Thursday, March 24, 2016
Learning Specialist
Bradley Bethel gave an interesting presentation in 2012 during his "rookie" year
Monday, March 14, 2016
Boosterism
In what looks to be the final article posted on Coaching the Mind, Bradley Bethel makes his standard declaration that the UNC scandal was "not an athletics-driven scandal":
Bethel has based this assertion on what disgraced, former African and African-American Department Chair Dr. Julius Nyang'oro and his former assistant Debbi Crowder told UNC-hired investigator Kenneth Wainstein. For some unexplained reason, he accepts Wainstein's accounting of their testimony as fact, but elsewhere disputes the conclusions of the Wainstein Report when it contradicts the "not an athletics-driven scandal" argument.
Before exploring where and how he comes up with that hypothesis, let's try out Occam's Razor. Trying to be parsimonious isn't a guarantee of finding truth, but it's a good place to start. What's the simplest answer as to the reason why Nyang'oro and Crowder engaged in their academic misconduct?
If all you knew about it was that student-athletes were disproportionately enrolled in the irregular classes, that would be enough to make "athletics-driven" motive the primary suspect. It's not the outrageous, "sensationalized" notion that Bethel routinely and consistently argues. It's the reasonable-man theory. For "athletics-driven" to be knocked from that perch, there needs to be a sensible, alternate explanation for the disproportionality of student-athlete enrollments and a reasonable alternative of motive.
Another principle that might come in handy to compliment Occam's Razor is Sine Qua Non -- Latin for "without which, not" -- often used in legal circles to ascertain causation; as in "Y would not have occurred but for X." If the UNC scandal was NOT athletics-driven, then, all else being equal, the scheme could have arisen and persisted anyway. Is that what Bethel would have us believe? Or, isn't it more reasonable that the academic misconduct would not have occurred but for the needs of athletics?
So, with Sine Qua Non in one hand and Occam's Razor in the other, what is Bethel's alternative answer to the athletics-driven explanation?
Bethel claims it was Julius Nyang'oro's and his assistant Debbi Crowder's "misguided efforts to help struggling students" that drove the curricular arrangements. (This, by the way, is similar to the sentiment is echoed by two of the counselors UNC fired in the wake of the Wainstein Report, who say in "Unverified" they were only trying to help struggling students.)
As I noted above, he relies on the Wainstein Report for this information:
Good. Compassion for struggling student; but Bethel conveniently ignores or discounts the other stated motivator for both Nyang'oro and Crowder that Wainstein deduced: their passionate interest in UNC athletics, particular basketball and football.
In the very next paragraphs after the ones in which Bethel relies to support his alternative:
Bethel's claim that what drove the scandal was "misguided efforts to help struggling students" doesn't provide a better alternative to warrant displacing the "athletics-driven" explanation. It only adds another component to the complexion of their motives. And the very same reference establishes testimonial evidence that "athletics-driven" as a motivator. Occam's Razor remains un-dulled. Sin Qua Non unanswered.
Alleging that the scandal was "athletics-driven" doesn't mean that responsibility for the scandal is shifted to members of the Athletics Department. On the contrary, being "athletics-driven" requires a partnership between athletic and academic parties; hence the characterization of the scandal as being an institutional one. In this relationship, faculty and A&S staff are enablers of the "athletic-driven" engine, making athletics "boosterism" the key element of the motivation.
The NCAA definition includes anyone who has "assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families." The NCAA has myriad rules regarding benefits, but whether allowable or unallowable, one providing a benefit is a booster.
It's plain to see that Nyang'oro and Crowder were avid fans of UNC athletics. That, in itself, doesn't make them boosters. But if they sought to "help" student-athletes academically struggling, then that is what made them boosters. Whether or not their benefits their boosterism conveyed to student-athletes was permissible or not is up to the NCAA and Committee on Infractions to decide. But you have to be willfully blind to deny that their support and love for athletics didn't weigh heavily in their motivation to "help."
Bethel has based this assertion on what disgraced, former African and African-American Department Chair Dr. Julius Nyang'oro and his former assistant Debbi Crowder told UNC-hired investigator Kenneth Wainstein. For some unexplained reason, he accepts Wainstein's accounting of their testimony as fact, but elsewhere disputes the conclusions of the Wainstein Report when it contradicts the "not an athletics-driven scandal" argument.
Before exploring where and how he comes up with that hypothesis, let's try out Occam's Razor. Trying to be parsimonious isn't a guarantee of finding truth, but it's a good place to start. What's the simplest answer as to the reason why Nyang'oro and Crowder engaged in their academic misconduct?
If all you knew about it was that student-athletes were disproportionately enrolled in the irregular classes, that would be enough to make "athletics-driven" motive the primary suspect. It's not the outrageous, "sensationalized" notion that Bethel routinely and consistently argues. It's the reasonable-man theory. For "athletics-driven" to be knocked from that perch, there needs to be a sensible, alternate explanation for the disproportionality of student-athlete enrollments and a reasonable alternative of motive.
Another principle that might come in handy to compliment Occam's Razor is Sine Qua Non -- Latin for "without which, not" -- often used in legal circles to ascertain causation; as in "Y would not have occurred but for X." If the UNC scandal was NOT athletics-driven, then, all else being equal, the scheme could have arisen and persisted anyway. Is that what Bethel would have us believe? Or, isn't it more reasonable that the academic misconduct would not have occurred but for the needs of athletics?
So, with Sine Qua Non in one hand and Occam's Razor in the other, what is Bethel's alternative answer to the athletics-driven explanation?
Bethel claims it was Julius Nyang'oro's and his assistant Debbi Crowder's "misguided efforts to help struggling students" that drove the curricular arrangements. (This, by the way, is similar to the sentiment is echoed by two of the counselors UNC fired in the wake of the Wainstein Report, who say in "Unverified" they were only trying to help struggling students.)
As I noted above, he relies on the Wainstein Report for this information:
 |
| Exhibit 1: Wainstein Report; Pg 14 |
 |
| Exhibit 2: Wainstein Report, Pgs 43-44 |
Good. Compassion for struggling student; but Bethel conveniently ignores or discounts the other stated motivator for both Nyang'oro and Crowder that Wainstein deduced: their passionate interest in UNC athletics, particular basketball and football.
