for him.) That Fall, he rode the pine, mostly, getting the occasional playing time for his efforts, but suffered a back injury during the latter half of the season. And despite the change in major to an "easier" curriculum, he was still hovering in the 2.3 range.
Ivy College just wasn't turning out as he'd hoped. Missing San Diego, suffering through bleak New England winters, and just scratching through an academic nightmare in a field he wasn't even particularly interested in, he found himself doubting the decision that at one time had been hailed as a smart and wise one. He was feeling beat up, physically and academically.
Since he was not on athletic scholarship (Ivy League schools don't provide athletic scholarships) and paying his own way anyway, he realized he didn't need to be a football player in order to stay at Ivy College. Football had gotten him in, but continuing enrollment wasn't contingent on any commitment to football. He knew he'd lose some benefits, like access to fitness resources, the training table and access to the resources and special assistance afforded to student-athletes to help with their academics. There was also the sense of belonging and fraternal identity of being on the football team that he knew he'd be giving up. It was a hard decision.
After the start of his second Spring semester -- this time without his mom -- he met with his head coach to inform him of his decision to quit the team in order to pay full attention to his academic goals. The coach was not happy. He argued that the team had made a commitment to him and had invested much time and effort in him. He was, so the argument went, a key cog in the program plans; to quit now would throw a monkey wrench into the player personnel strategy and it was a little late in the game to come in now and throw this news on the team.
Mike didn't get the "if you'd wanted an education, you shoulda gone to Harvard" speech. After all, he essentially WAS at Harvard (or so this particularly Ivy would like to believe.) But the athletic staff didn't make it easy for him. "Quitting" was treated like a character flaw. No value was given by the athletic department people to the rationale of quitting for the purpose of improving the quality of the education he was supposed to be getting from this Ivy-level collegiate opportunity.
Mike was never going to play football professionally. Mike wasn't promised that he was ever going to be anything more than a 2nd string utility man off the bench, working in the trenches of the offensive line. Mike wasn't getting any tuition assistance. There weren't even any boosters offering to help under the table. What, other than guilt, was holding him to some earlier commitment, coercing him to compromise his educational goals?
Despite the pressure not to, he did quit; but the experience was so unfriendly and unsupportive, he transferred after the Spring term. He left Ivy College, moved back home and enrolled at San Diego State University. He'd wind up earning his degree from SDSU, even joining the football squad and being awarded a grant in aid as a fifth year senior. He never became a star student, even at SDSU, but he was no longer struggling just to stay afloat, and he felt like his coursework was finally meaningful and not just something meant to keep him eligible.
I wonder sometimes whether his story is typical. Maybe not in terms of his dissatisfaction, since I'm sure more than a few collegiate student-athletes aren't overly concerned with maximizing their educational experience. For too many, a 2.3 GPA is probably just fine, and the more shortcuts or paths of least resistance to a diploma, the better. But it surprised me that the compromises expected of student-athletes, particularly in football, existed to this degree even at a vaunted Ivy League school that wasn't even that successful in football during the time frame of this story.
I give Mike a lot of credit. I'm not sure I would have been able to quit. I likely would have acquiesced, suffered through another two years just to be awarded that Ivy diploma, even if it was a facade in terms of the quality.
I thought about not obscuring the identity of the college; and I might even edit this later to include real names, if "Mike" gives me permission. I only publish this here to add another anecdotal illustration of how collegiate sports programs can affect what should be the primary mission of a university; that being the academic education of the individual. I'm not hostile to the value of collegiate athletics...at all. I'm more than a little cautious myself that entities like The Drake Group might have a more militant or drastic vision than do I regarding the best balance between sport and the classroom. 1
But the challenge to achieve that best balance doesn't merely reside within the confines of "revenue sports" nor is it abated simply by removing scholarships from the equation. There is still a potential incentive for those who are hired to obtain and sustain success on the field or court, using student-athletes as a resource, to dilute the emphasis on academic learning where such emphasis impacts the athletic goals of the school, coaches or boosters/fans.
Universities should be watchdogs, policing themselves to ensure that the goals of athletic achievement don't supplant education in terms of priorities. On the other hand, I don't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those academics who long for an ideal where collegiate sports are stripped from the university landscape.
I also recognize that for a rare few, mainly in the for-profit sports of football and basketball, college can be a stepping stone to a professional career in the sport. But universities are not vocational schools and shouldn't be forcing or expecting "student-athletes" to be "athlete-students." As I posted earlier, some compromise is expected, and it's part of the bargain, at least in terms of scholarship arrangements. But it crosses the line when schools expect a student-athlete to be willing to accept a subpar or non-enriching academic experience so that the athletic department has the student-athlete resource it needs.
1 Update: Since this was originally posted, I've since become more appreciative of The Drake Group's activities and philosophies. I'm not sure I would consider myself to be 100% aligned, however my former trepidation about the organization no longer exists.
About ten years ago, a neighbor family who used to live down the street from us had a son--I'll call him Mike--who was CIF All-State First Team offensive lineman. We were good friends who followed and cheered for him, and we were excited when he decided to pass on the many scholarship offers he'd received, and instead opted to leverage his football talent to gain access to an Ivy League education. "Mike" was no muscle-head in the classroom, but neither was he Ivy League material based on his scholastic merits only.
Sadly, his first year at "Ivy College" was a disaster. He was third string on the team, dealing with injuries during his freshman season, during which he failed a class, got a D in another, and had to struggle during the Spring term to get his grades up in time to be eligible to play in the Fall.
Not too surprising a story so far. I'm sure it happens a lot, even at schools not known for being collegiate football power houses. And I'm fairly sure his academic struggle wasn't strictly confined to the rigorous curriculum or the competitive student-body. College -- even at a sedate Ivy -- can supply enough distractions outside of the classroom even for non-athletes, that can affect that first year away from home.
What happened next ought not be typical (I hope), especially for an institution of the academic caliber of an Ivy League.
At the end of the Spring semester, he and his mom approached the head coach and director of player personnel to propose that Mike take a red shirt during his sophomore year to help adjust to the rigors of Ivy College's classroom. Mike had managed to bring his GPA up to a 2.3 so he was eligible to play; but he felt he was still treading water, and knew that the demands of football could likely put him back into a similar situation as he'd faced his first year.
The athletic staff was not supportive of that idea. They recommended a change of major, transferring from the School of Engineering. He had declared his major field of study to be Environmental Engineering, but his athletic department counselors offered a handful of suggestions they felt would be less demanding. The practical fact of the matter, as far as football was concerned, was that the offensive line depth was thin and they couldn't afford, from a team roster perspective, to give him up, even though he was still projected to be mostly a bench player.
