If you didn't mean to reach this page or have decided you'd rather not wade through my drivel, I invite you to leave now, but do so by way of a link to a fascinating and talented musical artist, Sarah Jarosz. My recommendation has nothing to do with anything else on this blog. I'm just a fan.
This apology is not likely to appease anybody in the polarizing scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Nevertheless, I'm thinking I owe Mary Willingham an apology for some things I've said or written recently. Defenders of UNC athletics won't like it because they consider Willingham a pariah who deserves nothing but scorn and certainly not warranting any apology whatsoever. Conversely, UNC antagonists are protective of Willingham and won't like the form my apology takes because it's diluted and still accompanied by pointed criticisms which, to them, are just an annoying attempt by me to appear "balanced."
So first, allow me to say what is not included in this apology.
I don't apologize for my criticisms over how Ms. Willingham chose to articulate her literacy claims when she was highlighted in a CNN expose' by Sara Ganim. In that piece, originally aired on January 7th, 2014, and in many interviews, articles and comments since, Willingham has been indelicate and tactless in claiming literacy levels among the "for profit" student-athletes at UNC that were too low for college-level demands. Whether true or not, she seems out of touch with how insensitive to the hyperbolic manner in which she described the situation and how it could (and has been) be perceived as disparaging to the very constituency for whom she claims to advocate.
Neither do I feel regret for criticism I've lodged regarding her failure to make clear that her claimed findings were a descriptive analysis of a specific, small and non-random sample set. I know she knows that her findings should not be interpreted to infer anything about student-athletes outside of the tested group; yet many (though not all) media reports and editorials have, and continue to, extrapolate her findings as if they were representative of all UNC student-athletes. Willingham's own words, in her declaration in the Ed O'Bannon's suit against the NCAA, are ambiguous in a way that suggests even she tends to gloss over the distinction between inferential and descriptive analyses. This has been a critical error, in my opinion, in the contest for public opinion; and her failure to correct that error, silently allowing journalists to propagate such a key misconception, has caused many UNC student-athletes -- some of whom are already sensitive in the struggle to overcome the "dumb jock" stereotype," -- to feel stigmatized by her claims when, in fact, they should have no reason to be.
Finally, I do not apologize for calling Ms. Willingham to task for failing to defend her literacy findings with even a rudimentary technical explanation of how she derived her figures from the data collected. Instead, she has been strangely reticent about engaging in any technical discussion on the subject, only asserting by declaration, that she "stands by" her data and that her figures are "100% correct." Given that UNC officials have taken great strides to rebut and refute her claims, I think it behooves her to at least present a simplified defense of her study. Though the 3rd party reviewers who were contracted by UNC may have been intentionally limited by UNC's calculated narrow-scoping of their contract and the data they were asked to review, I don't believe that relieves Willingham from the onus of explaining her analysis methodology. Her blog response, in my opinion, was disappointing. Her loyal defenders may be able to take her claims on faith, but I can't.
In light of the foregoing, then, what in the world is it that I AM I apologizing for?
Well; after the Wainstein Report was published, some suggested that the University owed Willingham an apology for its poor treatment of her, feeling that the Report was vindication of what Willingham has been saying all along. I'd been vocal in objecting to the linkage of any apology talk with the whole literacy debate. In my view, the Wainstein Report hadn't vindicated her on that score, so if she didn't merit an apology for the truculent manner in which the University treated her over the literacy issue before Wainstein, it wasn't warranted now, in the wake of Wainstein, either.
I would still maintain that what the Wainstein Report addressed had nothing to do with the veracity of her literacy claims, but the difference is that my opinion has evolved such that I now believe Willingham did merit an apology from the University for the way it reacted and responded to that literacy squabble even before the Wainstein Report, and I, for one, am apologizing now for ever actively resisting that.
What changed my mind? Why should the University apologize, particularly if I'm allowing for justification of the harsh criticisms outlined above?
I stepped back this past weekend and took a close look at what, precisely, it might have been about Willingham's nationally broadcast claims that would bother UNC officials and proud supporters enough to throw down the gloves. Mary had been citing those figures for at least a year before the CNN story. Why the indignation only after a spurned and frustrated Willingham took them public?
Mary is guilty of a few "sins" that I can understand would raise the hackles of UNC loyalists and serve as obstacles to conceding any apology is due. As I outlined above, she disparages student-athletes with the way she has articulated her literacy claims. Her allegations are laden with unverifiable anecdotes. She resorts to sound bites with attention-drawing hyperbole. Her "research" study lacked rigor and was more accurately an analysis of existing data rather than a true research project. Not to mention her lax handling of privacy-protected data; clumsiness with the Institutional Review Board procedures; not being forthright in defending her calculations...yada yada.
