BoG Member Letter

A few weeks ago, an NC State fan posted this, which I thought was interesting and wanted to preserve. So I'm posting it here.

"The following is an actual response from a BOG member, who I shall not name since I did not ask permission to post. If sincere, then the next chapters of the saga ought to be good."

Mr. XXXX

Thank you for your email. You may be surprised to hear that a number of our Governors share your concerns. 16 of us are new members of the Board who took office on July 1, 2014. At our first meeting we raised the issues of Carolina's combined athletics and academic scandal. At that time I expressed the view that the investigations done to that point were inadequate and, no matter how well intentioned, left the impression that they were conducted in a manner that would not uncover all that might be there. I want to quickly add that former Governor Jim Martin is a man of unquestionable integrity and I have no doubt that he did an honest review and report of the areas his report looked into.

However, Governor Martins review was limited in scope and cannot be considered complete. Contrary to what you have been told, not all of the Board was silent even at that point. My (unnamed relative) was a member of the Board at that time. He was openly highly critical of the report. I attach a link to a News & Observer article on this, one of several published during the last four years where he is critical of the efforts made to get to the bottom of the situation.www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/0...r-checked.html.
A review and report on all reports concerning this situation was conducted by a special committee of the Board of Governors. That committee was chaired by Louis Bissette, a member of the Board who is one of the state's premier lawyers. It was a thorough review of the work done to that date. However, it too was limited as it was a review of existing reports already completed.\

At the first Board meeting I attended, I noted that over the past few decades a methodology has evolved to deal with such situations. It is simple. You hire the best well resourced law firm with no relationship to the institution. The firm must have experienced former prosecutors and be given totally free rein. The firm is empowered to look into anything and everything that it feels may be related to the matter. The institution does not get to offer its opinion on the relevance of any area into which the investigation is heading. 

Further, all employees are told to cooperate fully, disclose all information asked for and to be proactive in informing the investigators of areas the individual thinks warrant more in depth scrutiny. All employees are told failure to comply will lead to immediate termination for cause and they can expect no severance or other benefits and no recommendation to a future employer. Once the report is completed, the investigating firm releases it to the public without review or any input from the institution. If the institution thinks the investigators got something wrong, it is free to say so to the public after the report is released. 

I urged that this approach needed to be adopted quickly if we wished to restore any credibility to the University. President Ross and Chairman Peter Hans said they felt it best to wait to do this until the SBI report was released. Their reason was that the SBI had gotten information from many sources that had refused information to the University and a thorough investigation would need this information. It made sense, so I agreed we should wait.
The SBI report has now been issued and a firm employed to conduct this investigation. I have expressed to Chancellor Folt, Provost Dean and President Ross my belief that the rubric I described above needs to be followed and that there must be no appearance of an attempt to influence the investigators or their report or to block any access they deem needed. I believe this is the only way the air can be cleared and we can begin to repair the reputation of Carolina and of the University system.

There will always be questions about whether all was found that could have been found. In the human experience it is rare to feel certain we have uncovered all that could be found. However, we must make every effort not only to find all we can, but we must also do it in a way that convinces people this investigation has been as thorough as possible and as transparent as possible.

I could offer a long list of where I personally believe the University, the Carolina administration and the Carolina Trustees mishandled this situation - a litany of missed opportunities to face up to the facts and face the consequences. Additionally, in my view, the Board of Governors should have stepped in long before it did. However, these are things that have pasted and opportunities that cannot be reclaimed. So we have to do the best we can from here forward.

There are things that have occurred since I began serving that I find unwise and questionable. For example, I personally believe the situation with Mary Willingham was not handled well. Regardless of what anyone has to say about her research, the woman worked with dozens of athletes and I doubt seriously she needed a test to know who could and could not read. There are a number of others on the Board who share this view. Please do not think that just because we have not taken these issues to the media means we have not raised them. We have and we will continue to do so. 

In closing please allow a personal note. I am a Carolina alum. I love that university. I was a student-athlete. However, as a Governor I have not only been campus agnostic, I have probably been more critical of my alma mater than of any other campus. Sadly, I believe that criticism has been warranted. My hope is that a new administration will mean a new approach. Clearly the jury is out on that, but I have seen signs that are heartening. I have told the Chancellor and the Provost that no sport is worth the University's reputation. In truth, I would see us end inter-collegiate athletics at Carolina if that is what it takes to restore our reputation. I would do it without a moments hesitation. So please believe that there are many on the Board of Governors who share your concerns and will not be silent. 