Ultimately, the athletic department rejected the red shirt proposal. Mike, for his part, agreed to alter his curriculum, and he switched to the College of Arts & Sciences. (I can't remember his new choice of degree, or if it was one that was suggested for him.) That Fall, he rode the pine, mostly, getting the occasional playing time for his efforts, but suffered a back injury during the latter half of the season. And despite the change in major to an "easier" curriculum, he was still hovering in the 2.3 range.
Ivy College just wasn't turning out as he'd hoped. Missing San Diego, suffering through bleak New England winters, and just scratching through an academic nightmare in a field he wasn't even particularly interested in, he found himself doubting the decision that at one time had been hailed as a smart and wise one. He was feeling beat up, physically and academically.
Since he was not on athletic scholarship (Ivy League schools don't provide athletic scholarships) and paying his own way anyway, he realized he didn't need to be a football player in order to stay at Ivy College. Football had gotten him in, but continuing enrollment wasn't contingent on any commitment to football. He knew he'd lose some benefits, like access to fitness resources, the training table and access to the resources and special assistance afforded to student-athletes to help with their academics. There was also the sense of belonging and fraternal identity of being on the football team that he knew he'd be giving up. It was a hard decision.
After the start of his second Spring semester -- this time without his mom -- he met with his head coach to inform him of his decision to quit the team in order to pay full attention to his academic goals. The coach was not happy. He argued that the team had made a commitment to him and had invested much time and effort in him. He was, so the argument went, a key cog in the program plans; to quit now would throw a monkey wrench into the player personnel strategy and it was a little late in the game to come in now and throw this news on the team.
Mike didn't get the "if you'd wanted an education, you shoulda gone to Harvard" speech. After all, he essentially WAS at Harvard (or so this particularly Ivy would like to believe.) But the athletic staff didn't make it easy for him. "Quitting" was treated like a character flaw. No value was given by the athletic department people to the rationale of quitting for the purpose of improving the quality of the education he was supposed to be getting from this Ivy-level collegiate opportunity.
Mike was never going to play football professionally. Mike wasn't promised that he was ever going to be anything more than a 2nd string utility man off the bench, working in the trenches of the offensive line. Mike wasn't getting any tuition assistance. There weren't even any boosters offering to help under the table. What, other than guilt, was holding him to some earlier commitment, coercing him to compromise his educational goals?
Despite the pressure not to, he did quit; but the experience was so unfriendly and unsupportive, he transferred after the Spring term. He left Ivy College, moved back home and enrolled at San Diego State University. He'd wind up earning his degree from SDSU, even joining the football squad and being awarded a grant in aid as a fifth year senior. He never became a star student, even at SDSU, but he was no longer struggling just to stay afloat, and he felt like his coursework was finally meaningful and not just something meant to keep him eligible.
I wonder sometimes whether his story is typical. Maybe not in terms of his dissatisfaction, since I'm sure more than a few collegiate student-athletes aren't overly concerned with maximizing their educational experience. For too many, a 2.3 GPA is probably just fine, and the more shortcuts or paths of least resistance to a diploma, the better. But it surprised me that the compromises expected of student-athletes, particularly in football, existed to this degree even at a vaunted Ivy League school that wasn't even that successful in football during the time frame of this story.
I give Mike a lot of credit. I'm not sure I would have been able to quit. I likely would have acquiesced, suffered through another two years just to be awarded that Ivy diploma, even if it was a facade in terms of the quality.
I thought about not obscuring the identity of the college; and I might even edit this later to include real names, if "Mike" gives me permission. I only publish this here to add another anecdotal illustration of how collegiate sports programs can affect what should be the primary mission of a university; that being the academic education of the individual. I'm not hostile to the value of collegiate athletics...at all. I'm more than a little cautious myself that entities like The Drake Group might have a more militant or drastic vision than do I regarding the best balance between sport and the classroom. 1
But the challenge to achieve that best balance doesn't merely reside within the confines of "revenue sports" nor is it abated simply by removing scholarships from the equation. There is still a potential incentive for those who are hired to obtain and sustain success on the field or court, using student-athletes as a resource, to dilute the emphasis on academic learning where such emphasis impacts the athletic goals of the school, coaches or boosters/fans.
Universities should be watchdogs, policing themselves to ensure that the goals of athletic achievement don't supplant education in terms of priorities. On the other hand, I don't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those academics who long for an ideal where collegiate sports are stripped from the university landscape.
I also recognize that for a rare few, mainly in the for-profit sports of football and basketball, college can be a stepping stone to a professional career in the sport. But universities are not vocational schools and shouldn't be forcing or expecting "student-athletes" to be "athlete-students." As I posted earlier, some compromise is expected, and it's part of the bargain, at least in terms of scholarship arrangements. But it crosses the line when schools expect a student-athlete to be willing to accept a subpar or non-enriching academic experience so that the athletic department has the student-athlete resource it needs.
1 Update: Since this was originally posted, I've since become more appreciative of The Drake Group's activities and philosophies. I'm not sure I would consider myself to be 100% aligned, however my former trepidation about the organization no longer exists.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Questioning the Gutmann Article Questioning the Wainstein Report
InsideCarolina.com (IC) has published an article by Harold Gutmann that purportedly scratches the surface on the failures of the Wainstein investigation of UNC. After reading Gutmann's article and doing a little fact-checking of my own, I felt the need to question the questioner:
Prior to the Report's release, most cynics of the pending Wainstein investigation would probably have been colored Wolfpack Red or Duke Blue, many of whom were prepared for a "whitewash" by a faux-independent investigator.
So it's a bit of a switch that after 5-6 weeks of digesting the report (and it's associated exhibits and supplemental documentation - link), that the most vocal criticism of the report comes from the quarter that had been anticipating Wainstein would finally settle the truth of the matter and put an end to what they felt was a witch hunt.
Despite UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt's acceptance of the Report and call to move forward without excuses...
I'd like to examine Gutmann's "tip of the iceberg," which boils down to four errors or discrepancies that he suggests should lead a critical reader to doubt the veracity of the Report on the whole. These are:
The account of a Morehead-Cain Scholar being referred to Debby Crowder's paper classes in order to help with a sagging GPA is found on pg. 51 of the Report. The extent to which Morehead-Cain Scholars are mentioned by Wainstein are: (1) a 3-sentence paragraph in a section of the Report listing various alternative ways in which non-athletes may have wound up enrolled in the AFAM paper classes; plus, (2) a 2-sentence footnote on pg. 68 discussing advisers in general. Makes a total of five (5) statements the Report makes about the anecdotal example (bolded emphasis mine):
Given the implications of the Foundation being at all associated with any implied endorsement of the "paper class" scheme, I get why Mr. Lovelace would be keen on resolving the question and getting a correction on the record.
