I got a re-tweet from @Unverified_Film linking to Aaron Mandel's review of Unverified. Mandel is editor-in-chief of Clarion Content and claims no allegiance to UNC-Chapel Hill and confesses knowing nearly nothing about the scandal before seeing the film.
Perhaps this explains the curious characterization of former UNC Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) counselors Jaimie Lee and Beth Bridger as "whistleblowers."
I've been waiting for the first reviews from attendees who weren't Tar Heel sports fans. So far, nearly every positive review I've seen has been by pro- UNC partisan. Mr. Mandel's is the first review I've seen from one who is purportedly disconnected from such partisanship.
I wonder if Aaron knows that Lee and Bridger weren't penalized by UNC for blowing the whistle on anything. Does he know that it was their colleague, Mary Willingham, who lent her unwelcome voice to the scandal's unveiling, that much more closely fits the definition? If you didn't already know about Willingham before the film, you might not have even remembered her from the film since she apparently got very little attention, despite also being "victimized" by the University before focus fell on Lee and Bridger in the wake of the Wainstein investigation. Bethel didn't have any issue with the University's handling of Willingham. Why would he? He was supportive of the University leadership back then.
Prior to Unverified's premier, Bethel paid nearly exclusive attention to Willingham and her mentor, UNC History professor and key Athletic Reform Group member Dr. Jay Smith, discrediting and refuting nearly every claim she, and they, made. Bethel said he was angry because she'd disparaged and defamed his colleagues (which would mean Bridger, Bethel, and presumably others too ). They were Willingham's colleagues too at one time, before Bethel had arrived on the scene. But she had confessed her own role in the scheme and, both directly and indirectly, had insinuated her former associates by doing so.
Whereas Willingham had "turned on" the university, Lee and Bridger had remained silent as each investigation or revelation pried out more details. It was the unexpected telling of the counselors' role and complicity in the scandal by Wainstein that left Bethel ultimately deciding to counter with his film, telling the untold story about a nefarious "narrative" cooked up by University leadership and swallowed whole by the media.
You see, for those who were angry with media for sensationalizing and speculating about athletic ties to the scandal, the Wainstein Report was expected to lay to rest the myths and innuendo that had kept the scandal burning in the media; but when the Report alleged academic counselors for athletes were instrumental in the scheme, it was a shock. The Report suggested an athletic department component to the scheme that was too close for comfort. The earlier Martin Report's "not an athletic scandal but an academic one" determination had been replaced by Chancellor Folt now calling it an institutional issue. To have "his colleagues" implicated in wrongdoing launched Bethel's crusade to counter the damage done by a supposedly independent review that perhaps wasn't so independent after all. (Funny how that happens.)
That Lee and Bridger had been punished for doing what Willingham had claimed counselors had done (herself, included) couldn't be allowed to stand. After all, he'd charged Willingham with being a liar, unethical and an untrustworthy witness with ulterior motives. He'd said her former colleagues knew there were issues, but thought they could be managed internally and cooperatively. Willingham, instead, chose to grandstand and go public, which, of course, made her co-workers look bad. Wainstein's report couldn't be accurate because that would vindicate Willingham.
Willingham's role in the "Untold Story" was apparently toned way down for the film, which chose to focus mainly on media sensationalism. Bethel has accused the media of uncritically accepted some Wainstein conclusions while ignoring or misinterpreting others. The film also, surprisingly, drew target on the University leadership itself, departing from his earlier support for their handling of Willingham.
To call Lee and Bridger whistleblowers is misinformed. Bethel, himself, savaged the only one close to being a whistleblower in the story. Willingham is no saint, but she was the only one of those counselors who challenged the status quo. If anyone was interested in educating and not merely engineering athlete eligibility and progress toward graduation, it was Willingham. Her colleagues remained silent; maybe out of fear or conditioning rather than complicity...but maybe not. Until Unverified, we've never heard from any of them other than Willingham. Willingham sued for what she claimed was her poor treatment by the University. Bridger and Lee have chosen, instead to "move forward," only now speaking publicly through an advocate via film.
College deans and faculty overseers and administration and counselors all catered to athletic interests. It doesn't take a reading specialist to see that it wasn't an accidental aggregation of little flaws and failures that led to the scandal. It was a systemic interest in the importance of athletic program success. Julius Nyang'oro was a department chair; and a fan. Debbi Crowder was a staff administrator...and a fan. Janet Boxill was a counselor and faculty...and also a fan. Bobbi Owen was College dean...and a fan. Faculty Athletic Council members are, well, supposed to be faculty first; but they're also fans. Deborah Stroman, and every one of her colleagues who has made the Move UNC Forward appeal, is a fan. Members of the Special Talent admissions committee are fans. Lee, Bridger and every counselor on staff worked hard -- overcoming frustrations and fatigue -- to help those student-athletes. Why? Because they were fans. Of course they loved the players and wanted to help them...in anyway possible.