But then why would I conclude that UNC has been in the wrong in how they've attempted to refute her claims, in both manner and tenor? To answer that, first recall what it was Mary claimed that caused so much offense. Paraphrasing:
60% of her sample group of 182 revenue sport student-athletes were assessed as having a reading proficiency level equivalent to 4th to 8th grade. Additionally, 8-10% more had reading proficiency levels of 3rd-grade equivalency or below.
What about that was the "travesty" that Provost James W. Dean spoke of in a presentation to faculty in responding to the CNN report and Willingham's literacy figures?
What UNC wound up publicly contested and condemning was the accuracy of Willingham's quantified literacy conclusions, stated in terms of grade-equivalency figures. The focal point of their rebuttal was mainly about challenging how she'd grossly erred in her calculated elementary school-equivalent reading proficiency. Was that the real "travesty?"
Let's replace that offending metric with something less quantifiable:
60% of her sample group of 182 revenue sport student-athletes were assessed as having reading proficiency levels well below what can be considered college-ready. Additionally, 8-10% more had reading proficiency levels so low that significant remediation would be required before pursuing an undergraduate curriculum.
Without the controversial and sensation-invoking element of grade-equivalent reading levels, does the thrust of her message change? Would UNC and its advocates still feel hostile toward her for those declarations?
What difference did her citing grade-equivalent reading levels make other than to provoke a sense of stigma and outrage? Her citing calculated figures gave her claims an air of empiricism, which gave them more impact. It's more emotionally galling to claim students admitted to a college are reading at an elementary school level than to say they are at a gross disadvantage in their ability to tackle college-level reading. UNC, rather than acknowledging the issue, sought to deflate the embarrassing claim by debunking the supposed empirical measurement. UNC has managed to -- so far, anyway, since Willingham has chosen not to defend her metrics -- refute her reading level specifics; but what it hasn't done is refute the claim that a small but significant number of academically challenged student-athletes had been admitted to UNC during the time frame in question, and yet had somehow managed to navigate an academic curriculum of the rigor of UNC without academic casualty.
What number of student-athletes are we talking? What constitutes a "travesty?"
60% of 182 is 109. And that's over a nine year period, from 2004 to 2012, accounting for about 12 per year. Her lower reading proficiency category was 8-10% of 182 equates to around 14 to 18 over the same period, or about 2 per year. It's a small number relative to the whole student-athlete population, but the heavy representation within that number of athletes playing in the revenue sports is what makes it significant.
Remember, this tested sample group wasn't randomly selected. It was specifically focused on those who had verbal or writing scores on admissions tests below a threshold such that they were required to attend a "remedial" writing English course during the Summer session prior to their freshman year. (Note: defenders bristle at the characterization of the class as "remedial" but I consider that a semantic game. The course was prescribed only for those for whom writing skills were predicted to inadequate for UNC -- that's remediation even if you don't call it that officially.) Given that that threshold ranged in the 460-470 range on the SAT verbal section, and that all of UNC's special committee admits were in that category, does it really come as a shock that a majority of that particular grouping (60%) could be assessed with reading/writing deficiencies sufficient to put them at risk in a college-level curriculum?
The hand-wringing over the "3rd grade" and "illiterate" adjectives was a distraction, making the atmosphere ripe for indignant rhetoric meant to obscure Willingham's real message and undermine her credibility on all matters, not just her supposedly flawed grade-level calculations. To be sure, Ms. Willingham didn't help her cause by saying UNC "might as well go down to Glenwood Elementary and let in all the 4th graders." That was belittling and an exaggeration, and though intended to embarrass the UNC administration and, after a year or more of UNC stonewalling, to finally goad UNC into reacting to the campaign she'd been waging internally at UNC for 2-3 years, it also offended many who felt stung and insulted, either directly or vicariously.
The objections of UNC defenders fixates on a nonessential particular rather than the essence of what Willingham is saying. Willingham's particulars may very well be flawed, but the essence seems intuitively correct to me, even without a study or research project. It stands to reason that if you're going to admit student-athletes that require such special consideration to waive minimum admissions standards, those students cannot be expected to be adequately equipped to handle and survive collegiate level work, thus requiring more than token special handling.
The nature of the "special handling" of ill-equipped students admitted for their athletic prowess is at the heart of the debate. A positive and constructive approach might involve dedicated remediation beyond a single prerequisite English course; certainly addressing diagnosed learning disabilities; perhaps tailoring curriculum not by diluting it but instead maintaining actual educational merit. It might even involve suspension of athletic pursuits until that academic challenge is mitigated.
Or, sadly, it can take the form of corner cutting in the educational mission, which is what happened at UNC.
So in summary...
I extend a personal apology to Mary Willingham for vociferously disputing that she is owed any apology at all from her most ardent critics, particularly the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and some of its faculty and administrators.
I recognize that that's a rather recursive apology. Can one apologize for having resisted calling for an apology? Given that I've been critical of both antagonists AND defenders of UNC in this matter, I felt I needed to say it, even if only to myself. I honestly doubt she'll care, and I know for certain both her detractors and defenders will be unmoved by anything I've written here.