I do appreciate your email and the concerns you express. It is important that you and people like you constantly remind us of our duty to the people of this state. I promise that we will try to discharge that duty in a way that meets the trust that has been placed in our hands. Again, thank you for taking the time to write and please do not hesitate to do so at any time you think we need to hear it. 

Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

Another Short Twitter Exchange with Bradley Bethel

What has most intrigued me about Bradley Bethel's public statements on the UNC academic scandal is the nearly exclusive criticism of those on the academic side of the equation, specifically Mary Willingham and Dr. Jay Smith, and now former deans of the College of Arts & Sciences, particularly those who have spoken out, objecting to the "academic-only" characterization of the scandal. According to Mr. Bethel, they share culpability with Dr. Julius Nyang'Oro and Deborah Crowder for the AFAM fraud.

Mr. Bethel, like the UNC administration, has emphasized the lack of any evidence beyond "speculation and insinuation" that members of the athletic department or the academic support team that counseled student-athletes were guilty of any collusion relating to the scandal. Though Bethel's tenure with ASPSA post-dates the period of time before which the "paper classes" were discovered, he's been a stalwart defender of the integrity of the support team who had been Mary Willingham's colleagues up until the point she resigned her position as a learning specialist in 2010. 

Prefacing the publication and broadcast of Bethel's recent interviews, I sought some answers on his perspective regarding the athletic staff's potential culpability for the academic scandal on Twitter, and as before, he was considerate enough to respond. Our chat, which occurred May 3rd,  is transcribed below:

---

 Bob Martin: In our prior chat http://goo.gl/dfuk9x  u said "Athletics had problems, too. Many were complicit in neglect." Neglect of? 

Bradley Bethel: Some neglected to take seriously the overall rigor of UNC academics and recruit accordingly. 

Martin: If recruiting was negligent in that regard, then how did it manifest itself as part of the problem we've been addressing? 

Bethel: Some academically underprepared athletes could not succeed in their first majors and therefore felt compelled to choose AFAM. 

Martin: And that was indicative of a problem? Other than the aberrant courses, wasn't AFAM a legitimate degree? 

Bethel: Absolutely, it was, and some athletes had legitimate interest. Some, however, didn't, and so they chose classes they could manage. 

Bethel: From known evidence, paper classes were result of Nyang'oro's "helping" struggling non-athletes (55%) and athletes (45%) alike. 

Martin: What's wrong with that? UNC offers the degree/classes. Student chooses a manageable curriculum. How is recruiting negligent? 

Bethel: The percentage of athletes in those classes would likely have been lower had Athletics recruited better. 

Bethel: Indeed, athletes chose a manageable curriculum they believed was legitimate and from which some of them did learn academic skills. 

Martin: Recap: the athl. dept's role in clustering of S-As in the aberrant courses was recruiting some they shouldn't have. Correct? 

Bethel: We now know Nyang'oro didn't have approval to teach as he did; presence of underprepared athletes likely one factor affecting him. 

Bethel: However, considering more non-athletes (55%), classes likely would have existed without athletes. 

Bethel: Had Athletics recruited better, likely fewer athletes would have chosen same paper classes struggling non-athletes taking. 

Bethel: Therefore, although Athletics could have prevented as many athletes enrolling in paper classes, classes would have still existed. 

Bethel: That brings me back to my main point: UNC scandal is the result of deans neglecting to monitor one department. 

Bethel: Unless Wainstein uncovers evidence of collusion, the N&O has spent three years insinuating a non-existent Athletics scandal. 

Martin: Negligence you're describing is incidental to the scandal, so brings me back to fault lying "squarely" with faculty. 

Martin: I hope you'll entertain my exploring this a little more, since it's the one area where you have had criticism of athletics. 

Bethel: If "squarely" means "exclusively," then no. I believe in any institutional scandal many parties bear some culpability. 

Bethel: As always, this has been a good chat, but I have to go now. I look forward to the next one.