When identity and pride in athletics achievement becomes ingrained within those who should be auditing and watchdogging potential abuses by athletics, who, then, watches the watchers?
Willingham didn't go along with the crowd, and she had her character assassinated for it, with Bethel leading the charge. "What did we do wrong" says Lee? She stayed silent. She did the job she was told to do. And yes, she was scapegoated for it when the crap hit the fan. Yes, it was the College's responsibility to watchdog the integrity of its curriculum; but Lee, Bridger and others claimed to be educators of those student-athletes too, and saw nothing wrong with exploiting those College academic failures so that the athletic interests were met. It's too bad she and Bridger (not to mention Brent Blanton) lost jobs over it. The buck shouldn't have stopped there.
It was an institutional failure. Faculty failed. Administration failed. Leadership failed. Counselors failed. Why? Because deans, faculty athletic committees, ASPSA leadership, athletic department staff all prioritized athletic eligibility over education. They'll categorically deny it, of course, leaving the blame for some lower level employees and "rogues" to bear; but if anyone was scapegoated, the scapegoats were bearing the sins of somebody.
Whose?
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
A Non-Review of Unverified: the Film
This was 1 of 3 articles here at Minding the Coach offering comment on Unverified, the Film. For the 2nd, click here; and for the 3rd, click here.
Not a Review
I haven't seen Unverified yet; but that's only because I live in San Diego, and so am unable to either attend the North Carolina showings or get my hands on a digital copy. I definitely would have been willing to pay the price of a ticket and attend the premier. I'm not one who thinks Bradley Bethel doesn't matter and that he should be ignored. After all, he was the motivation for this blog and my joining the Twitter-sphere.
I wasn't invited to be one of the Unverified advance screeners. I did offer to review the film seeing as how Bethel had solicited other bloggers such as Al Hood and Neil Oatsvall, but I never got a response to my offer from Bradley.
I suppose one could reach the same conclusion about Bradley's failure to respond to my offer as many have about Sara Ganim (CNN), Paul Barrett (Bloomberg), Dan Kane (News & Observer), Bernie Goldberg (HBO), Joe Nocera (NYTimes) or any other media personalities opting not to accept Bethel's invitation to be interviewed for the film; but such reasoning would be just as faulty. (See update at end of this article for recent debate between N&O editor John Drescher and Bradley Bethel about that interview refusal.)
The more likely reason I wasn't granted a preview is that Hood and Oatsvall have probably been less antagonistic toward Bethel's message, and he could rationally predict the film might get more favorable reviews from them than it would from me. It's hard not to notice that I'm a Duke alumnus and they're Tar Heels (one a self-proclaimed unapologetic fan who can't even bring himself to spelling Duke correctly.) I argue that while I may be a Dukie, my personal ties to UNC are deeper and my interest in the academic integrity of both schools transcends any sports rivalries. If one's interest in the film's reviews includes promotion of the film, then it makes sense to offer them and leave me out.
It's true that the odds of me giving the film two thumbs up for it's message are long, strictly based on my debates and dialogue with Bradley over the course of the last two years. Additionally, I probably just don't bring enough of an audience to the table, making a preview offer to me too much risk with little chance for reward.
Despite this handicap, I don't want to wait to comment, so I'll just have to go on the buzz of those who have seen it.
The Premier and Reviews
The film has only just premiered in Chapel Hill and is scheduled to make the circuit in North Carolina, so I won't have the opportunity to see it until a digital method of distribution is made available or when it makes an appearance at a SoCal film festival. Though I don't agree with Bradley Bethel on much regarding the scandal, I'm not the type to shut my eyes and ears to contrary points of view, nor do I assume the film to be of little consequence beyond the pro-UNC sports audience. I give Bethel a ton of credit for seeing the film through to completion, and I am intensely eager and interested to see what he's created; and not just because of its subject matter. (My son is a budding film editor and screenplay writer studying the medium at CalArts, so I have more than a passing interest in the medium of filmmaking from an academic and technical perspective.)
