Roy Williams on ESPN

Roy Williams has been interviewed several times since last week's release of the Wainstein report. At times he's left me scratching my head with what I feel have been some inexplicable and sometimes contradictory statements

Today's short interview on ESPN was one such case.

Starting at 1:09 of the clip, ESPN's Kevin Negandhi begins to ask his second question of the interview, setting up with a restatement of some of the findings from the Wainstein report.

---

Kevin Negandhi (ESPN): "Some students benefited from "paper classes" in this African and Afro-American Studies department. Some athletes, including basketball players, were steered toward fake independent study classes to help boost their grade point average according to this investigation...

Roy Williams (UNC Head Basketball Coach): No no, Kevin. Let's not go there. That's not what the -- that's not what the report said. And it's a -- when the kids are taking these classes -- when I was there -- 'cause -- independent studies was not a negative. You know, I, in fact, thought it was harder.

I didn't want my guys in the independent study courses because there was no schedule. There was no structure, so I didn't even want them in those classes.

But the bottom line is that we have a problem, we're trying to fix the problem; but, if you want to talk basketball I'll talk basketball. That other crap is going to have to be taken care of. And we've made some mistakes. We're not proud of it. I'm very very sad. I'm very, very hurt. But I'm not going to rehash all that crap and that's -- if you want to talk basketball we'll do that, but I've already had a hundred million press conferences, I think, on this other stuff.

---

Roy cut Kevin off before he could ask a question. Roy didn't agree with Kevin's opening and attempted to contradict it. But did Roy actually say anything that actually did refute what Kevin had said?

1. Kevin said "Some students benefited from 'paper classes' in AFAM." Yes? No? Roy doesn't say. I doubt Roy would actually believe this was false.

2. Kevin said "Some athletes, including basketball players, were steered..." Roy bristles at this notion, though when he's objected to it he mistakenly believes the "steering" allegation is being levied at him or his coaching staff; but that's not what the Wainstein reports is saying. It's referring to student-athlete support program counselors "steering" some student-athletes to the irregular courses. There was pushback  by some UNC defenders before the Wainstein report regarding the characterization of advisors' suggestions as "steering"; but not now (that I've seen, anyway). Is anything Roy saying refuting that? Does he disagree with the Wainstein's report on the "steering?" No. So far, so good.

3. "...toward fake independent study classes..." This seems to be where Roy goes off the rails. His response stumbles around, first disputing that that's what the report said, and then disputing the negative connotation of "independent study," glossing over the key element of independent studies in question being "fake," which was the crux of the scandal and confirmed by Wainstein. I don't even know what he's trying to accomplish by first touching on his own experience with independent study and then arguing that he didn't like his players in those classes -- presumably even the non-fake ones -- because...why? They didn't have schedule or structure? They were harder than regular lecture classes? Which? Both? And what does that have to do with aberrant courses of the sort addressed in the Wainstein report? Does Roy even understand what the scheme was?

4. "...to help boost their grade point average according to this investigation..." He never gets around to anything resembling a contradiction to this before moving on the declare that he doesn't want to talk about this "crap." He's hurt. He's sad. But why? He's not taking any ownership. There's no shame or apology. Not even any vicarious apology for what other agencies within the University might have done wrong. It's victim hurt; but who's hurt Roy Williams and his program? Wainstein? Media? Liars who are questioning his integrity and that of his players or his long-time admired friend Wayne Walden?

Roy said "we have a problem." You do? There's STILL a problem?

Roy said "we're trying to fix the problem." What is (or was) the problem needing to be fixed, if not what Kevin was trying to ask you about before you cut him off?

Roy said "We're not proud of it." Not proud of what?


Roy Williams is exhibiting the kneejerk defensiveness of someone who doesn't want to come out and say the Wainstein report was wrong in some regards, or appear to be protesting too much when confronted with challenges to his own integrity or those for whom he vouches. (Bubba Cunningham, too, seems in a quandary about how to characterize the accuracy of claims found in the Report, at times acquiescing to its authority and, in almost the same breadth, undercutting its findings.) From a tactical standpoint, UNC should probably muzzle Roy since the more he speaks, the more confused he seems to be, or the greater the risk is he's going to go full COL Jessup and admit that he ordered the Code Red.