The alleged presentation by counselors from the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) to some members of the football team and coaching staff that included a slide about the impending retirement of Debby Crowder and the likely impact on the availability of classes she had arranged, has been a hot topic in the post-Wainstein Report discussions. A source of contention has been who, exactly, was present at that team meeting.
Unlike the Morehead-Cain anecdote, this one isn't minor and incidental; but rather goes directly to the core of the matter. Its veracity or dubiousness would factor significantly in terms of NCAA 'resonance.' What I understand Gutmann's criticism of the Wainstein Report to be in this instance isn't the truth of the claim that the ASPSA counselors presented the slide. The slide obviously existed and is on the record. The question is whether any of the coaching staff were audience to ASPSA reps Beth Bridger and Jaimie Lee's presentation, and were thus informed of the "true nature" of the paper classes. Wainstein, so the criticism goes, tries to pin that "true nature" knowledge on the coaching staff without performing its investigation with due diligence.
The Report cites that former football head coach Butch Davis, former director of football student-athlete development Andre Williams, associate athletic director for Football Administration Corey Holliday and some (most? all?) of the 2009 staff position coaches were present. Butch Davis and John Shoop (quarterback position coach at the time) were the only two from the coaching staff who were interviewed by Wainstein, and both claim to not remember the briefing. Shoop, emphatically denies having been present at any such briefing and has, since, expressed dismay at the exclusion from the Report of his denial. The Report did include Davis's claim of not remembering such a briefing.
The other assistant coaches (John Blake, Sam Pittman, Ken Browning, Steve Hagen, Tommy Thigpen, Charlie Williams, Everett Withers and John Lovett) either weren't contacted or wouldn't agree to be interviewed.
So, what is the complaint again? Gutmann is suggesting -- particularly by emphasizing John Shoop's criticisms about how his interview with Wainstein was handled and reported (or not reported, as the case may be) -- that Wainstein had an agenda and only sought information that fit that agenda. By citing the Bridger/Lee presentation and placing coaching staff there without verification of the coaches themselves, Wainstein (according to Gutmann) skews the picture to fit a narrative of coaching staff complicity in, or at least knowledge of, the nature of these "paper classes."
But was that really Wainstein's narrative? Does the suspicion stand up to scrutiny?
What Gutmann doesn't relate is that Shoop's vehement objections about the Wainstein investigation don't lead to the same conclusion as Gutmann's regarding Wainstein's agenda or "narrative." The frustration and resentment Shoop has expressed is over what he feels has been the scapegoating of certain individuals, pinning blame on some while insulating others, in order to present a narrative sought by his customer: Chancellor Folt and/or President Ross (and whoever the powers are pulling their strings.) Would Gutmann agree that Shoop and Davis were innocents, but the real engineers of fraud were, say, ASPSA directors like Cynthia Reynolds or Robert Mercer? How about the narrative that Wainstein's prescribed agenda was to leave the egg on football's face in order to insulate the basketball program? Because that is what Shoop and Davis (updated: link to OTL program added 12/14/2014) are getting at with their objections to Wainstein cited by Mr. Gutmann.
Just whose narrative was Wainstein supposed to have been pursuing? Would Gutmann agree with Shoop that Wainstein's narrative is aligned with those who contracted to have him investigate the fraud? If not, then just who's narrative WAS Wainstein seeking to promote? Dan Kane's? Jay Smiths? What could possibly motivate Wainstein to push THAT narrative? (There actually may be an answer to that rhetorical question, but I'll let Gutmann or Bethel bring that to the table, if either wishes.)
But here's the thing: even if Wainstein was careless, or manipulating, or just plain wrong, and no coaches were present, is there doubt in Gutmann's mind that Bridger/Lee didn't really present that information to some people in the football organization? Even if no one on the football staff ever admits to seeing that slide, isn't its existence enough to illustrate that at least the counseling staff understood the purpose and necessity of the "paper class?" Surely Gutmann's not saying that because Davis and Shoop deny any knowledge or memory of that presentation, that the presentation never happened or that Wainstein fabricated the slide.
Gutmann third point that seeks to cast doubt on the report's integrity presents Roy Williams' noting of alleged discrepancies in the Wainstein Report.
Gutmann correctly quotes the report: "11 of Rashad McCants' teammates appeared together on ESPN when Williams refuted allegations made by made by McCants." Just after getting the Reports' language right, he then shares Williams' rendition: "it [Wainstein Report] said that we had 11 players from the ’05 team. It was not, there were seven." But this is different. Roy believes the 11 of the report are all from the '05 team; but the 11 student-athletes cited by the report came from all of the years McCants played at UNC. Roy is right about 7 being from the 2005 roster, but that doesn't contradict the Report. There's no discrepancy there as Williams believes, and as Gutmann conveys.
Gutmann also relates Williams' saying "[Wainstein Report] said they talked to seven, they spoke to 10." It is true about what the Wainstein Report says: the investigators did speak with 7 of the 11 from the group above. Is the an error? Did Wainstein really speak with 10 and misreported the number?
I don't know. But if Roy IS right about that one...so what? I fail to see how such an error -- if it is, in fact, in error - skews anything. Did Wainstein render 3 interviews null in order to sustain an anti-UNC narrative? What's the implication of such an error?
Is this a serious critique of the Wainstein Report? I almost feel embarrassed having even addressed it. Gutmann says himself that the numbers are immaterial to the issue of fraud, but what then IS material about this? Gutmann believing that Williams accurately identified counting mistakes in the Wainstein report because a confused Roy Williams says so betrays a lack of critical analysis of Williams of the sort he asks of those those reading the Wainstein report.
The point when men's basketball enrollment in AFAM paper classes actually ended was after Walden left UNC. UNC advocates could really credit Jenn Townsend, Walden's replacement, for that. Did the Wainstein report fabricate this data to malign Walden? Or is the data trustworthy and it's Gutmann's claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
No other examples are offered by Gutmann suggesting a Wainstein "narrative" with respect to Walden. Since Gutmann's claimed drop-off in AFAM paper classes isn't validated by the data, all that's left is Roy Williams' conviction that Wainstein is wrong about Walden.