I have read the reviews, online comments and sports fan board posts by those who have seen the film. I can only comment on the film based on what they've said. Other than the friendly reviews by Hood and Oatsvall (both UNC alumni), here are other reviews I've seen:
My first thought, after reading the reviews, is that a better title for the film might have been UNVERIFIED: An Untold Story Behind the UNC Scandal. I say this because its sounds like the film has a very narrow focus concerning one aspect of the scandal, giving voice to a set of characters who had yet to give their side of the story about how they were negatively affected by the Wainstein Report and the subsequent news coverage. There's much more to the UNC academic scandal beyond Wainstein's analysis or the media's reporting or the sad story about the scapegoating of lower-level academic counselors. With so many questions still unanswered and, as yet, many untold stories still hidden from public view, to call this THE untold story is an overstatement.
I'd have to say the biggest surprise -- for me, anyway -- is that the film apparently doesn't confine itself to chastising the media, as had been anticipated to be the main thrust. Nor was it the point-by-point take-down of Mary Willingham, Jay Smith or Kenneth Wainstein's report that fueled much of the sensational media coverage. According to nearly all who've seen it, the film shifts gears from charging the media with reporting "unverified" information and goes further, indicting the University at Chapel Hill and the UNC school system for the firing of former Athletic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) counselors Jaimie Lee and Beth Bridger.
Bethel announced his decision to pursue this film nearly a year ago, on February 7th, 2015, presumably after his dismay peaked in the wake of the Wainstein Report, which didn't quite paint the picture he was expecting. Back then, he projected that the film would be "...a feature documentary film that will challenge the popular understanding of the alleged athletics scandal," and that "the media’s continued sensationalism and Jay Smith’s relentless defamation compel me to take this fight to the next level." The Kickstarter fund raising campaigns all seemed to suggest that the film would be a rebuttal of media-driven misinformation about the academic failure being driven by athletics program interests.
In later interviews and appearances, he would warn that the film wasn't going to be a defense of UNC against NCAA allegations; but rather would be telling the human side of the story about "his colleagues" who he feels have been bullied and unfairly cast as villains in the scandal. The "next level" appears to have turned out to be more moderate and less strident than expected (particularly among his Kickstarter backers). Along the way, something tempered his film's objective, and instead of having the film focus on Jay Smith or Mary Willingham or the veracity of the accusations of UNC athletics culpability in the scandal, he wound up focusing mostly on the only two people associated with the UNC athletics department to be censured: Bridger and Lee. (Fellow ASPSA colleague Blanton's firing may have come too late for the film.)
What Changed?
When Bethel was making his counter-narrative arguments via his "Coaching the Mind" blog and Twitter platforms, I would often try to corner him into conceding that it was the University and UNC system that fired Lee and Bridger, not journalists, "whistleblowers" or faculty agitators. If Kenneth Wainstein conducted a faulty investigation and issued forth with conclusions that were predetermined, how was that the media's fault? If it truly was concern for "his colleagues" that motivated his campaign, it didn't seem to translate to his pre-film rhetoric that placed extensive focus on the sins of the news reporting, Smith and Willingham. Bethel has consistently taken umbrage at statements made by Smith and Willingham that he feels disparaged Lee, Bridger and other ASPSA staff and counselors. And he was never shy about taking aim at faculty and deans of the College of Arts and Sciences for being responsible for the failures identified in the AFAM scandal.
But he avoided my attempts to get him to expand the target of his criticism and point his "unverified" finger at UNC's administrative leadership. It took one of his interviewees during the production of Unverified -- someone with more gravitas than I: UNC journalism professor Adam Hochberg -- to ultimately influence him to amend the focus of the film. Kudos to Bethel for finally seeing this angle and even more for including it in his film.
This shift in focus to include UNC's responsibility for the treatment of Lee and Bridger has tempered the stridency of his campaign to depict media sensationalism as the villain in the melodrama. The "scapegoating" was a university decision, based on the findings of an independent investigator hired by UNC president Tom Ross and UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt. If Kenneth Wainstein had an agenda or a pre-conceived narrative that wound up "bullying" Bethel's friends, it wasn't the media's doing.
Valid Media Criticisms
By no means am I opposing Bethel's critique of media coverage. I agree media coverage has been sloppy at times with the details of the scandal. It's plain that "outrage journalism" is alive and well and has been regularly evident in the coverage of the UNC scandal, warranting criticism. Sara Ganim in particular pursues a "gotcha" style of reporting at the expense of accuracy or precision, and has been particularly recalcitrant about confessing any error or correcting the record. But with Bethel, I couldn't see the logic behind his fixation with the media/Willingham/Jay Smith (or his descent into tabloid muck-raking) while simultaneously side-stepping criticism of UNC's administration. To now hear that Unverified presents a muted argument as compared with what Coaching the Mind has been preaching is satisfying and encouraging to me.