In the very next paragraphs after the ones in which Bethel relies to support his alternative:
 |
| Exhibit 3: Wainstein Report; pg 14 |
 |
| Exhibit 4: Wainstein Report: pg.44 |
Bethel's claim that what drove the scandal was "misguided efforts to help struggling students" doesn't provide a better alternative to warrant displacing the "athletics-driven" explanation. It only adds another component to the complexion of their motives. And the very same reference establishes testimonial evidence that "athletics-driven" as a motivator. Occam's Razor remains un-dulled. Sin Qua Non unanswered.
Alleging that the scandal was "athletics-driven" doesn't mean that responsibility for the scandal is shifted to members of the Athletics Department. On the contrary, being "athletics-driven" requires a partnership between athletic and academic parties; hence the characterization of the scandal as being an institutional one. In this relationship, faculty and A&S staff are enablers of the "athletic-driven" engine, making athletics "boosterism" the key element of the motivation.
The NCAA definition includes anyone who has "assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families." The NCAA has myriad rules regarding benefits, but whether allowable or unallowable, one providing a benefit is a booster.
It's plain to see that Nyang'oro and Crowder were avid fans of UNC athletics. That, in itself, doesn't make them boosters. But if they sought to "help" student-athletes academically struggling, then that is what made them boosters. Whether or not their benefits their boosterism conveyed to student-athletes was permissible or not is up to the NCAA and Committee on Infractions to decide. But you have to be willfully blind to deny that their support and love for athletics didn't weigh heavily in their motivation to "help."
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Special Talent Student-Athletes Requiring Faculty Committee Review
Sometimes a Twitter debate can actually be constructive. Recently, an advocate for UNC with the handle @NinjaTarHeel contested a Tweet of mine; which, after several rounds, ultimately led me to question and re-examine my understanding of UNC's current and former admission of so-called "committee cases," and to reassess how a change of in that understanding might affect my views and opinions, particularly those previously stated here on this blog.
I'm now reconsidering two items that I had believed were true, but now I'm not so sure.
Academic Preparedness "Too Low for UNC"
For quite some time, I've felt the antagonists Bradley Bethel and Mary Willingham, despite their bitter and public differences, were essentially saying the same thing about a particular segment of the UNC student-athlete population having been admitted with academic preparedness too low for UNC. Both considered this to be a contributing factor to the academic misdeeds of the AFAM scandal. Whatever agreement they might have on that point, Bethel has disputed Willingham over (1) how that academic unpreparedness was articulated; (2) the degree to which those student-athletes were academically unprepared; and, (3) that pressure to help "committee case" student-athletes remain eligible for athletics drove the scandal.
I posted a case for this argument a couple of weeks ago; but that argument hinges on both Bethel and me having a common understanding of student-athlete "committee cases" as it pertains to UNC-CH.
Special Talent Faculty Review
Almost every college or university with an athletics program offers special consideration on admissions to some students with athletic talents. This includes those with academic prestige like Ivy League schools, Stanford and even the service academies. Northwestern has been one of the rare, and controversial, exceptions (though even they may have relaxed admissions for "special talent" since I last checked).
This practice doesn't mean schools are admitting "jocks" who don't meet minimum academic requirements or are completely discounting academic ability. It only means these students with special talent are considered via a separate process from the competitive selection with all other student applicants.
Competition for a limited number of seats in an incoming class is generally what drives academic averages up at the most competitive and selective schools. A student with less competitive academic credentials can still be perfectly equipped to tackle the academic challenges of a selective school.
And if a school wants to have a competitive athletics program (or mount a notable fine arts program), it can't expect to do so pulling talent only from the resulting pool of incoming students admitted via competitive academic considerations.
I'm not an academic elitist. I've always supported this Special Talent admissions philosophy. It not only is a benefit to the school, but it also gives a handful of students with a particular talent an opportunity to leverage that talent to gain access to a college education.
The process can be abused though, and has allowed some schools to admit students under special talent rules with little regard to academic ability. This can result in those student struggling in the classroom, accompanied by the resultant pressure to cut academic corners to keep the student eligible. It can also enable or foster an attitude in the special talent student that athletics is the priority. Some students may even consider college to be a vocational training ground for sports, with academic requirements little more than a nuisance or necessary evil.
UNC is a prestigious public school with a strong academic culture. And even though it, like practically every other schools, offers admissions to a number of students with special talents in athletics outside of the normal competitive selection process, a mindset and culture of "The Carolina Way" has meant that its student-athletes -- even if Special Policy admits -- are nonetheless -- students first and athletes second. This is unfortunately not the case at many universities with competitive athletics programs. UNC has long been revered for being one of the rare schools to be able to compete at a high level athletically while also see most of its athletes place priority on academics and succeed in the classroom
"Special Talent" is not limited to athletics either. Music and Drama departments are given a number of "Special Talent" admits as well. UNC allots the Athletics Department 160 admission slots each year to recommend to the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions (Music and Drama are given 20).
"Committee case" is informal short-hand terminology for a subset of student-athletes falling under Special Talent Policy guidelines who must further be reviewed by a faculty-led committee before an admissions recommendation can be achieved. At UNC-CH, the Special Talent Committee (formerly the Committee on Special Talent) is tasked with reviewing select candidates presented by the Athletics Department and recommending to the Office of Undergraduate Admissions whether or not to offer admission.
Most special talent policy admissions candidates do not require review by the faculty committee on Special Talents. The Athletics Department is granted an allotment of a certain number of student-athletes each year for which it can request admittance based on athletic special talent without their having to be otherwise academically competitive with other student applicants. The University has set thresholds and guidelines, and should an applicant fall below those thresholds, he or she must be reviewed by the Committee on Special Talent before an admission decision. This is but a minority of the department's limit of special talent admits, and ultimately, the final decision belongs to Admissions; though rarely, if ever, is the Special Talent Committee's recommendation overruled.