From a non-UNC advocate point of view, though, I am perplexed at how any UNC defender can listen or read things like this and come away feeling good, justified or vindicated.  If "liking" or giving a thumbs up to an interview or expression of opinion like Roy's here means you're on the same wavelength as Roy, then we're living on different planes. Roy's response here makes no sense to me.

Monday Morning After Conversation

I got into a Twitter-exchange this morning and was informed by a UNC advocate named David Starnes :
"you keep moving your point. Think it through and get back when you know what you want to assert."

Twitter's restriction on character-length frustrates me, and I'm simply unable to articulate myself as clearly as I'd like in that medium.  Twitter debates favors pithy responses and force you to dispense with amplifying words or phrases that would help communicate a thought or tone. Plus, Twitter is not designed for threaded dialogue, which becomes a nuisance when an exchange extends to more than one reply or two.

So I'm going to take this approach to answering Mr. Starnes. Even though I was originally addressing Bradley Bethel, Starnes stepped in and Bethel endorsed one of his replies, so I assume they're in close to agreement.

I don't have to think it through, as David condescendingly advises; at least not to accomplish the task of stating what I intend(ed) to assert. Perhaps, with a good counter-point, I will think it through again and change my mind. Until then...

Last May, Bradley Bethel and I engaged in a Twitter-based dialogue where I was probing the boundaries of where he was assigning negligence and culpability in the UNC academic scandal as it was being unveiled to the public, both through media and through UNC-official releases.

Back then, he drew the line in such a way that he refused to assign any culpability for the scandal to the academic counselors supporting student-athletes. (If anything I assert with attribution to Mr. Bethel is incorrect, I welcome him to contact me with a correction, and I'll either make the correction here or publish his objection.)

Later, when I asked about his rationale for the passionate defense and criticism of Mary Willingham in contrast to his expressed sympathy for Debby Crowder who "cared too much," he explained that was he was angry -- particularly with Willingham and Dr. Smith -- for "defaming his colleagues."

He'd previously engaged in debates with several antagonists, including John Drescher, editor of the N&O, objected to the use of the terminology "steering" to describe the influence of counselors on student-athletes in the selection of their courses and choice of curricula. A principle theme of his has been the media's lack of even-handedness and exploitation of sensational conjecture to further a particular narrative.

In our dialogue, he did readily blame Crowder and Nyang'oro for the debacle. He assigned blame to deans of the College of Arts and Sciences for lack of oversight. He even allowed that coaching staffs were negligent in their relaxed recruiting standards (academically speaking) and that the university's special admissions process abetted that.

But any allegation that ASPSA had been culpable or negligent was refuted, claiming that there was no evidence to warrant such speculation. "No evidence of malfeasance or collusion" was his oft-repeated phrase.

But there was evidence that fueled speculation.

• There were emails made public in 2013, obtained through public records requests by the N&O, that showed questionable activities in the dialogue between ASPSA representatives and Crowder/Nyang'oro.
• There was Mary Willingham's testimony, bogged down as it was in her "research" claims about literacy, that asserted personal involvement in the sort of "collusion and malfeasance" Bethel resisted.
• There was Michael McAdoo claiming what Willingham was claiming regarding the academic support system while he was at UNC.
• There was Deunta Williams and Bryon Bishop both making the same claims.
• Finally, there was Rashad McCants, making the most egregious of claims of all.

Each of these indicted the ASPSA program in some way, but it was all dismissed as lacking credibility as far as Bethel was concerned, and he remained entrenched that ASPSA counselors had been innocent, continuing to claim "no evidence."

 

He anticipated the truth to finally be revealed in the Kenneth Wainstein's report. Anything else presented -- if it came from someone with an axe to grind, or someone whose agenda he felt was suspect, or whose credibility on other matters was stained -- wasn't acceptable to him as an exhibit of evidence.

 

Now, in the wake of the Wainstein Report, the public gets to see what UNC held all along, and that was evidence of extensive email dialogue between ASPSA counselors/officers and Crowder/Nyang'orog clearly demonstrating activity well over the line for an academic support staffer.  This was evidence that existed all along but simply not available to the public. UNC had this evidence in its own archives. A hint of it was seen in the N&O's publication of a small number of emails, drawn out by public records requests 18 months earlier. But it took an expensive and prolonged investigation for UNC to discover them?