---

Some commentary on Bethel's position, which I hope he covers in future articles on his blog or will address in future chats with me:

Though Bradley charges the athletic department with negligence in recruiting some (what I interpret to be a small) number of student-athletes who weren't equipped to handle the rigors of a UNC curriculum, he won't go so far as ascribing culpability to the athletic department in the establishment or even exploitation of fraudulent courses. He categorically rejects any notion of ASPSA counselors participating in the sham, believing they provided choices in good faith, and that if an option ultimately chosen by a student-athlete proved to have been fraudulent, the responsibility for that rests with the professor teaching the curriculum and the deans who should have been providing oversight.  The only problem he has with the athletic department is the derivative effect of UNC's relaxed recruiting contributing to the troublesome symptom of student-athlete clustering in the aberrant classes.

Ignoring for now the discovery of email correspondence between Dr. Nyang'Oro and members of the academic support staff that paint a picture of greater contribution by the counselors to the perpetuation of the practice than Mr. Bethel concedes, what still eludes me in Bethel's argument is if the fault doesn't lie "squarely" (exclusively) with faculty, but ASPSA is to be exonerated and the athletic department contribution limited to recruiting neglect, then who, besides faculty, is also culpable? He won't say it falls squarely on faculty, but he specifically rejects the negligence he attributes to the athletic department as being a sign of culpability since there is a lack of evidence of malfeasance. (He doesn't distinguish between "culpability" and "neglect" as it pertains to deans' responsibility.) I don't necessarily agree that lack of intent or actual wrongdoing is necessary to indicate culpability, but if that's the line Mr. Bethel draws, then who else, besides faculty, is culpable?

There's also the curious question of those handful of student-athletes who were admitted under relaxed special policy admissions processes who, according to Bethel, presumably contributed to the clustering symptom. Would these be equivalent to the 8-10% (14-18 in number) in Mary Willingham's sample set:? Or a subset of the 34 student-athletes UNC claimed it admitted from 2004 to 2012 with sub-400-level SAT verbal scores?   To be a contributing factor to the clustering phenomenon in Dr. Nyang'Oro's AFAM paper classes, the number would have to be more than 2-4 ill-equipped student-athletes per year matriculating to UNC under special admissions policies.

And as for those few that both Bethel and Willingham seem to suggest were ill-equipped to handle both a UNC-level college curriculum and participate in a for-profit scholarship sport:

1. Why is Willingham's charges of literacy considered impugning of the student-athletes, but Bethel's suggestion that those students shouldn't have been recruited/admitted not?
2. And why, if admitting those student-athletes was problematic, did that group suffer such a small rate of academic casualties (if any)?

I hope that Mr. Bethel will read this and entertain these questions. Though I am not in a position to cite evidence indicting the athletic department or the ASPSA counselors during the pre-2011 years -- other than Ms. Willingham's, Michael McAdoo's, Deunta Williams' and Bryon Bishop's testimonies, plus the emails between ASPSA staff and Dr. Nyang'Oro -- I still have difficulty seeing how there isn't enough to be suspicious of the members of athletic department and academic support staff during that period. I imagine future articles on Coaching the Mind are going to address some of these points.

UNC Deans Share Blame According to Bradley Bethel

On May 8th, 2014, WCHL broadcast an interview with UNC Learning Specialist Bradley Bethel, who has been a noted critic of Mary Willingham, Dr. Jay Smith and the media coverage of the academic scandal at UNC, mainly through his essays published at Coaching the Mind, on Twitter and in other outlets like the recent interview with Jeff Greenberg on Sports-Glutton.com.

There were several claims Mr. Bethel made in the interview, but probably the one most likely to garner reaction was his affirmation of the Martin Report's position that the scandal was an academic but not an athletic scandal, which Bethel re-asserted by attributing culpability to various dean offices in the UNC College of Arts and Sciences during at least the last decade of Dr. Julius Nyang'Oro's teaching of the so-called "paper classes" in his African and African-American (AFAM) studies department.

While refuting that any evidence exists to attribute collusion or malfeasance on the part of the athletic department or the academic support staff for student-athletes contributing to the scandal, he took considerable time to detail how the academic faculty responsible for oversight of Nyang'Oro failed in its duties, particular noting by name two who have recently been out-spoken critics of the determination that the scandal was limited to academics only.

