So far, neither the N&O nor Dan Kane has issued an apology, retraction or correction. The only change to the online article made since it was posted has been the the addition of White's rebuttal in a sidebar.
In the letter, White wrote, "There’s a practice in journalism: any story with the words “may” or “might” in the headline isn’t really a story." I don't know if that's an actual adage known to the world of journalism or if it's just official UNC snark; but when the N&O ran the story in its Sunday print edition on the first page of the local Triangle section, it used a different headline without the "may" qualifier: "Basketball academic liaison has links to AFAM program."
The Associate Vice Chancellor's terse rebuke satisfied many UNC advocates who've long ago wearied of the N&O's coverage of the UNC scandal and Dan Kane's investigative reporting in particular. According to those who know him, Hoots is greatly admired within UNC circles. His defenders view the article as an unwarranted attack on a beloved and loyal Tar Heel employee and alumnus. A common criticism of the article has been that it is nothing but a speculating attempt by the N&O to link the scandal to the crown jewel of UNC's athletics programs: the Men's Basketball program.
Media critic, writer and film documentarian Bradley Bethel contacted supporters of his film, Unverified, condemning the N&O's reporting and expressing support for Hoots. Publicly, Bethel turned to Twitter, saying, "Dan Kane's new hit piece on a UNC basketball staffer is a waste of journalistic resources in a time when we need newspapers to do better:"
On Inside Carolina, resident staff writer Greg Barnes who covers UNC sports, told subscribers that the documents attached to the email sent to Hoots in 2007 had no connection to a basketball player and "we're told that information was provided to Kane before publication, according to someone familiar with the story." When asked if that could be proven, he qualified the claim, writing "We're not privy to the conversations between the newspaper and UNC, so such specifics would have to be addressed by the [administration]"
During the first 48 hours after the article went live online, the rumor that UNC had told Kane about the innocent nature of the email exchange -- that it had nothing to do with athletics -- went viral. But in his chastisement of the N&O and Kane on December 3rd, Rick White did not include this claim in his response.
White did claim "some key facts about Hoots’ responsibilities were omitted," saying "Hoots is a liaison with the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes and has no counseling or academic responsibilities – and never has." He then writes, "we provided Kane that information, but he left it out."
Had UNC actually communicated to Kane that the email had been determined to be irrelevant to anything involving student-athletes, it would stand to reason that White would have included this as a "key fact" omitted from the article and not the example of how Kane may have mis-articulated what UNC had provided Kane regarding Hoot's responsibilities relating to academics.
To try to explain why White might have not addressed that omission, defenders of Hoots and UNC claim privacy regulations prevent the university from confirming or denying anything about the emails or the attached documents. In his rebuttal, White did cite UNC's obligation to abide by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), saying:
"Kane’s story implied [FERPA] is a mere formality that we “could” ignore and easily provide him with a student’s academic information. He knows better. We can’t. It’s a federal privacy law to protect the rights of all students."Though I disagree with White about what the article implied regarding FERPA, if we accept that it is FERPA that restricts White from communicating publicly about the nature of the emails, then wouldn't that restriction have also been in force in whatever communication UNC had with Kane prior to the article? Dan Kane has publicly denied that UNC conveyed anything to him regarding the emails: "no one at UNC has confirmed anything about the nature of those papers. They've been FERPA-ised."
A week has gone by since White's call for apology, but there have been no signs either side is budging. UNC officials have not commented any further about the emails and Dan Kane has not indicated any intention to backtrack from the article. Only insiders and friends of Hoots know if he is planning any legal action, but he hasn't issued any public statement to date.
If the emails truly are as innocuous as unofficial UNC sources claim, UNC could easily squelch suspicion, give real weight to its complaint against the paper and ease the attention placed on Hoots by answering some reasonable questions that those emails raise, all without the risk of running afoul of FERPA. Questions like:
- Were the paper attachments in the email sent to Hoots for one of the classes identified as "irregular" by UNC's investigations? UNC will not answer this, citing FERPA
- To what extent was Hoots aware of Crowder's role in grading and administering classes for the African and African American Studies Department? There is no indication Hoots was interviewed by Kenneth Wainstein or by the NCAA. Kane reported that Wainstein's team was not permitted to answer questions about its investigation. Hoots, to date, has made no public statement nor responded to the N&O's attempts to contact him.
- Was the sender of the email to Hoots a student-athlete? Dan Kane may believe this question is irrelevant since he doesn't raise it in his article. But critics rumor that it was a non-athlete and thus it should be a non-story, UNC has not volunteered any information that would resolve this question, and there is no confirmation that UNC clarified this to Kane prior to the article.
- Were the two emails related? UNC will not reveal the date of the redacted email, however the two email items appear directly together in the June 2016 batch of publicly released documents (File PR5-09, pg.s 6665 and 6666), strongly suggesting Hoots emailed the first as an attachment to Crowder. (link)
- If so, whether the originator was an athlete or not, why would the individual need Hoots to relay? Kane's article does not speculate, but neither has any plausible explanation been offered as to why a basketball staffer with "no counseling or academic responsibilities" might be forwarding academic work to Deb Crowder. Though there could be a reasonable explanation, it's not an unreasonable question to ask.
- Assuming Hoots was familiar enough with Crowder and the AFAM curriculum, how involved was he in the enrollment of mens' basketball players in AFAM courses later identified as "irregular" while a member of the coaching staff? It is this question that hasn't been expressly asked but which everyone knows is where these questions may lead. It is possible that in answering the previous questions, UNC knows it risks legitimizing Kane's probing which will lead down this path. UNC has apparently chosen to cut that path off by refusing to answer the leading questions.
Midweek, Dan Kane did appear on the WUNC program State of Things with Frank Stasio. Along with Jonathan Jones, director of the Sunshine Center of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, they talked about the article. According to show host Stasio, UNC was invited to participate but declined.
No apology or retraction was offered.