In summary, I disagree with Bradley Bethel's assessment. I don't feel Harold Gutmann's article contributes to a dismantling of Wainstein Report. It's a good editorial piece in terms of appealing to an audience that is eager to make the pain of the scandal go away; but I hope that whatever Bethel has in store for us in revealing the rest of the iceberg will be more substantive.
I've invited Mr. Gutmann to provide feedback, which I would append to this article. I'm not immune from mistakes and maybe my counter-analysis is in error. I welcome correction and I'm not vested in any side being right or vindicated. I can be persuaded to change my mind.
Note: This article was originally posted in first draft form on the morning of December 9th, 2014, inviting Harold Gutmann an opportunity to offer any corrections or comment. That invitation is still open, but I've since revised some of the wording and deleted some statements I've since felt were incorrect.
Prior to the Report's release, most cynics of the pending Wainstein investigation would probably have been colored Wolfpack Red or Duke Blue, many of whom were prepared for a "whitewash" by a faux-independent investigator.
So it's a bit of a switch that after 5-6 weeks of digesting the report (and it's associated exhibits and supplemental documentation - link), that the most vocal criticism of the report comes from the quarter that had been anticipating Wainstein would finally settle the truth of the matter and put an end to what they felt was a witch hunt.
Despite UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt's acceptance of the Report and call to move forward without excuses...
...there is a growing movement from within the ranks of university advocates calling the Wainstein Report into question. Mr. Gutmann's won't be the last, nor the most pointed. I fully expect -- and sincerely look forward to -- a lengthy and detailed review of the flaws in the Wainstein investigation by Bradley Bethel at Coaching the Mind at some point. Bethel has drawn parallels between the Freeh Report in the case of the Penn St. Sandusky scandal and Wainstein's review of UNC's academic scandal involving student-athletes (here and here). According to him, Gutmann's article is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how it misrepresented some subjects of the investigation, mainly those upon whose doorstep blame for the scandal was laid by Wainstein.
I'd like to examine Gutmann's "tip of the iceberg," which boils down to four errors or discrepancies that he suggests should lead a critical reader to doubt the veracity of the Report on the whole. These are:
- The Morehead-Cain Scholar Discrepancy:
- The report relates an unverified story of a Morehead-Cain scholar having been referred to one of Crowder's paper classes to order to salvage a dipping GPA that was in danger of threatening his scholarship.
- Gutmann calls this anecdote into question, citing a letter from the Morehead-Cain Foundation executive director charging that it is unverified and without merit.
(Click for more) - The Bridger-Lee Slide Presentation Discrepancy:
- The report provides an account of a slide presentation given to members of the football program, warning of the impending retirement of Debby Crowder and the anticipated end to the paper classes she offered.
- Gutmann presents objections by former head coach Davis and assistant coach Shoop that, at least in their cases, the presence of coaching staff at the meeting as it is depicted by Wainstein was misrepresented.
(Click for more) - The Former Players Tally Discrepancy:
- The report cites the number of former players appearing in support of Roy Williams at an ESPN interview and the number of former Williams players interviewed by the investigation team.
- Gutmann presents Roy Williams' disputing the accuracy of the numbers cited by the Wainstein Report.
(Click for more) - The Wayne Walden Finding Discrepancy:
- The report reaches conclusions about former men's basketball program academic counselor Wayne Walden's knowledge of and complicity in the paper class scheme.
- Gutmann provides a rationale for why Wainstein's finding re. Walden should be discounted.
(Click for more)
The stated objective of the Gutmann article is to encourage a critical examination of the Wainstein Report since it will likely be cited as definitive. That's wise advice for reading any report, including essays like Gutmann's at InsideCarolina and mine here. Let's critically examine each of these discrepancy claims.
1. The Morehead-Cain Scholar Discrepancy
1. The Morehead-Cain Scholar Discrepancy
The account of a Morehead-Cain Scholar being referred to Debby Crowder's paper classes in order to help with a sagging GPA is found on pg. 51 of the Report. The extent to which Morehead-Cain Scholars are mentioned by Wainstein are: (1) a 3-sentence paragraph in a section of the Report listing various alternative ways in which non-athletes may have wound up enrolled in the AFAM paper classes; plus, (2) a 2-sentence footnote on pg. 68 discussing advisers in general. Makes a total of five (5) statements the Report makes about the anecdotal example (bolded emphasis mine):
- "Another referral venue was through the advisors for scholarship programs, including Carolina Covenant and Morehead-Cain Scholars." (pg 51)
- "For example, we heard of one Morehead-Cain Scholar who was referred to Crowder for placement in a paper class when his GPA started to slip and he was in danger of losing his scholarship." (pg 51)
- "Crowder placed him in a paper class, he got an A, and was able to keep his scholarship." (pg 51)
- "As explained above, referrals to the AFAM paper classes were also made by the Morehead-Cain and CarolinaCovenant advisors." (pg. 68, footnote #132)
- "We have seen nothing to suggest that those advisors knew any more about the workings of the AFAM paper classes than their colleagues at the Steele Building." (pg. 68, footnote #132)
3 of the 5 sentences mention advisers for the Morehead-Cain Foundation, 2 of which are attributed with making referrals to Crowder. The discrepancy is that the Morehead-Cain Foundation employs no advisers.
Morehead-Cain Foundation executive director Charles Lovelace wrote in an open letter (which Mr. Gutmann graciously shared with me) stating that the Foundation objected to the Wainstein Report claiming that advisers attached to the Foundation had referred a Scholar to AFAM paper classes, and that their investigation had found the claim to be without merit. In the letter, Mr. Lovelace wasn't disputing that a Morehead-Cain Scholar had taken a paper class, nor that, had he, the goal could have been to bolster a sagging GPA. (Statements #2 and 3, above.) The objection was over the Report' suggesting that the Foundation, itself, had ever been complicit in referring any Scholar to such a class. (Statements #1, 4 and 5, at least as pertaining to Morehead-Cain Scholars.)
Morehead-Cain Foundation executive director Charles Lovelace wrote in an open letter (which Mr. Gutmann graciously shared with me) stating that the Foundation objected to the Wainstein Report claiming that advisers attached to the Foundation had referred a Scholar to AFAM paper classes, and that their investigation had found the claim to be without merit. In the letter, Mr. Lovelace wasn't disputing that a Morehead-Cain Scholar had taken a paper class, nor that, had he, the goal could have been to bolster a sagging GPA. (Statements #2 and 3, above.) The objection was over the Report' suggesting that the Foundation, itself, had ever been complicit in referring any Scholar to such a class. (Statements #1, 4 and 5, at least as pertaining to Morehead-Cain Scholars.)