One should be aware that each institution has its own policies, guidelines and rules. Even within the same public school system, different schools govern their admissions process differently. A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) "committee case" would be different from North Carolina State University (NCSU) "committee case." Less surprisingly, a non-UNC system school -- especially a private one like Duke University -- will have its own practices. This article and this blog is concerned only with UNC-CH, since there is an alleged (and now challenged) relationship of "committee cases" to UNC-CH's academic scandal involving student-athletes.
Also, it should also be noted that UNC-CH's "committee cases" aren't limited to athletics. Under special talent policy provisions given by the UNC system Board of Governors, the University also conducts faculty reviews for some students seeking admission with special talents for Drama and Music.
It is an error to equate a student requiring review by the Special Talent Committee as being one who does not meet the minimum academic or course requirements for admission to a North Carolina system school. Such students would be deemed "exceptions," and are rare, at least at UNC-CH. Student-athletes who are admissions exceptions would be "committee cases," but the majority of "committee cases" are not exceptions to minimum admissions standards. And as for NCAA eligibility, all student-athlete committee cases granted admission do meet NCAA eligibility thresholds.
With that explained, my supposition (which @NinjaHeel has challenged) has been that these faculty-review "committee cases" included some who may have had "academic preparedness levels to low to succeed at UNC." I publish this blog as counterpoint to Bradley Bethel but he has stated his belief in this same supposition as well. Though we disagree on much, on this point we do agree.
In 2013, while serving as a learning specialist for the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA), Bethel communicated his concern to new Chancellor Carol Folt, in which he drew the correlation between "specially admitted student-athletes" and student-athletes with "academic preparedness is so low they cannot succeed here."
To explain how that 2013 perspective was distinct from Mary Willingham's, he published an article in February 2014 in which he included an explanation of how improved admissions processes and guidelines had been implemented at UNC, and how, with the cooperation of the athletics department, the number of specially-admitted student-athletes had been reduced. This, he indicated, satisfied his concern going forward.
UNC published Carolina Commitment as a portal for public consumption of the reforms, information and updates from the University in response to the scandal. UNC lists the admission improvements as among it's "70+ Reforms." The University also cites these admissions improvements in its answer to academic accreditation agency, SACSCOC, which currently has put UNC-CH on probation. Finally, since 2013, the University has reported annually on the successful results of these improvements, showing a reduction in the number of "committee cases." (Table 1 is drawn from those reports.)
Given these examples of UNC citing the admissions improvements in the faculty-review process for special talent (athletics) as "reforms" specifically in response to the academic scandal, I thought it was a reasonable presumption on my part that UNC had accepted that its prior, liberal "committee case" admissions had, in some way, contributed to the scandal, but which had been rectified.
And since I hadn't seen UNC explicitly refute Bradley Bethel communicating the same presumption in 2013 -- nor have I seen Bethel comment as if he believes the University has disputed that presumption -- I (perhaps incorrectly) concluded that the University had agreed that it had admitted some student-athletes whose academic preparedness was too low to succeed at UNC. I haven't seen anywhere Bethel saying he'd been corrected; only that UNC had addressed the issue and was moving on.
And I had agreed with him. It made sense to me that the excesses of faculty-review cases for athletics special talent had been a contributor to academic erosion that resulted in scandal.
Now, however, I'm alerted to the possibility that I, and Bradley Bethel (and, by extension, Mary Willingham too), have all been wrong. Or, to be more accurate, the University would dispute the premise that it ever had admitted any student-athlete that is not capable of succeeding at UNC.
It was @NinjaHeel who countered, saying that Vice Provost for Admissions, Stephen Farmer, had "flatly disagreed" with Bethel's (and my) premise, and that events of 2013 were a "natural alignment of ideals" and that the fall off in faculty review cases was just a "natural drop" due the regular and constant refinements and improvements, including better recruiting choices by football coach Larry Fedora. Problems needing fixing, he wrote, were administrative and academic problems; not problems with admissions. "UNC could choose to have 50 if they wanted."
I don't know if I can goad Bradley Bethel into responding to these contradictions to his views on how past "committee case" admission decisions had contributed to the scandal, or his view on how the changes UNC made address those concerns. Probably not.
But I did run across a statement made in 2014 from Senior Assistant Director of Admissions Ashley Memory saying just what @NinjaTarHeel was saying:
This has led me to re-examine the committee case connecton to the academic scandal premise and try to square why UNC would include these "admissions improvements" among it's Admissions & Preparedness reforms, claiming "enhancement and transparency of special talent admissions process, improved assessment and focus on preparedness for UNC academics" as part of "correcting the wrongs that occurred at Carolina."
I'm also taking a fresh look at the annual reports on admissions (also listed among the initiatives "correcting the wrongs") since I now have questions about how the University has explained the committee case reduction (see Table 1 above) as an indicator of success.
I'm now reconsidering two items that I had believed were true, but now I'm not so sure.
- Contrary to what both Bradley Bethel and I have both stated, so-called "committee cases" DID NOT include some whose academic preparedness was too low to succeed at UNC.
- The number of "committee case" from 2004 to present that we all (including @NinjaTarHeel) have been citing might be wrong.
Academic Preparedness "Too Low for UNC"
For quite some time, I've felt the antagonists Bradley Bethel and Mary Willingham, despite their bitter and public differences, were essentially saying the same thing about a particular segment of the UNC student-athlete population having been admitted with academic preparedness too low for UNC. Both considered this to be a contributing factor to the academic misdeeds of the AFAM scandal. Whatever agreement they might have on that point, Bethel has disputed Willingham over (1) how that academic unpreparedness was articulated; (2) the degree to which those student-athletes were academically unprepared; and, (3) that pressure to help "committee case" student-athletes remain eligible for athletics drove the scandal.
I posted a case for this argument a couple of weeks ago; but that argument hinges on both Bethel and me having a common understanding of student-athlete "committee cases" as it pertains to UNC-CH.
Special Talent Faculty Review
Almost every college or university with an athletics program offers special consideration on admissions to some students with athletic talents. This includes those with academic prestige like Ivy League schools, Stanford and even the service academies. Northwestern has been one of the rare, and controversial, exceptions (though even they may have relaxed admissions for "special talent" since I last checked).
