Sympathy for Deb Crowder?

Before seeing Bradley Bethel's documentary "Unverified," I felt some smidgen of sympathy for academic counselors Beth Bridger and Jaimie Lee. Unlike Bethel, I didn't consider them "scapegoats" because a scapegoat is an innocent who bears the sins of the guilty. I didn't think Bridger and Lee were innocent. I agreed with Bethel that they low-level employees who'd been left holding the bag. The buck had unjustly stopped with them. But I felt they'd simply been pawns, cultivated by a system that had conditioned them to believe what they were doing was okay. Unlike Bethel, I didn't fault "media sensationalism" for that. Rather, I saw it as a University conducting damage control and trying to limit the risk to other, more valuable, assets; like its athletics program.

"Unverified" was billed as putting a human face on the "untold story" behind the scandal, and I thought I'd at least agree with the expected message that Bridger and Lee didn't deserve to bear all of the blame. However, my mind turned when I watched the film and listened as Bridger and Lee whined about their mistreatment and avoided accepting any culpability for their part in the scandal. There was no remorse, no mea culpa nor any indication of ownership of their actions. In their minds they'd done nothing wrong, had just been "trying to help" and complained about how they'd been unjustly fired for it. I guess being featured in a film where they could air their grievances was their way of moving on.

This has been a common theme in the UNC scandal. No one -- NOT ONE PERSON -- feels he or she did anything wrong. (Well, no one except for, maybe, the vilified Mary Willingham who expressed regret for having been a part of the system for years.)

In the days after the Wainstein Report, Thad Williamson wrote an introspective commentary about UNC's "Honest Shame." I thought it expressed the right sentiment about contrition that I'd hoped would be majority reaction, allowing a true "moving on" from the scandal. But shame is an internal emotion. It's not shame when blame is assigned to someone else and you don't accept responsibility for your part in the play.

In the wake of Wainstein, there was no evidence of anyone owning that shame. Fingers were pointed. Blame shifted. Or, worst of all, the entire ordeal was recast as being overblown, sensationalized and exaggerated. Though the University officially accepted Wainstein's findings, those left standing on the carpet complained about Wainstein's methods and conclusions. Those wearing their Tar Heel logo'ed gear called Wainstein corrupt, said the NCAA was corrupt and UNC athletics was being victimized. It was all "the media's" fault, the North Carolina Board of Governors fault and a weak administration's fault. Any "honest shame" was in short supply.


Just as I had, at one point, felt Bridger and Lee deserved a little sympathy, I had pondered whether or not Crowder had unfairly shouldered so much blame. I contemplated writing an article of sympathy for Crowder, believing that maybe she'd been left to twist in the wind, maybe cowed into silence as her name became synonymous with the academic scandal. Like I had with Bridger/Lee, I didn't think she was innocent; but perhaps harshly cast out by the university after years of doing what she must have thought was condoned and even encouraged. I'd been told that Crowder had felt abandoned, misrepresented and demonized for her role in bringing these troubles down on UNC. No one was doing documentaries on her untold story. No one was defending her beyond maybe the ameliorating defense that she's just been "misguided."

I had a hard time composing such an opinion piece, though, because there had been so little known about her side of the story. Wainstein, in fact, provided the most sympathetic detail. By hunkering down for six years, Crowder had made it hard to defend her.

Yesterday, Deborah Crowder finally lent her long-silent voice to the tragic comedy. Now that she's finally spoken out, I find I'm having the same reaction toward any sympathies for Crowder as I had toward Bridger and Lee after watching "Unverified."


Fans of UNC athletics have long chafed at the findings of Wainstein. They've supported Bethel's efforts because it challenged Wainstein's findings that there was an athletics component to the scandal. But the University has never officially questioned or refuted its 3 million dollar investigation. To the contrary, the University has based significant actions on the findings.

But with regard to the NCAA allegations, the University's endorsement of Wainstein has presented a sticky wicket. How does one call the Wainstein Report into question if the University, itself, has staked its actions on its credibility? The solution, to date, had been to object to the NCAA's reliance on the Wainstein Report on procedural grounds. That didn't work, or at least it hasn't so far.

But now, out of the blue, comes Crowder. She can challenge Wainstein and the University can keep its hands clean of having to contradict Wainstein's findings or question his agenda.

Though naming Wainstein specifically, what Crowder is claiming contradicts the UNC's other, earlier reviews as well, like the Martin Report and the Hartlyn-Andrews Report and the Aug/Sep 2011 Internal Working Group inquiry with which NCAA investigators participated. Crowder's claim doesn't just refute the NCAA allegations of an athletics component to the scandal. It refutes the academic element as well. All those who have long countered that the classes were just "easy courses" that violated no policies and remained legitimate are cheering Crowder's belated boldness to speak out.

Where has Crowder been all these years? Why is she choosing to speak out now? It's true that the NCAA's latest Notice of Allegations addressed her and alleged her misconduct, and the time to respond was running out. But she had let that clock run out twice previously. What was different this time?

• When deans Hartlyn Andrews were conducting their investigation in 2011, Crowder refused to cooperate. When their report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• When governor Martin was investigating in 2012, Crowder refused to cooperate. When his report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• She agreed to interview with Wainstein in 2014, but only in exchange for having the North Carolina SBI and Orange County DA drop their 18-month investigation of her. 

• Though agreeing to cooperate with Wainstein, she refused to cooperate with the simultaneous NCAA investigation in 2014-15.

• When Wainstein report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• When UNC accepted Wainstein's findings and had to answer to SACS, she remained silent.

• When UNC fired and censured employees on the basis of Wainstein's findings, she was silent.

• When NCAA issued the first Notice of Allegations in May 2015, charging her with failure to cooperate and alleging infractions based on her academic misconduct, she refused to respond.

• When she was charged again in the amended NOA in April 2016, she again chose not to respond.

• As the NCAA went to a hearing in Sep-October 2016, she refused to participate.

• Six years of internal, external, independent, SBI, SACS and NCAA investigations, and the only one with which she cooperated she now disputes?

She says she's speaking out now because of the damage being done to students and the value of their degrees. What damage? Though SACS president Belle Wheelan urged UNC to "make whole" the degrees affected by the "irregularities," university policy had already sealed transcripts and, as UNC advocates love to point out, no courses or degrees were discredited. So, who's degrees suffered?

Former athletes Devon Ramsey and Rashanda McCants have filled class actions suits, but based on what Crowder is saying, they should have no complaint about their education. Instead, their complaint should be about the University unjustifiably casting doubt on the integrity of their degrees.

And if that truly is her concern, where was she these last six years? If Wainstein had misrepresented her testimony to him, why didn't she speak up when his report brought SACS back and really called into the question of the integrity of those degrees?


NOW, in the eleventh hour, after nearly three years of refusing to cooperate with the NCAA she says she MIGHT be willing to cooperate? NOW, she not only refutes Wainstein, but the conclusions of  the Martin Report, Hartlyn-Andrews and the IWG. What tipped the balance for her, to respond to THIS latest NOA after snubbing her nose at the previous two?

It's funny how my initial pangs of sympathy came about from seeing her name in a document lacking any legal counsel while every other named party on the list had high-powered attorneys representing them. Now somehow she's managed to find her own muscle in Cheshire, Parker, Schneider & Bryan, PLLC and she's yet another one who's playing the victim card,showing not an ounce of contrition or "honest shame."