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."