WCHL's Ran Northam conducted the interview and Bethel's commentary can be heard here, an excerpted transcript of which I am posting below:

---

Ran Northam (recording time 18:09 - 18:27)
Bradley, we're talking about the UNC academic scandal, and it's been deemed that now as far as UNC academic scandal; first of all, would you say that's the proper way of characterizing what's going on at UNC right now?


Bradley Bethel (recording time 18:28 -26:35)
Well, unfortunately "yes" I think it is an academic scandal and I agree with former Governor Martin's comment that an academic scandal is even worse than an athletic scandal, and that's why I say "unfortunately" I think that that's accurate. 

There are people who want to paint this scandal as the largest academic/athletics in NCAA history. I think Jay Smith has said that. His buddy at Ohio University, David Ridpath, has suggested that. Other people in the media have suggested that, but when you look at the actual evidence that we have so far, that accusation -- that allegation that this is such a huge athletic scandal -- is based on nothing but conjecture and insinuation. 

Now, that's based on the evidence we have so far. The Wainstein Report is going on right now. Wainstein has talked to Debbie Crowder and has her testimony, and it is possible that Debbie Crowder reveals something that indicates collusion and malfeasance on the part of the athletics department. However, at this point, any suggestion of collusion and malfeasance is based on nothing but conjecture and insinuation.

And so, where the media - in particular Dan Kane -- has dropped the ball on assessing this scandal is looking at the extent to which -- really, again unfortuntately -- the academic side of campus is culpable. I've said a few times on Twitter recently that this is a case of the deans in the College of Arts & Sciences neglecting to provide the oversight that was necessary. In particular -- well, ironically, you have Jay Smith who, for five years, was the Dean of Curricula; 5 years the Dean of Curricula, yet for over a decade nobody had any idea what curriculum Julius Nyang'Oro was teaching in his classes. So I don't really understand what the Dean of Curricula was doing if he was so unaware of Julius Nyang'Oro's curricula for over a decade. 

So, the Office of Curricula neglected to monitor the curriculum, as they should have. You have the...there's a senior associate Dean of Undergraduate Education at UNC, responsible for ensuring that all undergraduates receive a quality education; well obviously nobody was monitoring the teaching quality of Julius Nyang'Oro for over a decade. Somebody should have had...well, not just somebody, but in particular the deans who held that position: senior associate Dean of Undergraduate Education -- should have known; should have been monitoring the teaching quality in Nyang'Oro's classes, but for over a decade wasn't.

And then you have the deans of the college, who seem to be completely oblivious to Nyang'Oro's overall performance, curriculum, teaching quality; and I'll tell you what is really interesting about this, Ran; one of the outspoken critics who's one of the retired faculty members: Madeline Levine. She wrote a letter -- one of these now what seems to be the popular thing to do among the detractors is write a letter of complaint; a whiny letter of complaint -- a couple months ago she wrote one of these letters making unfounded accusations against the academic support program, and she was very explicit in saying that this was NOT a failure of academics oversight. Well, it's interesting that she says that because I recently did some digging and found out that Julius Nyang'Oro's last performance review and reappointment -- 5 year reappointment -- was at the end of the 2006/2007 school year. Do you know who was the dean during the 2006/2007 school year? It was Madeline Levine. Madeline Levine approved his performance review and his reappointment. Madeline Levine had the power, had the position, to know -- she should have known -- what was going on when she decided to give her stamp of approval to Julius Nyang'Oro for reappointment; but, it's really bizarre, Ran, most of us when we get a performance review our supervisor actually reviews our performance. I mean, that only makes sense, but for some reason, Madeline Levine and the deans who reviewed Nyang'Oro's performance seemed not to actually care about his performance.

So, when Madeline Levine comes out and says this isn't a failure of academic oversight, what she's doing is trying to hide the fact that it's specifically her failure of academic oversight, as well as the other deans who had no idea what was going on in his classrooms for over a decade.