[Edit: 1/11/2015: I've just noticed that Bethel has unpublished or deleted several articles from his blog and has protected his @bethellearning Tweets. I don't know if he's recanting any earlier statements, or if it's guided more by an effort to distance some of those opinions from the film, or some other motive I'm not surmising.]
It could be said that the pre- and post-Wainstein news coverage created a firestorm that UNC's public relations effort sought to manage. If UNC's administration did react in such a way so as to provide the ravenous media with a scapegoat, it wound up satisfying no one. Though the media reported the story of UNC's handling of penalties, few reporters seemed to express satisfaction with UNC's PR that the root of the scandal had been unearthed and that "moving forward" was appropriate. Meanwhile, UNC advocates felt leadership had caved to media pressure to toss some athletic department bodies to the wolves, and that athletics and the athletic counseling program had been thrown under the bus for the sins of the academic side of the house.
Agenda-Based Analysis
It can seem bizarre, how two polar opposite views will arise from the same set of circumstances and facts. If we are going to grossly bifurcate the debate into "sides": one side sees UNC risking its academic reputation to insulate it's athletics program legacy, even to the point of accreditation probation; the other side sees UNC sacrificing and handicapping its athletics program by allowing the Wainstein investigation to paint the academic support program for student athletes as complicit in the scheme.
I understand that editorial-style documentarians typically have an agenda when setting out to make a film on a topic. It's not like they start with a blank slate and try to determine truth. They work from a position of belief at the onset of the project and then seek to present a case for that position. What Unverified appears to be isn't a balanced, objective, tell-all-sides kind of documentary. Bethel feels that one side has already had its share of the limelight. Instead of "balanced," Unverified is probably better seen as "balancing," offering a counter-narrative to the one with which Bethel objects.
Ironically, that's just the sort of "narrative-driven" approach that Bethel rails against when commentators and investigative journalists engage in such practices. Documentaries are different from news reporting, but Bethel's blogging efforts, partisan interview appearances, social media commentary and now Unverified film documentary are exercises in advocacy. I don't find fault in that; it just needs to be recognized for what it really is. Bethel, himself, discounted the notion that the film was supposed to be an objective search for truth.
By all accounts, it sounds like Unverified accomplishes the goal of offering a counter narrative; but since the narrative has shifted, I'm skeptical that the one Unverified wound up telling will change anything in the analysis of the scandal itself. Maybe it will help rehabilitate the reputations of Lee and Bridger; but as far as whether or not the scandal falls on the school's academic caretakers only or if athletic interests share responsibility, the truth is probably somewhere in the mix, with neither the news media's renditions nor the Unverified documentary giving us an unvarnished picture. The question will remain for the viewer to decide which narrative -- or some combination of both -- is closer to reality.
Blame Game
When I finally do get to see Unverified, I'm sure I won't see Bridger or Lee get asked any of tough questions, or see challenges to their claims of innocence. I, too, feel Bridger and Lee were scapegoated; but unlike the conclusion Unverified apparently reaches, I do not think that means they were not complicit nor that salvaging their honor clears other athletics-associated entities from having a role in driving the scheme. Even if one accepts the premise that Kenneth Wainstein presented a skewed narrative or reached invalid, predetermined conclusions, there is voluminous raw evidence found in the released documention of the Report's exhibits, supplement, NCAA Notice of Allegations exhibits UNC's response to SACSCOC, and other public records releases that casts doubt on Bridger and Lee's claimed lack of complicity, as well as that of coaches and other athletics department staff.
No one except UNC leadership and some faculty who appeal for a "Move Forward" philosophy, are saying the trail ended with the assigned culpability of Lee and Bridger: and certainly not the investigative or editorializing media. All who are critical of UNC's handling of Lee and Bridger agree they were scapegoats. The debate is over whose sins were they left to bear. What Unverified and its supporters are saying is that those sins belong to the academic side of UNC's house, including leadership within the College of Arts and Sciences. The opposition to Bethel argue that, in addition to the College faculty and deans, the leadership and staff of the UNC Athletics Department and the UNC, administration (influenced by the Board of Trustees and Educational Foundation --AKA Ram's Club) share ownership for sins that have been shouldered by ASPSA underlings.
I do think it is noteworthy that neither Lee nor Bridger has sought action against UNC for wrongful termination. Through the grapevine, I've heard both are saying -- as the answer to the question why they never filed a complaint with the school -- that they just wanted to "move forward" and get on with life; but maybe participating in and being the focus of the film gives them some feeling of justice or closure that "moving on" didn't? I could have sympathy for Lee and Bridger if they truly were hung out to dry; but cloistering one's self from critical challenges, and using a friendly advocate to complain without being willing step up to the plate and have those complaints be tested? How is that different from what Bethel says news reporters and commentators are doing when they publish "embellished" media reports and then won't man up to answer challenges to their reporting?