This practice doesn't mean schools are admitting "jocks" who don't meet minimum academic requirements or are completely discounting academic ability. It only means these students with special talent are considered via a separate process from the competitive selection with all other student applicants.
Competition for a limited number of seats in an incoming class is generally what drives academic averages up at the most competitive and selective schools. A student with less competitive academic credentials can still be perfectly equipped to tackle the academic challenges of a selective school.
And if a school wants to have a competitive athletics program (or mount a notable fine arts program), it can't expect to do so pulling talent only from the resulting pool of incoming students admitted via competitive academic considerations.
I'm not an academic elitist. I've always supported this Special Talent admissions philosophy. It not only is a benefit to the school, but it also gives a handful of students with a particular talent an opportunity to leverage that talent to gain access to a college education.
The process can be abused though, and has allowed some schools to admit students under special talent rules with little regard to academic ability. This can result in those student struggling in the classroom, accompanied by the resultant pressure to cut academic corners to keep the student eligible. It can also enable or foster an attitude in the special talent student that athletics is the priority. Some students may even consider college to be a vocational training ground for sports, with academic requirements little more than a nuisance or necessary evil.
UNC is a prestigious public school with a strong academic culture. And even though it, like practically every other schools, offers admissions to a number of students with special talents in athletics outside of the normal competitive selection process, a mindset and culture of "The Carolina Way" has meant that its student-athletes -- even if Special Policy admits -- are nonetheless -- students first and athletes second. This is unfortunately not the case at many universities with competitive athletics programs. UNC has long been revered for being one of the rare schools to be able to compete at a high level athletically while also see most of its athletes place priority on academics and succeed in the classroom
"Special Talent" is not limited to athletics either. Music and Drama departments are given a number of "Special Talent" admits as well. UNC allots the Athletics Department 160 admission slots each year to recommend to the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions (Music and Drama are given 20).
"Committee case" is informal short-hand terminology for a subset of student-athletes falling under Special Talent Policy guidelines who must further be reviewed by a faculty-led committee before an admissions recommendation can be achieved. At UNC-CH, the Special Talent Committee (formerly the Committee on Special Talent) is tasked with reviewing select candidates presented by the Athletics Department and recommending to the Office of Undergraduate Admissions whether or not to offer admission.
Most special talent policy admissions candidates do not require review by the faculty committee on Special Talents. The Athletics Department is granted an allotment of a certain number of student-athletes each year for which it can request admittance based on athletic special talent without their having to be otherwise academically competitive with other student applicants. The University has set thresholds and guidelines, and should an applicant fall below those thresholds, he or she must be reviewed by the Committee on Special Talent before an admission decision. This is but a minority of the department's limit of special talent admits, and ultimately, the final decision belongs to Admissions; though rarely, if ever, is the Special Talent Committee's recommendation overruled.
One should be aware that each institution has its own policies, guidelines and rules. Even within the same public school system, different schools govern their admissions process differently. A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) "committee case" would be different from North Carolina State University (NCSU) "committee case." Less surprisingly, a non-UNC system school -- especially a private one like Duke University -- will have its own practices. This article and this blog is concerned only with UNC-CH, since there is an alleged (and now challenged) relationship of "committee cases" to UNC-CH's academic scandal involving student-athletes.
Also, it should also be noted that UNC-CH's "committee cases" aren't limited to athletics. Under special talent policy provisions given by the UNC system Board of Governors, the University also conducts faculty reviews for some students seeking admission with special talents for Drama and Music.
It is an error to equate a student requiring review by the Special Talent Committee as being one who does not meet the minimum academic or course requirements for admission to a North Carolina system school. Such students would be deemed "exceptions," and are rare, at least at UNC-CH. Student-athletes who are admissions exceptions would be "committee cases," but the majority of "committee cases" are not exceptions to minimum admissions standards. And as for NCAA eligibility, all student-athlete committee cases granted admission do meet NCAA eligibility thresholds.
With that explained, my supposition (which @NinjaHeel has challenged) has been that these faculty-review "committee cases" included some who may have had "academic preparedness levels to low to succeed at UNC." I publish this blog as counterpoint to Bradley Bethel but he has stated his belief in this same supposition as well. Though we disagree on much, on this point we do agree.
In 2013, while serving as a learning specialist for the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA), Bethel communicated his concern to new Chancellor Carol Folt, in which he drew the correlation between "specially admitted student-athletes" and student-athletes with "academic preparedness is so low they cannot succeed here."
To explain how that 2013 perspective was distinct from Mary Willingham's, he published an article in February 2014 in which he included an explanation of how improved admissions processes and guidelines had been implemented at UNC, and how, with the cooperation of the athletics department, the number of specially-admitted student-athletes had been reduced. This, he indicated, satisfied his concern going forward.
 |
| Table 1 |
Given these examples of UNC citing the admissions improvements in the faculty-review process for special talent (athletics) as "reforms" specifically in response to the academic scandal, I thought it was a reasonable presumption on my part that UNC had accepted that its prior, liberal "committee case" admissions had, in some way, contributed to the scandal, but which had been rectified.
And since I hadn't seen UNC explicitly refute Bradley Bethel communicating the same presumption in 2013 -- nor have I seen Bethel comment as if he believes the University has disputed that presumption -- I (perhaps incorrectly) concluded that the University had agreed that it had admitted some student-athletes whose academic preparedness was too low to succeed at UNC. I haven't seen anywhere Bethel saying he'd been corrected; only that UNC had addressed the issue and was moving on.
And I had agreed with him. It made sense to me that the excesses of faculty-review cases for athletics special talent had been a contributor to academic erosion that resulted in scandal.
Now, however, I'm alerted to the possibility that I, and Bradley Bethel (and, by extension, Mary Willingham too), have all been wrong. Or, to be more accurate, the University would dispute the premise that it ever had admitted any student-athlete that is not capable of succeeding at UNC.
