 |
| VIDERI QUAM ESSE |
- Begin with some solid facts to establish a foundation of credibility. (Tweets #1-6)
- Sneak in some fact or claim that, while true, is misleading in the context of the other statements. (Tweet #7)
- Next, add some arguable claim. It'll be disguised as proven fact when mixed in with the others. (Tweet #8)
- Now make claim with the slant or error that supports the conclusion to which you are driving. (Tweet #9)
- Finally, present your conclusion. It'll have the appearance of flowing logically from the prior 'true' and 'factual' statements. The gullible will believe it is based on firm footing. "Victory!" (Tweet #10)
1.
True. "Paper classes" were uncovered in August 2011. NCAA investigators participated in initial inquiries, though UNC's Rick Evrard and Enforcement's Tom Hosty had different versions of what that participation involved.
It's also true that then, and over the next 2 years after that early inquiry, the Enforcement staff deemed that no NCAA rules had been violated, based on information available at the time.
These claims can be verified in multiple documents, including NCAA Director of Enforcement Tom Hosty's letter of December 16th, 2015:
 |
| https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/December-16-2015-letter-from-Tom-Hosty-to-Rick-Evrard.pdf |
2.
True. It was Dan Kane's July 17th, 2011 article "UNC honor court failed to find McAdoo's obvious plagiarism" and his August 21st, 2011, article "Austin's UNC transcript raises questions" (as well as his inquiries to UNC officials between the two articles) that prodded UNC into examining not just McAdoo's 2009 SWAH403 course and Austin's 2007 AFAM 428 course, but other "anomalous" course offerings as well, such as the Summer Session II AFAM 280 that had an enrollment of 18 football players (+1 former football player) and zero non-athletes.
NCAA investigators were aware of the stories and participated in the Aug/Sep inquiries:
 |
| http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf |
3.
True; also verified on pg 24 of the Wainstein report:
 |
| http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf |
4.
True; again verified,on pg. 24 of the Wainstein Report.
 |
| http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf |
5.
True; verified in same section of the Wainstein Report as above describing "The Administration’s Discovery of the Paper Class Scheme in August 2011"
 |
| http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf |
6.
True; continuing to be sourced on pg 25 of the Wainstein Report.
Note: "academic integrity violation" Wainstein mentions refers to Bylaw 10.1, as NCAA Managing Director Tom Hosty mentions in the letter excerpt in #1 above:
 |
| http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf |
7.
This is technically true, but it is misleading.
"Crowder classes" hadn't been offered since 2009, but Nyang'oro continued the practice until Summer 2011: the very month Dan Kane started probing and UNC initiated its inquiry. NCAA Enforcement's "no violation" stance lasted from September 2011 until February 2014, which is when UNC's senior associate athletics director Vince Ille notified NCAA Enforcement of the Wainstein investigation,
We are now 5 1/2 years since the last known "paper class" was offered, of which nearly half has been consumed by the pending NCAA case:
 |
| http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT-EXHIBITS.pdf |
8.
Whereas the previous 7 posts were mostly factual statements, this is an assertion slipped in as if it is undisputed fact. Actually, it is UNC's claim, contested by NCAA Enforcement and one of the core disagreements between UNC and Enforcement that has made a hearing before the Committee on Infractions necessary. None of the previous 7 factual statements support this one.
The "no new information" argument was previously addressed on this blog.
9.
The premise that it was the chief hearing officer and the COI panel that revived the academic issue is incorrect. That is the province of NCAA enforcement, which first alleged Article 16 improper academic assistance in May 2015, before any involvement of the Committee on Infractions.
And if "Walter" is referring to the 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations, it was still the Enforcement staff that "revived" the so-called "academic issue." What Greg Sankey and the Panel did was inform Enforcement that it would consider improper academic assistance on the merits. The decision to "revive" the issue in allegations belonged to Enforcement, not the COI.
Sankey and the COI panel haven't judged whether or not UNC has actually committed the infractions. Neither has Enforcement for that matter since all the Enforcement staff can do is allege. The COI panel will determine if the infractions occurred based on the merits.
10.
Contrary to UNC's public relations campaign to depict NCAA Committee on Infractions as violating NCAA infractions processing protocols, the COI is actually taking measures to make sure UNC is given full and fair opportunity to make its case.
If UNC is really intending to pursue civil action against the NCAA should the COI panel levy harsh sanctions, it will have to exercise NCAA's appeals process first and then, should that fail, demonstrate in court that the Association failed to adhere to its own bylaws, protocols and processes, To date, there have been many general complaints about a lack of fairness. UNC's Sidley Austin legal team will have to be more specific than what we've heard from UNC quarters so far.