I'm glad we finally get to hear from Lee and Bridger. But personally, I'd like to hear from others too: Wayne Walden, Cynthia Reynolds, Amy Kleissler, Jenn Townsend, Beth Lyons, Robert Mercer and many more who have been silent or incognito as the scandal revelations have been unveiled. I'd also like to ask questions of them of the sort that Bethel doesn't include in the film. It's a shame Kenneth Wainstein didn't record or permit recording of the interviews he conducted. I'm hoping that someday the transcripts of interviews conducted by the NCAA during its investigation will be made public.
Does the Film Matter?
Though Bethel says it wasn't the goal of the project, a common thread among pro-UNC viewers is that the film does succeed in countering NCAA allegations against UNC-CH since, by salvaging the only two athletic department persons charged and declared guilty, it leaves blame squarely, and solely, on academic entities at UNC-CH, reiterating the statement originally issued in the Martin Report and championing the "Move UNC Forward" plank. Even if the film does succeed in clearing Lee and Bridger, I completely disagree with the logic that it leaves the athletic department blameless. To me, the "academic-scandal only" reasoning reveals the priority objective such viewers wanted from the film. I'm sure they feel it's great that Bethel's "bullied colleagues" get their chance at vindication, but that's obviously a secondary concern. The important issue is plainly UNC's athletics department's vindication, not the plight of a pair of lower-level employees. Some of this is evidenced by comments of disappointment that the film focuses so heavily on countering the assault on Bridger and Lee and not, as hoped, on specifically countering the allegations against UNC athletics and its boosters.
All of this could very much be wrong. My perspective here is derivative, based on secondary information and preconceptions that come from many online discussions and debates with Bethel occurring before the film's release. I look forward to seeing it for myself soon, either on DVD, streaming or at a film festival, after which I will revisit my commentary and see if I need to change my mind.
Update 1/12/2015: There's some furor over the issue of the news media refusing to be interviewed for the film. In a letter to the Daily Tar Heel, News & Observer's editor John Drescher has responded to the "refusal to be interviewed" claim reported by the Daily Tar Heel. Film spokespersons promise a retort from Bethel soon.)
(Update 1/13/2015: Bradley has responded, saying the DTH misrepresented the film's claim and that the off-camera stipulation made by the N&O was not an even exchange, considering that his film documentary required a visual interview.)
In my opinion, neither party was truly sincere about seeking an equitable exchange. It served the documentary's agenda to be able to say news agencies wouldn't agree to an on-camera interview. Similarly, there is little to gain for those media personalities to expose themselves to an agenda-driven edit unless something is gained for their own agendas. So, though this post-film tete-a-tete is entertaining, it likely won't be anything more than that, only serving to further cement opinions on either side of the divide.
Not a Review
I haven't seen Unverified yet; but that's only because I live in San Diego, and so am unable to either attend the North Carolina showings or get my hands on a digital copy. I definitely would have been willing to pay the price of a ticket and attend the premier. I'm not one who thinks Bradley Bethel doesn't matter and that he should be ignored. After all, he was the motivation for this blog and my joining the Twitter-sphere.
I wasn't invited to be one of the Unverified advance screeners. I did offer to review the film seeing as how Bethel had solicited other bloggers such as Al Hood and Neil Oatsvall, but I never got a response to my offer from Bradley.
I suppose one could reach the same conclusion about Bradley's failure to respond to my offer as many have about Sara Ganim (CNN), Paul Barrett (Bloomberg), Dan Kane (News & Observer), Bernie Goldberg (HBO), Joe Nocera (NYTimes) or any other media personalities opting not to accept Bethel's invitation to be interviewed for the film; but such reasoning would be just as faulty. (See update at end of this article for recent debate between N&O editor John Drescher and Bradley Bethel about that interview refusal.)
The more likely reason I wasn't granted a preview is that Hood and Oatsvall have probably been less antagonistic toward Bethel's message, and he could rationally predict the film might get more favorable reviews from them than it would from me. It's hard not to notice that I'm a Duke alumnus and they're Tar Heels (one a self-proclaimed unapologetic fan who can't even bring himself to spelling Duke correctly.) I argue that while I may be a Dukie, my personal ties to UNC are deeper and my interest in the academic integrity of both schools transcends any sports rivalries. If one's interest in the film's reviews includes promotion of the film, then it makes sense to offer them and leave me out.