It was @NinjaHeel who countered, saying that Vice Provost for Admissions, Stephen Farmer, had "flatly disagreed" with Bethel's (and my) premise, and that events of 2013 were a "natural alignment of ideals" and that the fall off in faculty review cases was just a "natural drop" due the regular and constant refinements and improvements, including better recruiting choices by football coach Larry Fedora. Problems needing fixing, he wrote, were administrative and academic problems; not problems with admissions. "UNC could choose to have 50 if they wanted."
I don't know if I can goad Bradley Bethel into responding to these contradictions to his views on how past "committee case" admission decisions had contributed to the scandal, or his view on how the changes UNC made address those concerns. Probably not.
But I did run across a statement made in 2014 from Senior Assistant Director of Admissions Ashley Memory saying just what @NinjaTarHeel was saying:
This has led me to re-examine the committee case connecton to the academic scandal premise and try to square why UNC would include these "admissions improvements" among it's Admissions & Preparedness reforms, claiming "enhancement and transparency of special talent admissions process, improved assessment and focus on preparedness for UNC academics" as part of "correcting the wrongs that occurred at Carolina."
I'm also taking a fresh look at the annual reports on admissions (also listed among the initiatives "correcting the wrongs") since I now have questions about how the University has explained the committee case reduction (see Table 1 above) as an indicator of success.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Examining Bethel's Claim About Ethics of Willingham/Johnson Study
This will probably be my last article on the subject of the UNC Athletics Department suddenly ending its contract with Cognitive Neuropsychology and Dr. Lyn Johnson. Barring rebuttal or input from Bethel or one of "his colleagues," I'm not sure there is much more to say on the matter.
Bradley Bethel is currently the sole source for any information available to the public suggesting that a reason for personnel actions against Mary Willingham and contract decisions pertaining to Dr. Lyn Johnson -- both occurring over the Summer of 2013 -- involved concerns over the ethics and handling of privacy-protected student-athlete personal data. He first recounted his personal anecdote and testimony on his blog, published on April 14th, 2014.
In that article, he was refuting Dan Kane of the News & Observer who, on the eve of the release of the 3rd party review results of Willingham's literacy claims, published an article suggesting a possible link between actions against Willingham and Johnson with their publicizing their study at the April 18th, 2013 College Sports Research Institute (CSRI) Conference.
Bethel sought to refute Kane correlating the two events , saying literacy wasn't even mentioned in Willingham/Johnson's presentation. Bethel suggested an alternative rationale relating to concerns he and "his colleagues" on the staff of the UNC Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) had raised about the "ethics" of the Willingham/Johnson study.
Here are excerpts from his blog article, which covered much more than this particular episode:
The underlined portions of Bethel's account are items I'd like to address here.
1. Primary vs. Secondary Data.
I realize Bethel wrote his article a year after the events he describes, and did so specifically to counter Dan Kane's article. And so it would be understandable why he would choose to focus on this component of his reaction to Willingham and Johnson's brief and not his reaction to the technical merits of the study.
However; it strikes me as more than a little odd that Bethel would be concerned about the nature of the study's data at all, back in April 2013, assuming he didn't already feel antipathy toward Willingham for some reason. Unless he was pre-sensitized to be skeptical or even hostile toward her or the study, why would such a matter even occur to him?
After all, at that point, would he have been aware of the study's standing with UNC's Institutional Review Board (IRB) or the protocols Willingham and Johnson had for handling the data? If so, then it wouldn't have taken the CSRI Conference "poster brief" to raise his concerns.
Bethel arrived on the ASPSA staff in the Fall of 2011, after Willingham had resigned from the same position 20 months earlier. Up to the date of that CSRI presentation (April 18th, 2013), we see no suggestion from Bethel himself, nor evidence in the public records released to date, of his having had issues with Willingham. If their relationship was collegial or even just neutral up to that point, does it make sense that he'd fret over status of the data? Even if it did occur to him to be concerned by it, why not ask her? Why take the end-around and tattle?
Something's just not right about his version of the story.
2. Data Access Authorization.
The briefing didn't reveal any personally-identifiable information. The information presented was aggregated and non-identifiable; however, what Bethel says concerned him and his colleagues -- who I now believe were mainly, but probably not exclusively, Beth Lyons and Jenn Townsend -- was that it was apparent Willingham had had access to educational records and Johnson's test data, which he feels should have been out of her purview once she had left the ASPSA staff in January 2010. The presence of aggregated SAT/ACT information in one portion of the presentation is what he says drew him to this suspicion; evidence of this improper access.
Here, again, Bethel lets slip a predisposed antagonism toward Willingham. At this point, he has no idea if she's been authorized to have access to such data, de-identified or otherwise. Why should he automatically assume her access is unauthorized?
Bethel goes on to say he and his colleagues reported the potential brief of confidentiality, yet his colleagues, Jenn Townsend and Beth Lyons, are seen in internal communications already meeting with another candidate for psychological services that very same day. It's possible their interview was for something completely unrelated to dissatisfaction with Dr. Johnson, but the coincidence is notable.
Also notable is that if their concerns about Willingham and Johnson had been taken seriously by higher-ups in the athletics department, why was this not communicated to either Willingham or Johnson? There should have been no ambiguity about the personnel actions taken against them if privacy rules misconduct had been the reason for the actions; but Willingham would later file an employee grievance over her demotion, which would have been dead in the water had the personnel action been for FERPA, or worse HIPAA, violations. And in internal communications found in the public release, Johnson is found expressing dismay over not knowing the reasons why her decade-long association with the athletics department was being terminated.
Not only that, but even up to a month after this alleged reporting of concerns about the ethical conduct of Willingham and Johnson, the athletics department still processed a renewal of its annual contract with Johnson for the upcoming Fiscal Year. It wouldn't be until July that the contract would be liquidated, without any documented explanation. If the action had been for cause, based on breach of privacy law or school protocols, the school would have been obligated to document that and inform Johnson. Yet there's no evidence they did. In response to a public records request, the University, itself, affirmed there were no records pertaining to the reasons for the actions re. Johnson.