Lovelace's letter relates that when the Foundation contacted the Wainstein team, the Wainstein response was to emphasize that an allegation of Foundation advisers making a referral wasn't a finding of fact, but rather a conveyance of what the investigators had heard. In other words, Wainstein's team wasn't reporting the referral as true, but rather retelling what an unnamed source had alleged. I'm not going to try to pester Kenneth Wainstein for his side of the story since I have no reason to be cautious of Lovelace's representation.
Given the implications of the Foundation being at all associated with any implied endorsement of the "paper class" scheme, I get why Mr. Lovelace would be keen on resolving the question and getting a correction on the record.
So why did Wainstein report it at all without seeking to verify the claim from anyone at the Foundation? That's a fair question.
Here's another one: why would the general public (outside of the Morehead-Can Foundation) even care? Personally, I didn't read the anecdote about the Morehead-Cain paper class referral and wonder how the Foundation could have gotten itself involved in this mess. It wasn't until after hearing that the executive director's letter even existed that I became aware that a parochial objection had been raised on that particular point. Given that Gutmann later insinuates Wainstein may have been guided by a preconceived "narrative," what narrative is suggested by the inclusion of the anecdote and the revelation that it went unverified by Wainstein? If the claim is assumed to be true, what "narrative" does it support?
Here's another one: why would the general public (outside of the Morehead-Can Foundation) even care? Personally, I didn't read the anecdote about the Morehead-Cain paper class referral and wonder how the Foundation could have gotten itself involved in this mess. It wasn't until after hearing that the executive director's letter even existed that I became aware that a parochial objection had been raised on that particular point. Given that Gutmann later insinuates Wainstein may have been guided by a preconceived "narrative," what narrative is suggested by the inclusion of the anecdote and the revelation that it went unverified by Wainstein? If the claim is assumed to be true, what "narrative" does it support?
Gutman opines the discrepancy is a possible "example that not everything in the $3 million report stands up to close scrutiny, a consideration that takes on bigger resonance if the NCAA is indeed using the report as a launching point for its own investigation." But how would adding an uncorroborated claim of how non-athletes might find their way into the paper classes enhance that NCAA resonance? If anything, wouldn't its inclusion mute such resonance as far as the NCAA is concerned? Hasn't the inclusion of non-athletes in the paper classes been a standard rationale for why this was an academic, not an athletic, issue?
I agree that if it impugns Morehead-Cain integrity, without any foundation other than hearsay, it ought not to be in there, and I can see why it would be important to the Morehead-Cain Foundation to set the record straight. But as for any "narrative" or discrediting of the Wainstein Report, isn't it rather picayune? If you don't agree with that, can you at least agree that its careless inclusion actually supports a "not an athletic, but academic scandal" narrative? If Wainstein's agenda was to seek resonance with the NCAA, including that anecdote doesn't help.
2. The Bridger-Lee Slide Presentation Discrepancy
The alleged presentation by counselors from the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) to some members of the football team and coaching staff that included a slide about the impending retirement of Debby Crowder and the likely impact on the availability of classes she had arranged, has been a hot topic in the post-Wainstein Report discussions. A source of contention has been who, exactly, was present at that team meeting.
Unlike the Morehead-Cain anecdote, this one isn't minor and incidental; but rather goes directly to the core of the matter. Its veracity or dubiousness would factor significantly in terms of NCAA 'resonance.' What I understand Gutmann's criticism of the Wainstein Report to be in this instance isn't the truth of the claim that the ASPSA counselors presented the slide. The slide obviously existed and is on the record. The question is whether any of the coaching staff were audience to ASPSA reps Beth Bridger and Jaimie Lee's presentation, and were thus informed of the "true nature" of the paper classes. Wainstein, so the criticism goes, tries to pin that "true nature" knowledge on the coaching staff without performing its investigation with due diligence.
The Report cites that former football head coach Butch Davis, former director of football student-athlete development Andre Williams, associate athletic director for Football Administration Corey Holliday and some (most? all?) of the 2009 staff position coaches were present. Butch Davis and John Shoop (quarterback position coach at the time) were the only two from the coaching staff who were interviewed by Wainstein, and both claim to not remember the briefing. Shoop, emphatically denies having been present at any such briefing and has, since, expressed dismay at the exclusion from the Report of his denial. The Report did include Davis's claim of not remembering such a briefing.
The other assistant coaches (John Blake, Sam Pittman, Ken Browning, Steve Hagen, Tommy Thigpen, Charlie Williams, Everett Withers and John Lovett) either weren't contacted or wouldn't agree to be interviewed.
So, what is the complaint again? Gutmann is suggesting -- particularly by emphasizing John Shoop's criticisms about how his interview with Wainstein was handled and reported (or not reported, as the case may be) -- that Wainstein had an agenda and only sought information that fit that agenda. By citing the Bridger/Lee presentation and placing coaching staff there without verification of the coaches themselves, Wainstein (according to Gutmann) skews the picture to fit a narrative of coaching staff complicity in, or at least knowledge of, the nature of these "paper classes."
But was that really Wainstein's narrative? Does the suspicion stand up to scrutiny?What Gutmann doesn't relate is that Shoop's vehement objections about the Wainstein investigation don't lead to the same conclusion as Gutmann's regarding Wainstein's agenda or "narrative." The frustration and resentment Shoop has expressed is over what he feels has been the scapegoating of certain individuals, pinning blame on some while insulating others, in order to present a narrative sought by his customer: Chancellor Folt and/or President Ross (and whoever the powers are pulling their strings.) Would Gutmann agree that Shoop and Davis were innocents, but the real engineers of fraud were, say, ASPSA directors like Cynthia Reynolds or Robert Mercer? How about the narrative that Wainstein's prescribed agenda was to leave the egg on football's face in order to insulate the basketball program? Because that is what Shoop and Davis (updated: link to OTL program added 12/14/2014) are getting at with their objections to Wainstein cited by Mr. Gutmann.
Just whose narrative was Wainstein supposed to have been pursuing? Would Gutmann agree with Shoop that Wainstein's narrative is aligned with those who contracted to have him investigate the fraud? If not, then just who's narrative WAS Wainstein seeking to promote? Dan Kane's? Jay Smiths? What could possibly motivate Wainstein to push THAT narrative? (There actually may be an answer to that rhetorical question, but I'll let Gutmann or Bethel bring that to the table, if either wishes.)