It's true that the odds of me giving the film two thumbs up for it's message are long, strictly based on my debates and dialogue with Bradley over the course of the last two years. Additionally, I probably just don't bring enough of an audience to the table, making a preview offer to me too much risk with little chance for reward.
Despite this handicap, I don't want to wait to comment, so I'll just have to go on the buzz of those who have seen it.
The Premier and Reviews
The film has only just premiered in Chapel Hill and is scheduled to make the circuit in North Carolina, so I won't have the opportunity to see it until a digital method of distribution is made available or when it makes an appearance at a SoCal film festival. Though I don't agree with Bradley Bethel on much regarding the scandal, I'm not the type to shut my eyes and ears to contrary points of view, nor do I assume the film to be of little consequence beyond the pro-UNC sports audience. I give Bethel a ton of credit for seeing the film through to completion, and I am intensely eager and interested to see what he's created; and not just because of its subject matter. (My son is a budding film editor and screenplay writer studying the medium at CalArts, so I have more than a passing interest in the medium of filmmaking from an academic and technical perspective.)
I have read the reviews, online comments and sports fan board posts by those who have seen the film. I can only comment on the film based on what they've said. Other than the friendly reviews by Hood and Oatsvall (both UNC alumni), here are other reviews I've seen:
- Brian Barbour and Doc Kennedy give it a favorable review on Tar Heel Blog.
- InsideCarolina's Greg Barnes review is also positive.
- Art Chansky's review, published at Chapelboro.com, calls it "riveting."
- Ben Swain's review, posted at SportsChannel8, is the least positive among the lot.
My first thought, after reading the reviews, is that a better title for the film might have been UNVERIFIED: An Untold Story Behind the UNC Scandal. I say this because its sounds like the film has a very narrow focus concerning one aspect of the scandal, giving voice to a set of characters who had yet to give their side of the story about how they were negatively affected by the Wainstein Report and the subsequent news coverage. There's much more to the UNC academic scandal beyond Wainstein's analysis or the media's reporting or the sad story about the scapegoating of lower-level academic counselors. With so many questions still unanswered and, as yet, many untold stories still hidden from public view, to call this THE untold story is an overstatement.
I'd have to say the biggest surprise -- for me, anyway -- is that the film apparently doesn't confine itself to chastising the media, as had been anticipated to be the main thrust. Nor was it the point-by-point take-down of Mary Willingham, Jay Smith or Kenneth Wainstein's report that fueled much of the sensational media coverage. According to nearly all who've seen it, the film shifts gears from charging the media with reporting "unverified" information and goes further, indicting the University at Chapel Hill and the UNC school system for the firing of former Athletic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) counselors Jaimie Lee and Beth Bridger.
Bethel announced his decision to pursue this film nearly a year ago, on February 7th, 2015, presumably after his dismay peaked in the wake of the Wainstein Report, which didn't quite paint the picture he was expecting. Back then, he projected that the film would be "...a feature documentary film that will challenge the popular understanding of the alleged athletics scandal," and that "the media’s continued sensationalism and Jay Smith’s relentless defamation compel me to take this fight to the next level." The Kickstarter fund raising campaigns all seemed to suggest that the film would be a rebuttal of media-driven misinformation about the academic failure being driven by athletics program interests.
In later interviews and appearances, he would warn that the film wasn't going to be a defense of UNC against NCAA allegations; but rather would be telling the human side of the story about "his colleagues" who he feels have been bullied and unfairly cast as villains in the scandal. The "next level" appears to have turned out to be more moderate and less strident than expected (particularly among his Kickstarter backers). Along the way, something tempered his film's objective, and instead of having the film focus on Jay Smith or Mary Willingham or the veracity of the accusations of UNC athletics culpability in the scandal, he wound up focusing mostly on the only two people associated with the UNC athletics department to be censured: Bridger and Lee. (Fellow ASPSA colleague Blanton's firing may have come too late for the film.)
What Changed?
When Bethel was making his counter-narrative arguments via his "Coaching the Mind" blog and Twitter platforms, I would often try to corner him into conceding that it was the University and UNC system that fired Lee and Bridger, not journalists, "whistleblowers" or faculty agitators. If Kenneth Wainstein conducted a faulty investigation and issued forth with conclusions that were predetermined, how was that the media's fault? If it truly was concern for "his colleagues" that motivated his campaign, it didn't seem to translate to his pre-film rhetoric that placed extensive focus on the sins of the news reporting, Smith and Willingham. Bethel has consistently taken umbrage at statements made by Smith and Willingham that he feels disparaged Lee, Bridger and other ASPSA staff and counselors. And he was never shy about taking aim at faculty and deans of the College of Arts and Sciences for being responsible for the failures identified in the AFAM scandal.