Even if such reasons were, themselves, protected by some privacy governance -- a claim for which I can find no rule or law specifying such information cannot be made public -- the timing of actions in relation to Bethel's account are peculiar. If, as Bethel says, his and his colleagues concerns were taken seriously, the subsequent actions of the department over the next several weeks, and the lack of communication to either Johnson or Willingham as to the nature of those concerns, belie Bethel's claim. Meanwhile, those who had supposedly been a party to reporting those concerns were already moving on plans as if the consequences of their reporting was a done deal.
Bethel very well could be offering a rare public glimpse into actual decisions and rationales made by athletic department leadership that aren't part of the public record. But all we have to go on is his personal testimony that his version is true, and for now it doesn't pass the "sniff test."
Bradley Bethel is currently the sole source for any information available to the public suggesting that a reason for personnel actions against Mary Willingham and contract decisions pertaining to Dr. Lyn Johnson -- both occurring over the Summer of 2013 -- involved concerns over the ethics and handling of privacy-protected student-athlete personal data. He first recounted his personal anecdote and testimony on his blog, published on April 14th, 2014.
In that article, he was refuting Dan Kane of the News & Observer who, on the eve of the release of the 3rd party review results of Willingham's literacy claims, published an article suggesting a possible link between actions against Willingham and Johnson with their publicizing their study at the April 18th, 2013 College Sports Research Institute (CSRI) Conference.
Bethel sought to refute Kane correlating the two events , saying literacy wasn't even mentioned in Willingham/Johnson's presentation. Bethel suggested an alternative rationale relating to concerns he and "his colleagues" on the staff of the UNC Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) had raised about the "ethics" of the Willingham/Johnson study.
Here are excerpts from his blog article, which covered much more than this particular episode:
The underlined portions of Bethel's account are items I'd like to address here.
1. Primary vs. Secondary Data.
I realize Bethel wrote his article a year after the events he describes, and did so specifically to counter Dan Kane's article. And so it would be understandable why he would choose to focus on this component of his reaction to Willingham and Johnson's brief and not his reaction to the technical merits of the study.
However; it strikes me as more than a little odd that Bethel would be concerned about the nature of the study's data at all, back in April 2013, assuming he didn't already feel antipathy toward Willingham for some reason. Unless he was pre-sensitized to be skeptical or even hostile toward her or the study, why would such a matter even occur to him?
After all, at that point, would he have been aware of the study's standing with UNC's Institutional Review Board (IRB) or the protocols Willingham and Johnson had for handling the data? If so, then it wouldn't have taken the CSRI Conference "poster brief" to raise his concerns.
Bethel arrived on the ASPSA staff in the Fall of 2011, after Willingham had resigned from the same position 20 months earlier. Up to the date of that CSRI presentation (April 18th, 2013), we see no suggestion from Bethel himself, nor evidence in the public records released to date, of his having had issues with Willingham. If their relationship was collegial or even just neutral up to that point, does it make sense that he'd fret over status of the data? Even if it did occur to him to be concerned by it, why not ask her? Why take the end-around and tattle?
Something's just not right about his version of the story.
2. Data Access Authorization.
The briefing didn't reveal any personally-identifiable information. The information presented was aggregated and non-identifiable; however, what Bethel says concerned him and his colleagues -- who I now believe were mainly, but probably not exclusively, Beth Lyons and Jenn Townsend -- was that it was apparent Willingham had had access to educational records and Johnson's test data, which he feels should have been out of her purview once she had left the ASPSA staff in January 2010. The presence of aggregated SAT/ACT information in one portion of the presentation is what he says drew him to this suspicion; evidence of this improper access.
Here, again, Bethel lets slip a predisposed antagonism toward Willingham. At this point, he has no idea if she's been authorized to have access to such data, de-identified or otherwise. Why should he automatically assume her access is unauthorized?
Bethel goes on to say he and his colleagues reported the potential brief of confidentiality, yet his colleagues, Jenn Townsend and Beth Lyons, are seen in internal communications already meeting with another candidate for psychological services that very same day. It's possible their interview was for something completely unrelated to dissatisfaction with Dr. Johnson, but the coincidence is notable.
Also notable is that if their concerns about Willingham and Johnson had been taken seriously by higher-ups in the athletics department, why was this not communicated to either Willingham or Johnson? There should have been no ambiguity about the personnel actions taken against them if privacy rules misconduct had been the reason for the actions; but Willingham would later file an employee grievance over her demotion, which would have been dead in the water had the personnel action been for FERPA, or worse HIPAA, violations. And in internal communications found in the public release, Johnson is found expressing dismay over not knowing the reasons why her decade-long association with the athletics department was being terminated.
Not only that, but even up to a month after this alleged reporting of concerns about the ethical conduct of Willingham and Johnson, the athletics department still processed a renewal of its annual contract with Johnson for the upcoming Fiscal Year. It wouldn't be until July that the contract would be liquidated, without any documented explanation. If the action had been for cause, based on breach of privacy law or school protocols, the school would have been obligated to document that and inform Johnson. Yet there's no evidence they did. In response to a public records request, the University, itself, affirmed there were no records pertaining to the reasons for the actions re. Johnson.
Even if such reasons were, themselves, protected by some privacy governance -- a claim for which I can find no rule or law specifying such information cannot be made public -- the timing of actions in relation to Bethel's account are peculiar. If, as Bethel says, his and his colleagues concerns were taken seriously, the subsequent actions of the department over the next several weeks, and the lack of communication to either Johnson or Willingham as to the nature of those concerns, belie Bethel's claim. Meanwhile, those who had supposedly been a party to reporting those concerns were already moving on plans as if the consequences of their reporting was a done deal.
Bethel very well could be offering a rare public glimpse into actual decisions and rationales made by athletic department leadership that aren't part of the public record. But all we have to go on is his personal testimony that his version is true, and for now it doesn't pass the "sniff test."
Bethel's Role in LD/ADHD Testing Change
In the Summer of 2013, the UNC-CH athletics department ended its long term contractual relationship with Cognitive Neuropsychology's Dr. Lyn Johnson of Chapel Hill. Johnson had performed Learning Disability (LD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) screening and diagnostic testing for UNC athletes for over a decade, going back to the early 2000s. For several years, going back to at least 2005, Dr. Johnson's testing had shown a high incidence of LD/ADHD in first year scholarship student-athletes, particularly in the revenue sports of football and men's and women's basketball.