(In June 2013, UNC system president Tom Ross acknowledged the reports about those potentially damning emails, but said he wanted to withhold statement until he'd seen them for himself and examined them more.  There has been no statement from Ross or any UNC public official since then that I've been able to find, commenting on what resulted from the further inspection of those emails.)

In light of this now publicly available orgy of evidence, rather than confess that Willingham was correct -- at least with regard to counselors culpability in the scheme and that some of Bethel's colleagues had, in fact, colluded with Crowder -- he now is utilizing the same rhetorical technique as before, except now, instead of defending them against speculation of "collusion and malfeasance," he's saying there was no athletic pressure involved, and that athletic eligibility was the same as academic focus on academic graduation.

By articulating it this way, Bradley can declare that he never said that the ASPSA staff definitely were not motivated or incentivized by athletic department staff. He's only insisting that there's no direct evidence of it, just like he was saying to refute counselors' "collusion." This isn't a neutral statement. It's a criticism of anyone who dare proffer the theory -- which many consider obvious and transparent -- that counselors were acting on athletic eligibility motive to please coaches or those representing coaches. It's the same rhetorical technique as before, only now the goal posts have moved in light of what IS evidenced in the Wainstein Report.

Bradley Bethel is just completely resistant to any theory that attaches "malfeasance" to the athletic department until he's presented with the smoking gun laced with fingerprints of the coaching staff. Just what master does Bethel serve? The academic side of the UNC house, which he has criticized and to whom he does not object to blame being assigned?  Or the athletic department, which has garnered Bethel's most staunch defense? If he were simply arguing caution, admitting that it does look bad for UNC athletic department, choosing not to passionately argue "innocent until proven guilty" and take a more moderate "wait-and-see" tenor, I wouldn't be paying much attention to what he says via his Coaching the Mind blog or his Twitter posts.  But he's become a celebrated unofficial defense spokesperson for the UNC athletic department, and I don't understand why.

I appreciate his passion for calm, reasoned discussion and distaste for the "journalism of outrage" that is fueled by scandal. I regularly see gross errors published as factual by media outlets, most egregious being Sara Ganim at CNN. And I totally understand why, if one is already defensive and feeling attacked, why that kind of sensationalistic and careless reporting or commentary would tick you off.

I also understand his displeasure with Mary Willingham. I, too, take umbrage at many of her exaggerated claims and have questioned why she won't present a proper defense of her literacy claims.

But emotion -- particularly when it's partisan protectionism -- can blind you from being able to take a fair and impartial look at evidence spilling out before you. It's like the parent who refuses to believe her golden boy could do anything wrong, and so when people make allegations, you rally the defenses and find excuses.  That's emotional. That's what sports fans do. People committed to an academic mission shouldn't.

Interview Kenneth Wainstein

Last Thursday, the day after the Wainstein Report was released to the public, chief investigator Kenneth Wainstein was interviewed during a PBS News Hour segment about the report. Co-anchor and managing editor Gwen Ifill hosted the piece and conducted the interview,

I thought I'd have some fun and whimsically take Ms. Ifill's place and pretend like Minding the Coach was asking the questions.  After reading the report and skimming the voluminous supplemental exhibits, I'd relish the chance to ask him some questions of my own. I'd have a lot more than these.

(I've paraphrased the questions in some places, and in others taken Gwen Ifill's words verbatim. Not trying to alter the context of Mr. Wainstein's answers. Just playing along with the fantasy of conducting the interview.)

Q: Thank you, Mr. Wainstein, for being with us here today. Could you first describe for us the scope of the fraud as you learned from your investigation?

 


MindingtheCoach: Looking just at the student-athlete aspect of this, what this designed to keep them eligible to play?

 


MindingtheCoach: Describe what you mean by "paper classes?" How did this "shadow curriculum" work?

 


MindingtheCoach: How did this go on for so long? How was it allowed?

 


MindingtheCoach: Along the way, did any of the sports coaches, professors, or anyone object?

 


MindingtheCoach: Certainly, UNC is not alone in this sort of thing. In your opinion, isn't the term "student-athlete" backwards at this point?

 


MindingtheCoach: Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Wainstein.