You know, Ran, when I tell people back home in Ohio who have no idea about this scandal; when I tell my friends and family about this scandal, I say "So there's this professor who for over a decade was teaching these classes where he didn't show up," and the first response is always "how the heck did he get away with that?" How did nobody know what this professor was doing? I come from a K-12 background. I was a high school/middle school teacher before I came here. If I didn't show up to one of my classes for a day, that would be IT. But this professor didn't show up for over a decade, and his supervisors had no idea.

So, the reality of this scandal is that it is gross negligence on the academic side, unfortunately; and -- but you know what? That's not sexy. That's not going to give you three years of scandalous headlines. You know, I mean, how interesting is this headline: Research University Chooses to Favor Research Over Teaching in One Department.  You're not going to get a lot of hits with that headline. But you do get a lot of hits with something like: Academic Support Program for Athletes Tolerates Cheating. Athletes Steered to Suspected Classes. Pick whatever headline that N&O's thrown out lately, that's given them 3 years of scandal. 

Again, right now, we have no evidence that demonstrates collusion and malfeasance on the part of the academic support program or the part of the athletic department. That is all conjecture and insinuation. The evidence we have -- the definitive evidence we have -- points to neglect on the part of the deans for over a decade. That's what this scandal is all about.

---

Note; the open letter to the University written by Dr. Levine to which Bethel refers, can be found here: (MSWord doc)
 http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2014/01/30/19/51/1bzds4.So.156.doc

And UNC Chancellor Folt's response:
media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2014/01/30/19/54/BHDgy.So.156.pdf

I considered this to be a rather stunning accusation by Bradley, and can't help but wonder what the reaction must be among current and former leadership within the College of Arts & Sciences, or other faculty across the "academic side" of the campus. It's quite the shot across the bow.

I tried to research who were the deans of the college, senior associate deans for undergraduate education and associate deans for undergraduate curricula during the last decade of Dr. Nyang'Oro's teaching of the aberrant classes. WCHL's article said they'd requested a list of deans from the university, but from various University archives, I've assembled this tentative list:

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula
 Dr. Erika Lindemann (2009 - present)
 Dr. Jay Smith (2004 - 2009)
 Dr. Thomas Tweed (? - 2004)

Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education
 Dr. Bobbi Owen (2004 - present)
 Dr. Karen M. Gil ( ? - 2004)

Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences
 Dr. Karen M. Gil (2009 - present)
 Dr. Bruce Carney (then-provost, interim)
 Dr. Holden Thorp (2007-2008)
 Dr. Madeline Levine (2006-2007, interim)
 Dr. Bernadette Gray-Little (2004-2006)
 Dr. Richard Soloway (2003-2004, interim)
 Dr. Risa Palm (1997 - 2003)

WCHL indicates Mr. Bethel will return next week for more discussion.

Bradley Bethel vs John Drescher (Twitter)

UNC Learning Specialist Bradley Bethel and the Raleigh News & Observer's Executive Editor John Drescher crossed rhetorical swords yesterday on Twitter, with Bethel reacting to the N&O editorial piece "Why We're Still Covering the Scandal at UNC" and Drescher responding to some of Bethel's challenges.

Bradley suggested I capture and mirror the exchange here, as I had done the day before for our bit of back-and-forth. I didn't think I'd be inclined to do so since it wasn't my debate; but I did chime in at the end, picking up on a point of semantics over the media's usage of the term "steer" for describing the involvement of UNC's academic support staff in counseling student-athletes and the rate at which some wound up enrolled in the so-called "paper classes." Since the issue of "steering" versus "recommending" dovetails into what he (Bethel) and I were chatting about previously regarding student-athlete clustering in these anomalous courses and how to characterize the academic support counselors' or athletic department personnel's degree of responsibility, I thought I'd go ahead and capture the chain of tweets.

So, here it is. If I missed a post or didn't get the sequence right, I'm sure I'll be corrected.

---

John Drescher: Why The News & Observer is still covering the academic scandal at #UNC. My column. http://bit.ly/1fELzw9  

Bradley Bethel: Can you provide a citation to support your claim that UNC admitted academic counselors "steered" athletes to paper classes? 

Bethel: Keep in mind the difference between presenting options available to all students and "steering." 

Bethel: Also, can you cite any evidence suggesting Nyang'Oro and Crowder didn't create paper classes on their own accord? 