But he avoided my attempts to get him to expand the target of his criticism and point his "unverified" finger at UNC's administrative leadership. It took one of his interviewees during the production of Unverified -- someone with more gravitas than I: UNC journalism professor Adam Hochberg -- to ultimately influence him to amend the focus of the film. Kudos to Bethel for finally seeing this angle and even more for including it in his film.
This shift in focus to include UNC's responsibility for the treatment of Lee and Bridger has tempered the stridency of his campaign to depict media sensationalism as the villain in the melodrama. The "scapegoating" was a university decision, based on the findings of an independent investigator hired by UNC president Tom Ross and UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt. If Kenneth Wainstein had an agenda or a pre-conceived narrative that wound up "bullying" Bethel's friends, it wasn't the media's doing.
Valid Media Criticisms
By no means am I opposing Bethel's critique of media coverage. I agree media coverage has been sloppy at times with the details of the scandal. It's plain that "outrage journalism" is alive and well and has been regularly evident in the coverage of the UNC scandal, warranting criticism. Sara Ganim in particular pursues a "gotcha" style of reporting at the expense of accuracy or precision, and has been particularly recalcitrant about confessing any error or correcting the record. But with Bethel, I couldn't see the logic behind his fixation with the media/Willingham/Jay Smith (or his descent into tabloid muck-raking) while simultaneously side-stepping criticism of UNC's administration. To now hear that Unverified presents a muted argument as compared with what Coaching the Mind has been preaching is satisfying and encouraging to me.
[Edit: 1/11/2015: I've just noticed that Bethel has unpublished or deleted several articles from his blog and has protected his @bethellearning Tweets. I don't know if he's recanting any earlier statements, or if it's guided more by an effort to distance some of those opinions from the film, or some other motive I'm not surmising.]
It could be said that the pre- and post-Wainstein news coverage created a firestorm that UNC's public relations effort sought to manage. If UNC's administration did react in such a way so as to provide the ravenous media with a scapegoat, it wound up satisfying no one. Though the media reported the story of UNC's handling of penalties, few reporters seemed to express satisfaction with UNC's PR that the root of the scandal had been unearthed and that "moving forward" was appropriate. Meanwhile, UNC advocates felt leadership had caved to media pressure to toss some athletic department bodies to the wolves, and that athletics and the athletic counseling program had been thrown under the bus for the sins of the academic side of the house.
Agenda-Based Analysis
It can seem bizarre, how two polar opposite views will arise from the same set of circumstances and facts. If we are going to grossly bifurcate the debate into "sides": one side sees UNC risking its academic reputation to insulate it's athletics program legacy, even to the point of accreditation probation; the other side sees UNC sacrificing and handicapping its athletics program by allowing the Wainstein investigation to paint the academic support program for student athletes as complicit in the scheme.
I understand that editorial-style documentarians typically have an agenda when setting out to make a film on a topic. It's not like they start with a blank slate and try to determine truth. They work from a position of belief at the onset of the project and then seek to present a case for that position. What Unverified appears to be isn't a balanced, objective, tell-all-sides kind of documentary. Bethel feels that one side has already had its share of the limelight. Instead of "balanced," Unverified is probably better seen as "balancing," offering a counter-narrative to the one with which Bethel objects.
Ironically, that's just the sort of "narrative-driven" approach that Bethel rails against when commentators and investigative journalists engage in such practices. Documentaries are different from news reporting, but Bethel's blogging efforts, partisan interview appearances, social media commentary and now Unverified film documentary are exercises in advocacy. I don't find fault in that; it just needs to be recognized for what it really is. Bethel, himself, discounted the notion that the film was supposed to be an objective search for truth.
By all accounts, it sounds like Unverified accomplishes the goal of offering a counter narrative; but since the narrative has shifted, I'm skeptical that the one Unverified wound up telling will change anything in the analysis of the scandal itself. Maybe it will help rehabilitate the reputations of Lee and Bridger; but as far as whether or not the scandal falls on the school's academic caretakers only or if athletic interests share responsibility, the truth is probably somewhere in the mix, with neither the news media's renditions nor the Unverified documentary giving us an unvarnished picture. The question will remain for the viewer to decide which narrative -- or some combination of both -- is closer to reality.