But here's the thing: even if Wainstein was careless, or manipulating, or just plain wrong, and no coaches were present, is there doubt in Gutmann's mind that Bridger/Lee didn't really present that information to some people in the football organization? Even if no one on the football staff ever admits to seeing that slide, isn't its existence enough to illustrate that at least the counseling staff understood the purpose and necessity of the "paper class?" Surely Gutmann's not saying that because Davis and Shoop deny any knowledge or memory of that presentation, that the presentation never happened or that Wainstein fabricated the slide.
3. The Former-Players Tally Discrepancy
Gutmann third point that seeks to cast doubt on the report's integrity presents Roy Williams' noting of alleged discrepancies in the Wainstein Report.
Gutmann correctly quotes the report: "11 of Rashad McCants' teammates appeared together on ESPN when Williams refuted allegations made by made by McCants." Just after getting the Reports' language right, he then shares Williams' rendition: "it [Wainstein Report] said that we had 11 players from the ’05 team. It was not, there were seven." But this is different. Roy believes the 11 of the report are all from the '05 team; but the 11 student-athletes cited by the report came from all of the years McCants played at UNC. Roy is right about 7 being from the 2005 roster, but that doesn't contradict the Report. There's no discrepancy there as Williams believes, and as Gutmann conveys.
Gutmann also relates Williams' saying "[Wainstein Report] said they talked to seven, they spoke to 10." It is true about what the Wainstein Report says: the investigators did speak with 7 of the 11 from the group above. Is the an error? Did Wainstein really speak with 10 and misreported the number?
I don't know. But if Roy IS right about that one...so what? I fail to see how such an error -- if it is, in fact, in error - skews anything. Did Wainstein render 3 interviews null in order to sustain an anti-UNC narrative? What's the implication of such an error?
Is this a serious critique of the Wainstein Report? I almost feel embarrassed having even addressed it. Gutmann says himself that the numbers are immaterial to the issue of fraud, but what then IS material about this? Gutmann believing that Williams accurately identified counting mistakes in the Wainstein report because a confused Roy Williams says so betrays a lack of critical analysis of Williams of the sort he asks of those those reading the Wainstein report.
4. The Wayne Walden Finding Discrepancy
Lastly, Gutmann presents Roy Williams' most pointed objection to Wainstein's report, that being the besmirching of Wayne Walden. If the numbers "errors" above are immaterial, surely the issue of Walden - academic counselor that took over from Burgess McSwain during the 03/04 academic year -- is quite pertinent.
The Wainstein Report does indict Walden with having knowledge of, and even participation in, the scheme. Given Williams' high regard for Walden, it's completely understandable that he'd be resistant to believing what the Report alleges regarding Walden. It's only natural for Williams to want to discredit the discrediting of his long-time associate; but does his discomfort or disbelief present a sound, persuasive argument? Are we supposed to give Roy Williams' opinion weight over that of Wainstein for some reason?
The only objective basis given in defense of Walden is Gutmann stating "Men’s basketball players had mostly stopped taking the AFAM paper classes by 2008, and Walden left the school in 2009."
This is a graphic representation of the data found in the Exhibits addendum of the report.
The Wainstein Report does indict Walden with having knowledge of, and even participation in, the scheme. Given Williams' high regard for Walden, it's completely understandable that he'd be resistant to believing what the Report alleges regarding Walden. It's only natural for Williams to want to discredit the discrediting of his long-time associate; but does his discomfort or disbelief present a sound, persuasive argument? Are we supposed to give Roy Williams' opinion weight over that of Wainstein for some reason?
The only objective basis given in defense of Walden is Gutmann stating "Men’s basketball players had mostly stopped taking the AFAM paper classes by 2008, and Walden left the school in 2009."
This is a graphic representation of the data found in the Exhibits addendum of the report.
The point when men's basketball enrollment in AFAM paper classes actually ended was after Walden left UNC. UNC advocates could really credit Jenn Townsend, Walden's replacement, for that. Did the Wainstein report fabricate this data to malign Walden? Or is the data trustworthy and it's Gutmann's claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
No other examples are offered by Gutmann suggesting a Wainstein "narrative" with respect to Walden. Since Gutmann's claimed drop-off in AFAM paper classes isn't validated by the data, all that's left is Roy Williams' conviction that Wainstein is wrong about Walden.
In summary, I disagree with Bradley Bethel's assessment. I don't feel Harold Gutmann's article contributes to a dismantling of Wainstein Report. It's a good editorial piece in terms of appealing to an audience that is eager to make the pain of the scandal go away; but I hope that whatever Bethel has in store for us in revealing the rest of the iceberg will be more substantive.
I've invited Mr. Gutmann to provide feedback, which I would append to this article. I'm not immune from mistakes and maybe my counter-analysis is in error. I welcome correction and I'm not vested in any side being right or vindicated. I can be persuaded to change my mind.
Note: This article was originally posted in first draft form on the morning of December 9th, 2014, inviting Harold Gutmann an opportunity to offer any corrections or comment. That invitation is still open, but I've since revised some of the wording and deleted some statements I've since felt were incorrect.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Manalishi
The enigmatic "Manalishi" posted an uncharacteristically long message on the Pack Pride forum today. I don't know what to make of it. Seems part allegorical. Part warning?
Whatever it was, it got the place talking. Here it is, reproduced. If the lack of paragraphs was intentional or meaningful, I've ruined it because I reformatted it for easier reading. I didn't alter anything else.
Whatever it was, it got the place talking. Here it is, reproduced. If the lack of paragraphs was intentional or meaningful, I've ruined it because I reformatted it for easier reading. I didn't alter anything else.
A few brief notes as we approach mid-week…. mid-month… mid-scandal? (let's hope not...) Regarding more news stories; they are coming. Several have already been assigned dates of publication by department editors. The last thing I will do, though, is deep-six any writer and his/her projects – so please excuse (and respect) the vague-ness. I know it is irritating, but also necessary. The holiday season is often a slow time for the publication of stories; if all continues as scheduled, that will be slightly different this December.
Along the lines of the media: It was stated (right here) several years ago that the really big news would stop being broken on PP as soon as the media fully took the bull by the horns. A month or so after the PJ situation that finally happened. Many, many other items surfaced (via the media) that could have initially appeared here – but as long as those journalists continue to show the effort and desire to pursue the issues, then they will be given that opportunity. While it is nice for PP to get some recognition and praise, practicality must also be considered. The truth is, certain mainstream media outlets have a much wider reach. And besides, having everyone know that YOU know shouldn’t be a necessity to self-worth and self-gratification. So yes, more is coming, but as always, you’ve just got to be patient.