Bethel: If you can't cite evidence, can you explain how UNC could have investigated any deeper while those two remained reticent? 

Drescher: Martin, Baker Tilly never even looked at Nyang'oro's emails. And BT charged $940,000. http://bit.ly/1fETZDL  

Bethel: Has the N&O looked at his emails? 

Bethel: The answer, of course, is yes, and you found no evidence of collusion. 

Drescher: Emails showed close relationship between Nyang'oro and academic support staff. http://bit.ly/18XOU6m  

Drescher:  UNC took nearly a year to respond to our request for Nyang'oro's emails. Martin had email access. http://bit.ly/18XOU6m 

Bethel: You are dodging the question with non sequiturs. The fact remains no evidence of collusion. 

Bethel: Demonstrate the same transparency you demand of UNC: release records showing revenue generated from scandal coverage. 

Drescher: Based on all the UNC fans who have told me they've cancelled their subscriptions, we've lost money. 

Bethel:  Right, you wouldn't actually know the numbers: you are only the executive editor. 

Bethel: Regardless of your impetus, much of your reporting on the UNC scandal has been predicated on conjecture and insinuation. 

Bethel: You are hurting society by propagating spectacle instead of advancing knowledge and rationality. 

Bethel: Last question: Are you going to correct false statement that UNC acknowledged athletes were "steered" into paper classes? 

Drescher: Thorp himself said athletes were steered to paper classes, as several athletes have confirmed. This is not in dispute. 

Bethel: Citation for Thorp? Two athletes who claimed steering have been discredited; other athletes have countered their claims. 

Drescher: Thorp confirmed counselors registered athletes for no-show class. http://bit.ly/1lJ6uhR  

Bethel: That is your evidence? You obviously don't know what it means that the counselors "registered" the athletes. [1/2] 

Bethel: It means athletes had already selected their classes ahead of time but were in practice during registration window. [2/2] 

Drescher: Impeccable source: Bethel says counselors recommended no-show classes. http://bit.ly/1hG4Law  

Bethel: A responsible journalist would learn the terms before throwing them around and claiming them as evidence. 

Bethel: Exactly. Recommended: presented options. That does not mean coerce, which is what "steering" implies. 

Bethel: Again, you mishandle words in ignorance because you are desperate to sell a narrative. 

Bethel: I have made my point. You have no argument, and you run an irresponsible newspaper. Goodbye, Mr. Drescher. 

Drescher: UNC BOG chair: It's obvious academic advisors encouraged athletes to take the no-show classes. http://bit.ly/1kxBVcm 

Bethel: Does that report define "steer," or is it another example of being sloppy with language? 

Bethel: My concern is that steering is understood as coercion. No evidence of coercion. 

Bethel: If you adopted a less coercive term, like "recommend" or "suggest," I would have no quarrel over this issue. 

Bethel: As BOG report stated, nothing suggested the counselors had reason to believe they were wrong for recommending paper classes.

---

The debate between Bethel and Drescher is over by this point, and I picked up on Bethel's objection over what he feels is an example of media slanting a story through choice of words.

---

Bethel: "Steered" is an ambiguous term, connoting coercion and easily sensationalized. Journalists should value clarity. 

Bob Martin: Coerce is right. Direct, guide, nudge toward, encourage, suggest, recommend. Only ambiguity is degree of influence exercised 

Martin: After reading your xchange w/ @john_drescher I see now. "Steer" vs "encourage." Do the semantic shades make a difference? 

Bethel: "Steer" implies no choice. Athletes had choice; some chose AFAM, and I believe even on football team less than 50% 

Martin: Father steered me toward the Navy, but it was ultimately my choice. I don't read "steer" implying no choice. 

Martin: Go to http://bit.ly/1hG4Law  and swap "steering" with "recommending."  Does meaning, or even tone, change?

---

Fin.  (For now.)

Twitter Chat with Bradley Bethel 5/1/2014

Last night, I injected myself into the end of a Twitter-exchange between Bradley Bethel and Dr. Jay Smith, latching onto a comment Mr. Bethel had posted as his debate with Dr. Smith ended. He was kind enough to entertain my elenctic questioning where I sought to nail down his reasons for why he's been quite critical of the faculty in the academic scandal at UNC, but not the athletic support staff or the university administration.