Blame Game
When I finally do get to see Unverified, I'm sure I won't see Bridger or Lee get asked any of tough questions, or see challenges to their claims of innocence. I, too, feel Bridger and Lee were scapegoated; but unlike the conclusion Unverified apparently reaches, I do not think that means they were not complicit nor that salvaging their honor clears other athletics-associated entities from having a role in driving the scheme. Even if one accepts the premise that Kenneth Wainstein presented a skewed narrative or reached invalid, predetermined conclusions, there is voluminous raw evidence found in the released documention of the Report's exhibits, supplement, NCAA Notice of Allegations exhibits UNC's response to SACSCOC, and other public records releases that casts doubt on Bridger and Lee's claimed lack of complicity, as well as that of coaches and other athletics department staff.
No one except UNC leadership and some faculty who appeal for a "Move Forward" philosophy, are saying the trail ended with the assigned culpability of Lee and Bridger: and certainly not the investigative or editorializing media. All who are critical of UNC's handling of Lee and Bridger agree they were scapegoats. The debate is over whose sins were they left to bear. What Unverified and its supporters are saying is that those sins belong to the academic side of UNC's house, including leadership within the College of Arts and Sciences. The opposition to Bethel argue that, in addition to the College faculty and deans, the leadership and staff of the UNC Athletics Department and the UNC, administration (influenced by the Board of Trustees and Educational Foundation --AKA Ram's Club) share ownership for sins that have been shouldered by ASPSA underlings.
I do think it is noteworthy that neither Lee nor Bridger has sought action against UNC for wrongful termination. Through the grapevine, I've heard both are saying -- as the answer to the question why they never filed a complaint with the school -- that they just wanted to "move forward" and get on with life; but maybe participating in and being the focus of the film gives them some feeling of justice or closure that "moving on" didn't? I could have sympathy for Lee and Bridger if they truly were hung out to dry; but cloistering one's self from critical challenges, and using a friendly advocate to complain without being willing step up to the plate and have those complaints be tested? How is that different from what Bethel says news reporters and commentators are doing when they publish "embellished" media reports and then won't man up to answer challenges to their reporting?
I'm glad we finally get to hear from Lee and Bridger. But personally, I'd like to hear from others too: Wayne Walden, Cynthia Reynolds, Amy Kleissler, Jenn Townsend, Beth Lyons, Robert Mercer and many more who have been silent or incognito as the scandal revelations have been unveiled. I'd also like to ask questions of them of the sort that Bethel doesn't include in the film. It's a shame Kenneth Wainstein didn't record or permit recording of the interviews he conducted. I'm hoping that someday the transcripts of interviews conducted by the NCAA during its investigation will be made public.
Does the Film Matter?
Though Bethel says it wasn't the goal of the project, a common thread among pro-UNC viewers is that the film does succeed in countering NCAA allegations against UNC-CH since, by salvaging the only two athletic department persons charged and declared guilty, it leaves blame squarely, and solely, on academic entities at UNC-CH, reiterating the statement originally issued in the Martin Report and championing the "Move UNC Forward" plank. Even if the film does succeed in clearing Lee and Bridger, I completely disagree with the logic that it leaves the athletic department blameless. To me, the "academic-scandal only" reasoning reveals the priority objective such viewers wanted from the film. I'm sure they feel it's great that Bethel's "bullied colleagues" get their chance at vindication, but that's obviously a secondary concern. The important issue is plainly UNC's athletics department's vindication, not the plight of a pair of lower-level employees. Some of this is evidenced by comments of disappointment that the film focuses so heavily on countering the assault on Bridger and Lee and not, as hoped, on specifically countering the allegations against UNC athletics and its boosters.
All of this could very much be wrong. My perspective here is derivative, based on secondary information and preconceptions that come from many online discussions and debates with Bethel occurring before the film's release. I look forward to seeing it for myself soon, either on DVD, streaming or at a film festival, after which I will revisit my commentary and see if I need to change my mind.
Update 1/12/2015: There's some furor over the issue of the news media refusing to be interviewed for the film. In a letter to the Daily Tar Heel, News & Observer's editor John Drescher has responded to the "refusal to be interviewed" claim reported by the Daily Tar Heel. Film spokespersons promise a retort from Bethel soon.)
(Update 1/13/2015: Bradley has responded, saying the DTH misrepresented the film's claim and that the off-camera stipulation made by the N&O was not an even exchange, considering that his film documentary required a visual interview.)
In my opinion, neither party was truly sincere about seeking an equitable exchange. It served the documentary's agenda to be able to say news agencies wouldn't agree to an on-camera interview. Similarly, there is little to gain for those media personalities to expose themselves to an agenda-driven edit unless something is gained for their own agendas. So, though this post-film tete-a-tete is entertaining, it likely won't be anything more than that, only serving to further cement opinions on either side of the divide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)