Regarding the latest Wainstein rumors (and the possibility that UNC might challenge the findings in his report). That would be an error on their part of amazing proportions. As I posted in the early Fall, some events transpired over the summer that ultimately turned the tide of that report. (the exotic animal… remember?) What the movers-and-shakers in CH did not understand (or did not WANT to understand) is that Wainstein was neither a.) shackled by the “good ol’ boy” system in NC, nor b.) subject to excessive political pressure/influence from D.C. (like certain past PR hires). Put simply, he couldn’t be bought (in a manner of speaking) – at least not to the extent that it was worth risking his professional reputation. The man is still young, for all practical purposes, and has more career ahead of him. Not everyone who has plenty of money simply wants to retire and kick back at the country club (which was also hard for some of those movers-and-shakers to fathom). Some people have a true drive to research, to work, and to meet personal goals.
The second folly was that when he couldn’t be bought (again, in a manner of speaking), the bigger mistake was an attempt at bullying. Thus, any sort of post-report challenging would be very bad. As I mentioned earlier, several things happened back over the summer. NONE of that has been made officially public, nor do I think it ever will. But some of the finer details, should they “slip” out, would make unc wish that the originally-released 900 pages of supplemental info was all that had happened.
More to ponder: If unc ever formally challenges the Wainstein Report it will be due to “advice” given to them by their current PR team. (the “group of 14”) If the challenge comes to fruition, it will be an epic public fiasco… and who do you think will (financially) profit from having to concoct ways to defend unc’s reputation (during the ensuing fiasco), publically? Think on that infinity symbol for a bit. The irony is that unc themselves cannot see the connection. An even bigger irony? There have been whispers that two of the 14 could be looking for new jobs in the near future. Let’s see if the reasons ever leak out.
Finally: unc’s punishment. Will they get what they “deserve”? No. But that’s a qualified “no”… because ALL of the wrongs that have taken place will never come out, and more importantly: nor should they. When unc (meaning, J. Martin) said “this wasn’t an athletic scandal”, he didn’t know it – but he was ironically correct. If all the details ever came out then the subsequent fallout would ruin many, many lives, and that does not need to happen.
Now don’t misunderstand me. I am all for accountability, especially when it comes to those who have blatantly circumvented rules in order to win basketball games, lie to parents of recruits, etc. etc. But what is being referred to here are the “innocents” who would be affected. Hypothetical: if a 75-year-old bigwig S.O.B. was revealed to have broken rules, legally and/or ethically, and that played a vital role in everything that has ultimately transpired at unc for (well over, by the way) 18 years, should he/she be exposed? That is a tricky question, but I pose a deeper dilemma: the person did wrong, true. But did his/her 50-year-old children know, and have they taken an active role in the affair? Those offspring have 25-year-old children themselves, which means the S.O.B. might have some grandchildren in diapers. Are those TODDLERS to be condemned due to one person’s actions?
That is the situation of what is whispered, rumored, and in some instances factually known in regards to the true depth of the scandal. And it is also why I personally do not feel it ever needs to be known. I realize that some may disagree, and that is fine. If you ever become privy to the specific facts and details and you want to expose them, then it is your right. It will also, however, be your moral stigma to deal with.
My goal (meaning, unc’s accountability/punishment) has always been set, and has not really wavered over the years. It is less than what many on PP have bandied around, and is certainly less than what would result from a full-disclosure of all the corners of the closet. (there’s no real reason to go into specifics) As long as the NCAA does not somehow, someway, fold, then I feel it will happen. In fact, at some point I feel that the bigwigs might decide it’s best that it happens, as well.
On the flipside, there is the same roadblock as has been evident for 4+ years: there might be too many chiefs (75-year-old SOB’s?) to reach than consensus. I know this isn’t news to anyone on PP, but every “leader” at the school (and in the BOT and BOG) is nothing but a pawn and figurehead. Best case scenario, they truly are naïve enough to believe the obfuscation is simply about athletics (and they are okay to go along with the denials and lack of owning-up). The bigger question is whether any of the bigwigs (with the real power and influence) connected to CH will ever realize that losing a little bit of athletic prestige (past, current, and short-term future) truly IS worth keeping all of those dark secrets buried. They have tried to protect some pieces of cloth for several years now, morals be damned. But when it comes to one’s posterity, then I think we could eventually see some concessions being made – voluntarily. It would most certainly be the most prudent course of action, and I don’t say that as a rival – I say it as one who feels that the sins of the very old should not destroy the futures of the very, very young.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
John Saunders & Dick Vitale on the Scandal
Around 30 minutes into the December 3rd ESPN broadcast of the UNC vs. Iowa St. basketball game, just after coming out of a commercial break, with 7:54 remaining in the 1st half, play-by-play and color commentators John Saunders and Dick Vitale brought up the scandal and decided to pontificate a bit.
Here is the exchange as I was able to transcribe it. I'll post it first without my commentary. Further below, I'll repeat it but with my comments added.
John Saunders: Welcome back to North Carolina where some tremendous and well-remembered student athletes have passed through, and many of them through this building, and through many courses here at North Carolina.
And right now the school is dealing with what some would call a scandal. Which is -- there was a certain curriculum here under which, allegedly, the players never actually did work in classes that they received credit for. And Dick, it's something that Coach Roy Williams has had to deal with and it's been really difficult for him and others who have coached here in the past as well.
Dick Vitale: Well you know John, talking to people involved with the University, people that have graduated; I talked to one graduate that has two degrees. He said, really, "it's been absolutely a disgrace. I'm disappointed. I'm hurt, but most of all many of my friends who've graduated from this fine university, we're angry. We're angry. Where were all these academic advisers during that time?"
It was in front of them. It started in 1993, John. I mean you can't try to solve this here in the matter of 30 seconds, but it's ugly . It's disgraceful. We haven't certainly seen the end of it. The NCAA is looking into it right now
But I will say this. Coaches are told by these academic people to stay away -- I've talked to a number of coaches -- "don't get involved with their classes. Let us handle that."
Well, I say, where were the academic advisers? They were all part of it. They fired a number of them here. Got rid of 'em. And I'll tell you it is sad because this is one great university and I know many of their graduates are so disappointed and hurt by what has transpired.
Saunders: Roy Williams is here, and he said he obviously had no knowledge of this, but in backing him up, Mack Brown works with me every Saturday on college football, he was the football coach here when this allegedly started; Butch Davis works with us as well and he, of course, was the coach for much of this; they both said the same thing. Coaches do not know about what's going on academically
They will find out -- nice shot by Utah from the outside -- if a player is going to class or not. They will find that out and they'll make 'em run, or make 'em come early, longer hours in the weight room to make up for things that happened that they can control. But as far as which course they're taking, how many credits this one counted towards, what the curriculum was this, they don't have knowledge of that. They just don't..at any university.