One reason suggested for the sudden change was concern over Johnson's methods that may have inflated the numbers, though this concern didn't surface in the records until 2012.
Recently, an alternative theory has developed among UNC critics of UNC's athletics department suggesting that the high incidence rates of LD/ADHD found in UNC student-athletes by Dr. Johnson's screening methods were welcomed and exploited by the athletics department and the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) in order to leverage the accomodations (and, more scandously, the abuse of medications) to make academic life easier for more student-athletes than was warranted. It has also been suspected that this leveraging of extraordinarily high LD/ADHD evaluations increased in the mid- to late-2000s, coinciding with the pressure to reduce reliance on independent study and so-called "paper classes."
In one of Coaching the Mind's last articles, Bradley Bethel refuted these suggestions, disdainfully rejecting them as partisan-guided conspiracy theory. In his February 23rd article, he offered some of his insider perspective on background:
Thanks to the efforts of Bluedevilicious and other sleuths who've combed UNC's public records and discovered many datapoints in UNC's athletics department's LD/ADHD history, we can see that concerns about Dr. Johnson's screening methodology, starting in early 2012, had come from both UNC's College of Arts & Sciences Learning Disability Services (LDS) and also from the athletics department's own sports medicine staff, itself, from sports psychologist Dr. Bradley Hack and allegedly football team physician Dr. Mario Ciocca as well.
But no records have yet been found that can corroborate Bethel's claimed involvement in that evaluation or which demonstrate his claim that he, too, felt concern for Johnson's diagnoses, either in 2012 or later in 2013 when other ASPSA counselors are seen vetting alternative neuropsychological services. (Here and here.)
As Bluedevilicous noted, Bethel includes himself among the "we" who solicited the opinons of outside experts, but the record to date shows it was Dr. Bradley Hack that contacted Dr.s Adam Shrunk and David Coppel in early 2012 to assess the testing methods of Dr. Johnson. And despite this concern, ASPSA counselors aren't seen sharing it. In fact, they were supportive of Johnson's defense of the utility of her computer-based screening tools and screening battery in use at the time.
It wouldn't be until a year later, during the summer of 2013, that we find ASPSA representatives suddenly and inexplicably searching for an alternative to Johnson. Johnson, herself, is seen expressing uncertainty over why her services were no longer desired, believing she was suffering from association with Mary Willingham.
Bethel's assertion that it was concern for inadequacy or impropriety of Willingham and Johnson's study of the incidence of LD/ADHD in scholarship collegiate student-athletes is not supported by any evidence from the internal communications that has so far been revealed. If they do exist, they are presently hidden from view, and only Bethel's own assertions support the counterpoint to the so-called "conspiracy theory."
The concern expressed by Hack and UNC's Learning Services was that Johnson's screening, using the CSN Vital Signs and ImPACT tools, was "thin" and possibly over-diagnosing LD and ADHD in student-athletes. There is no evidence that ASPSA (including Bradley Bethel) supported such concerns, at least not for another year; and then only after Willingham and Johnson began to publicize their study findings, beginning with the College Research Sports Institutes (CSRI) Conference held in Chapel Hill April 2013. (See timeline here.)
Bethel's refuting of the LD/ADHD exploitation theory might, itself, be suspect since he has a vested interest in protecting "his colleagues," specifically Beth Bridger, Beth Lyons, Jenn Townsend and Jaimie Lee. If he, and they, had lost confidence in Dr. Johnson in 2012 at the time Dr. Hack and LDS raised concerns enough to seek external expert opinion, as Bethel claims, it's not evident in the documentary evidence, and it belies the athletic department's decision to renew Johnson's contract in July 2012 for FY12/13 in spite of those concerns. It also contradicts the ASPSA support for Johnson's services in later 2012, contrary to the concerns to which Bethel claims to have been a party.
If Bradley Bethel, or any of his former colleagues in ASPSA, wish to point to or volunteer communications evidence or documentation not present in the UNC public records release that dispels this suspicion, I will gladly accept it and post/publish it hear in their defense.
One reason suggested for the sudden change was concern over Johnson's methods that may have inflated the numbers, though this concern didn't surface in the records until 2012.
Recently, an alternative theory has developed among UNC critics of UNC's athletics department suggesting that the high incidence rates of LD/ADHD found in UNC student-athletes by Dr. Johnson's screening methods were welcomed and exploited by the athletics department and the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) in order to leverage the accomodations (and, more scandously, the abuse of medications) to make academic life easier for more student-athletes than was warranted. It has also been suspected that this leveraging of extraordinarily high LD/ADHD evaluations increased in the mid- to late-2000s, coinciding with the pressure to reduce reliance on independent study and so-called "paper classes."
In one of Coaching the Mind's last articles, Bradley Bethel refuted these suggestions, disdainfully rejecting them as partisan-guided conspiracy theory. In his February 23rd article, he offered some of his insider perspective on background:
Thanks to the efforts of Bluedevilicious and other sleuths who've combed UNC's public records and discovered many datapoints in UNC's athletics department's LD/ADHD history, we can see that concerns about Dr. Johnson's screening methodology, starting in early 2012, had come from both UNC's College of Arts & Sciences Learning Disability Services (LDS) and also from the athletics department's own sports medicine staff, itself, from sports psychologist Dr. Bradley Hack and allegedly football team physician Dr. Mario Ciocca as well.
But no records have yet been found that can corroborate Bethel's claimed involvement in that evaluation or which demonstrate his claim that he, too, felt concern for Johnson's diagnoses, either in 2012 or later in 2013 when other ASPSA counselors are seen vetting alternative neuropsychological services. (Here and here.)
As Bluedevilicous noted, Bethel includes himself among the "we" who solicited the opinons of outside experts, but the record to date shows it was Dr. Bradley Hack that contacted Dr.s Adam Shrunk and David Coppel in early 2012 to assess the testing methods of Dr. Johnson. And despite this concern, ASPSA counselors aren't seen sharing it. In fact, they were supportive of Johnson's defense of the utility of her computer-based screening tools and screening battery in use at the time.