I'm new to Twitter, being more used to threaded dialogues and debates on community message boards or Web-based bulletin boards; not to mention the frustration of trying to be concise in 140 characters or less without losing the essence of what I want to convey.

In the light of the next day, I wanted to revisit what Bradley and I had discussed, but found it hard to see it all in context from the Twitter display.  So, I've reconstructed the chain of comments here. I don't think either of us altered our position, but it was engaging and I hope this won't be the last.

---

Bradley Bethel: Jay, you want Athletics and ASPSA held accountable; when will you demand deans held accountable? 

Bethel: To be clear, I point out deans' culpability because educational quality important to me...not because I am merely defending Athletics. I am an educator, not a fan. 

Bob Martin: Was the educational quality for some student athletes at UNC broken before you arrived? 

Bethel: Deans unaware of paper classes for a decade means educational quality was compromised for all students. 

Bethel: In other words, UNC scandal was a banal academic scandal rather than the sensational athletics scandal propagated by media. 

Martin: So that would be a yes. It was broken. And the fault for that rests squarely with the faculty. That's your position? 

Bethel: I wouldn't say "squarely." Athletics had problems, too. Many were complicit in neglect; so far no evidence of malfeasance. 

Martin: No culpability on part of athletic department or academic support? Not athletic department? Not ASPSA? Not administration? 

Bethel: So far, no evidence of malfeasance. That's my point. Maybe Wainstein proves otherwise. Until then, presume innocence. 

Martin: So...UNC athletics/ASPSA was complicit in neglect, but no evidence of malfeasance. No penalty deserved for that failure? 

Bethel: ASPSA counselors believed professor was exercising his right to teach as he wanted; deans' tacit approval confirmed ASPSA belief. 

Martin: How do you know that? Why isn't clustering of athletes in anomalous classes "tacit" complicity of academic support staff? 

Bethel: Fallacious reasoning. ASPSA counselors presented choices; some athletes, not all, chose AFAM. 

Martin: Again, how do you know these things about the honest intentions of the academic support staff before you arrived, yet... 

Martin: ...yet, you ascribe fault to faculty, dean and even student-athletes now for what was broken. ASPSA and AD just negligent? 

Bethel: I've seen ASPSA staff's dedication to educating students. Again, no evidence of malfeasance on either academics or athletics side. 

Bethel: Correction: Besides Nyang'Oro and Crowder, no evidence of malfeasance. 

Bethel: Deans didn't know but should have; ASPSA staff believed Nyang'Oro was within rights, based on deans' tacit approval. 

Martin: Scoreboard: JN and DB = malfeasance. Dean/Faculty = negligent. SAs=culpable. Athletic dept.= negligent. ASPSA = innocent? 

Bethel: I never said athletes were culpable. Like non-athletes, some chose AFAM classes for legitimate reasons; some chose as easy way. 

Martin: But I'm asking about what was broken. If SAs were taking the classes that were anomalous and choice was theirs=complicit. No? 

Bethel: For the last time, Wainstein may prove some guilty, but until then presume innocence. 

Martin: Can we presume negligent? 

Bethel: No. Athletes and non-athletes alike probably believed just as counselors did: professors have the right to teach as they want. 

Martin: Clustering in an anomalous course is symptomatic of something wrong, but neither SAs nor advisors can be faulted. Who then? 

Bethel: Here's some reading for you: http://t.co/qSyc7oQVEr  I've enjoyed this chat.

---

The discussion ended at this point, until I followed up the next morning after trying to read the article Bradley had recommended:

---

Martin: Not a subscriber. Can't access the article. 

Bethel: The point of the article is that the concept of faculty autonomy had become sacrosanct and pervasive at UNC 

Martin: "Has become." But  I was challenging you for answers on culpability for state of affairs prior to all this. 

Bethel: No, the article was about the past, during the years of the scandal. 

Martin: No way to read without a subscription? 

Martin: Found a partial reprint. Do the first 11 paragraphs provide the gist of it? 

Martin: Found a complete reprint. Reading now. 

Martin: Read it twice. U pointed me to it in response to my ? about S-A clustering in there. Not seeing relevance.

---

And that's where we ended.

The article Bradley suggested I read can be found here.