Vitale: Absolutely, however let's face reality. Coaches are responsible for the people that are in their program and have to be accountable to a certain degree. However in this scenario here this was flat out cheating done by a lot of academic advisers out there, manipulating -- big time -- classes and grades to get players eligible.
And it wasn't only players...
Saunders: It wasn't only players, exactly.
Vitale: 48% were athletes. 52% were non-athletes, would get in paper classes, never showing up and that's a disgrace and a humiliation, an embarrassment to all the quality people that have graduated here and did things the right way.
My Comment: Now, here's that transcript again with my reaction interspersed in red.
John Saunders: Welcome back to North Carolina where some tremendous and well-remembered student athletes have passed through, and many of them through this building, and through many courses here at North Carolina.
My Comment: I was wondering if -- and if so, how -- they'd broach the subject of the scandal. It came after a timeout and return from a commercial spot, and seemed (at least to me) to have been pre-planned. Saunders starts it off here by setting up the overarching premise and tone: that UNC has a grand tradition of academic excellence with notable student-athletes, preparing the ground for the conclusion that the scandal should not be a blemish on the student-athletes, past and present, nor the coaches, representing the university. There is outrage and blame to come, and as we'll see, it's because certain elements within UNC let the student-athletes and coaches down...according to Vitale and Saunders.
And right now the school is dealing with what some would call a scandal. Which is -- there was a certain curriculum here under which, allegedly, the players never actually did work in classes that they received credit for. And Dick, it's something that Coach Roy Williams has had to deal with and it's been really difficult for him and others who have coached here in the past as well.
Bob's Comment: Curious that Saunders chose not to refer to the scandalized department by name.
Also curious why "some would call it a scandal." There's not much "allegedly" left about whether or not the scandal happened, and I'm not sure there's anyone still resisting use of the term "scandal."
What Saunders might mean is that "allegedly" players "never actually did work." Can't be that either if you've read the Wainstein Report since it plainly states that no evidence was found of any credit or grade being awarded in cases where no assignments were submitted. Whether or not a term paper submission qualifies, de facto, as "work" is a matter of debate. Either way ("allegedly" or "never actually did work"), Saunders gets it wrong.
Finally, Saunders sets the stage for how difficult this has been for the coaches, particularly Roy Williams. Instead of being a possible contributors to the scandal, the coaches are to be seen as victims impacted by the actions of others.
Dick Vitale: Well you know John, talking to people involved with the University, people that have graduated; I talked to one graduate that has two degrees. He said, really, "it's been absolutely a disgrace. I'm disappointed. I'm hurt, but most of all many of my friends who've graduated from this fine university, we're angry. We're angry. Where were all these academic advisers during that time?"
Bob's Comment: Here's the upper cut to Saunders' jab. Why are UNC people hurt and angry? Because, according to Vitale, academic advisers sullied the reputation and threatened the integrity of the school. That's why. That's who.It was in front of them. It started in 1993, John. I mean you can't try to solve this here in the matter of 30 seconds, but it's ugly . It's disgraceful. We haven't certainly seen the end of it. The NCAA is looking into it right now
But I will say this. Coaches are told by these academic people to stay away -- I've talked to a number of coaches -- "don't get involved with their classes. Let us handle that."
My Comment: The Wainstein report said concerns from both coaching staff and academic adviser folks about independent studies were allayed by senior faculty. Williams, himself, in interviews says he's been advised by NCAA compliance experts he shouldn't micromanage academics or try to interact with teachers to avoid the perception of trying to exert influence on them. Vitale is reinforcing this, defending Williams from complicity.
Well, I say, where were the academic advisers? They were all part of it. They fired a number of them here. Got rid of 'em. And I'll tell you it is sad because this is one great university and I know many of their graduates are so disappointed and hurt by what has transpired.
My Comment: Blame has to land somewhere, and within the span of 30 seconds, he's indicted the academic advisers three times now.
He exaggerates the disciplinary actions meted out so far (as far as we know.) "A number of them" is probably just Jamie Lee and Beth Bridger (who had since moved over to UNC-Wilmington and was let go from there.) Other advisers that were still around to be fired haven't been, yet. Maybe they will, but it's not as if UNC cleaned house of all the "bad apple" advisers.
Saunders: Roy Williams is here, and he said he obviously had no knowledge of this, but in backing him up, Mack Brown works with me every Saturday on college football, he was the football coach here when this allegedly started; Butch Davis works with us as well and he, of course, was the coach for much of this; they both said the same thing. Coaches do not know about what's going on academically.
My Comment: No idea how a coach having no knowledge of the paper class practice is obvious. On the contrary, it seems more obvious to me that he would know. Maybe that's a bias. I sure wouldn't swallow that if it was Coach K claiming ignorance.
They will find out -- nice shot by Utah from the outside -- if a player is going to class or not. They will find that out and they'll make 'em run, or make 'em come early, longer hours in the weight room to make up for things that happened that they can control. But as far as which course they're taking, how many credits this one counted towards, what the curriculum was this, they don't have knowledge of that. They just don't..at any university.
My Comment: Never understood how additional athletic training was supposed to be punishment for off-the-court/field discipline issues. Well, whatever; Saunders really is driving home the limits to what a coach should be expected to know about players' academics. Guess I'll just say I beg to differ.
Vitale: Absolutely, however let's face reality. Coaches are responsible for the people that are in their program and have to be accountable to a certain degree. However in this scenario here this was flat out cheating done by a lot of academic advisers out there, manipulating -- big time -- classes and grades to get players eligible.
My Comment: Vitale's final blow to those advisers, pinning everything on the them, even using the "C" work. No blaming the student-athletes, nor the coaches, nor the faculty nor administration leadership. Not whoever might want to create the incentive for those advisers to engage in this practice. .
The Wainstein report made a point of disclaiming that the objective of the scheme was to "get players eligible." I happen to believe that WAS the motive, but I'm not sure Vitale realizes this isn't the conclusion of the investigation report.
And it wasn't only players...
Saunders: It wasn't only players, exactly.
Vitale: 48% were athletes. 52% were non-athletes, would get in paper classes, never showing up and that's a disgrace and a humiliation, an embarrassment to all the quality people that have graduated here and did things the right way.
My Comment: They did, at least, get that one factoid right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)