It wouldn't be until a year later, during the summer of 2013, that we find ASPSA representatives suddenly and inexplicably searching for an alternative to Johnson. Johnson, herself, is seen expressing uncertainty over why her services were no longer desired, believing she was suffering from association with Mary Willingham.
Bethel's assertion that it was concern for inadequacy or impropriety of Willingham and Johnson's study of the incidence of LD/ADHD in scholarship collegiate student-athletes is not supported by any evidence from the internal communications that has so far been revealed. If they do exist, they are presently hidden from view, and only Bethel's own assertions support the counterpoint to the so-called "conspiracy theory."
The concern expressed by Hack and UNC's Learning Services was that Johnson's screening, using the CSN Vital Signs and ImPACT tools, was "thin" and possibly over-diagnosing LD and ADHD in student-athletes. There is no evidence that ASPSA (including Bradley Bethel) supported such concerns, at least not for another year; and then only after Willingham and Johnson began to publicize their study findings, beginning with the College Research Sports Institutes (CSRI) Conference held in Chapel Hill April 2013. (See timeline here.)
Bethel's refuting of the LD/ADHD exploitation theory might, itself, be suspect since he has a vested interest in protecting "his colleagues," specifically Beth Bridger, Beth Lyons, Jenn Townsend and Jaimie Lee. If he, and they, had lost confidence in Dr. Johnson in 2012 at the time Dr. Hack and LDS raised concerns enough to seek external expert opinion, as Bethel claims, it's not evident in the documentary evidence, and it belies the athletic department's decision to renew Johnson's contract in July 2012 for FY12/13 in spite of those concerns. It also contradicts the ASPSA support for Johnson's services in later 2012, contrary to the concerns to which Bethel claims to have been a party.
If Bradley Bethel, or any of his former colleagues in ASPSA, wish to point to or volunteer communications evidence or documentation not present in the UNC public records release that dispels this suspicion, I will gladly accept it and post/publish it hear in their defense.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Coaching the Mind: The Final Chapter
It would appear that Bradley Bethel is closing up shop at Coaching the Mind. I'm not sure how to feel about that since Minding the Coach exists to be a response to Bethel, at least when I feel it is warranted. With his final blog entry, he says "I rest my case."
I'd like to believe this blog is part of contingency Bethel believes "will not see reason." It has been a persistent and intransigent belief of Bradley that anyone not agreeing with him is lacking in the mental and reasoning capacity that he possesses. And it's not surprising that he encourages ignoring the critics. Nothing reinforces a belief system like listening to and surrounding yourself with like-minded thinkers.
Bradley never challenged me to a face-to-face debate. Not that I would have accepted since I value not being a target of personal attacks from his crazier passionate disciples. Maybe someday I'll challenge him, though I don't offer Bethel the advantage of expanding his publicity that Dan Kane, Joe Nocera or David Ridpath would. Debating me wouldn't offer him the platform and attention he desires. I'm just not high-profile enough.
I'm sincerely looking forward to finally seeing Unverified, whether at a film festival or by purchase online. Having seen 365 Days in Happy Valley, watching the Unverified trailer and reading the positive reviews, I believe I already know what to expect.
But regardless of my predisposition about the message and what it does or doesn't contribute to the scandal dialogue, I'm quite interest in the film for its technical and artistic merits. Can't wait to see what Bethel has written and produced.
I'm one of those who won't let the academic counselors off the hook. But they were just the soldiers. It would have been nice if they'd had pangs of conscious and spoken out or stood up to what I hope they must have felt was wrong. But they didn't, and for that I hold them accountable.
But they shouldn't have been left holding the bag either. The university certainly threw Jamie Lee and Beth Bridger under the bus, and for that I'd like to see Bradley's fans do more than go watch a documentary and gripe. Why not protest the North Carolina Board of Governors or university Board of Trustees? That's what those at Penn State who Bethel sees as a sort of parallel are doing in the wake of their scandal.
But no. UNC's troubles and the scapegoating is the fault of media "sensationalism."
Gonna miss you, Coaching the Mind. That blog is what gave this blog life.
I'd like to believe this blog is part of contingency Bethel believes "will not see reason." It has been a persistent and intransigent belief of Bradley that anyone not agreeing with him is lacking in the mental and reasoning capacity that he possesses. And it's not surprising that he encourages ignoring the critics. Nothing reinforces a belief system like listening to and surrounding yourself with like-minded thinkers.
Bradley never challenged me to a face-to-face debate. Not that I would have accepted since I value not being a target of personal attacks from his crazier passionate disciples. Maybe someday I'll challenge him, though I don't offer Bethel the advantage of expanding his publicity that Dan Kane, Joe Nocera or David Ridpath would. Debating me wouldn't offer him the platform and attention he desires. I'm just not high-profile enough.
I'm sincerely looking forward to finally seeing Unverified, whether at a film festival or by purchase online. Having seen 365 Days in Happy Valley, watching the Unverified trailer and reading the positive reviews, I believe I already know what to expect.
But regardless of my predisposition about the message and what it does or doesn't contribute to the scandal dialogue, I'm quite interest in the film for its technical and artistic merits. Can't wait to see what Bethel has written and produced.
I'm one of those who won't let the academic counselors off the hook. But they were just the soldiers. It would have been nice if they'd had pangs of conscious and spoken out or stood up to what I hope they must have felt was wrong. But they didn't, and for that I hold them accountable.
But they shouldn't have been left holding the bag either. The university certainly threw Jamie Lee and Beth Bridger under the bus, and for that I'd like to see Bradley's fans do more than go watch a documentary and gripe. Why not protest the North Carolina Board of Governors or university Board of Trustees? That's what those at Penn State who Bethel sees as a sort of parallel are doing in the wake of their scandal.
But no. UNC's troubles and the scapegoating is the fault of media "sensationalism."
Gonna miss you, Coaching the Mind. That blog is what gave this blog life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)