UNC athletics scandal - McCants points finger

[Newton_14]

Two disagreements here from me, stated, I hope, in a constructively critical fashion.

While it may be true that no two students are exactly the same, that's surely not anywhere close to the central issue in UNC's athlete-eligibility scandal. Once professional educators got wind of the scam, a few of them said, forthrightly, this was unethical behavior and a disservice to athletes enrolled in ghost courses. Several recently arrived academic administrators, after an initial attempt to deflect, backtracked enough to admit shame. Most faculty have remained silent, publicly, but with an occasional additional voice expressing dismay.

Second, to describe it as a "big soap opera" is to belittle the seriousness of the issues raised by the scandal. Ignoring Willingham's research altogether, just knowing the admitted facts and figures about the ghost courses, would anyone today deny that athletes were shepherded into ghost courses and awarded high marks in order to keep them eligible? Or deny that in yet other courses faculty signatures were forged and grades changed, in order to place on some student-athletes' transcripts high marks to balance low marks achieved [....] in real courses? Does that not raise fundamental ethical issues -- several -- for any university, especially one with an historic claim to excellence?

Although I infer -- perhaps incorrectly, about which I will await clarification -- that the word "big" here connotes "of little significance," I suspect that, ironically, soap operas have on occasion treated ethical issues more seriously than has UNC.

Great post. To deny the corruption brought to light at UNC-CH is to either bury one's head in the sand, or to simply refuse to accept it happened, or lastly, know it happened but deny, deflect, and never ever admit guilt no matter what anyway.

Not that it matters, given the more important consequences of their actions that can never be undone, but the 05 and 09 Banners need to come down and all games in those years should be vacated.

[Duvall]

Personally, I haven't made any decision yet on who is telling it like it is regarding the reading levels of those players, ...or if UNC as an institution knew and was enabling the individuals directing players to those AFAM courses that they knew were bogus,... or if it was just one professor scamming the classes and pressured tutors directing them to easy courses not knowing they were bogus.

In that scenario, who would be pressuring the tutors?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, if you want to believe that any of the special admit athletes at UNC that read at an elementary school level were offered scholarships at Duke, have at it.

That's very smug of you.

Nobody knows individual players reading issues. Their records are private and we don't know who, nor should we, of who struggles to read, so we don't know what schools recruited who.

Talking basketball here, I simply made a general statement that I find it curious that the kids UNC recruits, and some of these kids with reading issues would have to be among them, are also recruited by other top major programs.

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

In that scenario, who would be pressuring the tutors?

The tutors pressuring themselves wanting to help the players, parents wanting them to help their kids to succeed, the players, and the school expecting them to help or they would not have that role.

[JBDuke]

That's very smug of you.

Nobody knows individual players reading issues. Their records are private and we don't know who, nor should we, of who struggles to read, so we don't know what schools recruited who.

Talking basketball here, I simply made a general statement that I find it curious that the kids UNC recruits, and some of these kids with reading issues would have to be among them, are also recruited by other top major programs.

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

So, Wheat, what do you think of the statements by former UNC athletes that they were directed into the bogus, no-show classes in order to ensure they stayed eligible, in some cases despite their desires to pursue some other course of study?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

So, Wheat, what do you think of the statements by former UNC athletes that they were directed into the bogus, no-show classes in order to ensure they stayed eligible, in some cases despite their desires to pursue some other course of study?

I haven't seen that...links?

[BigWayne]

I haven't seen that...links?

Really? You been on a long trip somewhere?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/...-academic.html

[Duvall]

I haven't seen that...links?

Wait a second. You've followed the story closely enough to see and pass along the latest blog post from angry Rant Guy, but you missed the allegations from former players that were reported by the New York Times, ESPN and HBO? How does that work?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wait a second. You've followed the story closely enough to see and pass along the latest blog post from angry Rant Guy, but you missed the allegations from former players that were reported by the New York Times, ESPN and HBO? How does that work?

Yes, I've been busy. Sorry, but every snowbird in the country has been here lately.

Look back at my post. I've been telling you guys I've not been following this stuff...only recently when I saw that blog site from the Bethel guy, which I found interesting, I hardly ever commented on the academic situation because I'm really not up to speed.

[gumbomoop]

I am myself rather less interested in the controversy over Willingham's research than in her matter-of-fact assertion that the scam was an open secret within the athletic department. In this regard, let's focus for a moment on Duvall's question about a key issue, still an unsolved mystery:

... who would be pressuring the tutors?

The tutors pressuring themselves wanting to help the players, parents wanting them to help their kids to succeed, the players, and the school expecting them to help or they would not have that role.

Wheat has given an answer, with one part of which I sort of agree, but other parts of which I find either unpersuasive or imprecise. I might guess that some tutors/counselors did "pressure themselves," but in the sense that they didn't so much feel pressure but simply picked up on the open secret and funneled athletes into ghost courses as SOP, to help them stay eligible. I'm more skeptical that parents had much of a role in "pressuring tutors." Parents, to the extent that they had any idea whatsoever about their children's academic program, were unlikely to have had much knowledge about academic counseling. Their own children were unlikely to have spilled any beans about inappropriate advice from counselors. Nor, indeed, is it clear which and how many athletes were unsettled by the open secret, and which and how many simply took it for granted.

Did the players pressure the counselors? Into doing what, exactly? Well, yes, conceivably, something like, "Can you get me into X course?" But that assumes that there was some sort of limit on the number of ghost spaces available in ghost courses. Could be, but the known evidence so far doesn't suggest any such limit.

Most mysterious of all, who exactly constituted "the school" that wanted the counselors "to help"? ["keep them eligible," I add here, as a friendly amendment to Wheat's answer, and I'm not joking]. The imprecise phrase, "the school," leads toward dangerous ground for an untold number of folks connected to the athletic department, in particular if Willingham is right that the scam was an open secret, and if that assertion is supported by anyone else.

For precision's sake, I pause here to note that at times I have critiqued Wheat's viewpoint, only to be informed that I have misinterpreted his meaning. In the present example, I can imagine that Wheat means by "the school" something more general than specific people, maybe something more like a "general expectation" that counselors understood their primary task was helping maintain eligibility.

Still, it's hardly controversial to think that such a general expectation was personified by those who set the tone in the athlete-counseling bailiwick of the athletic program. I have long assumed that among, and possibly primary among, the tone-and-expectation setters was the person who for a decade or more was the superintendent/coordinator of counselors, Jan Boxill. Her role in the scam is yet to be discovered, but it's nearly impossible to imagine that she was utterly oblivious to what "the school" expected. What did Boxill know and do?

The role of Coach Roy Williams is also a mystery. I can imagine a couple of scenarios, which are by no means opposite, but do differ. [Others will come up with alternate possibilities.] (1) Roy knew a lot. At some point he became aware of the number of AFAM courses being taken by his players, and actually became interested enough to know that his players were part of a scam. (2) Roy knew only a little. At some point he became aware of the number of AFAM courses being taken by his players, but never became interested enough to realize that his players were part of a scam.

I "favor" the second of these hypothetical explanations of Roy's role. Why? Because there's no evidence that I know of that Roy -- nor many, many coaches -- has the first clue as to what would constitute real education. I'm skeptical that Roy, with his aw-shucks personality, even knows how to take education seriously. Does this seem unnecessarily cruel? I don't think I mean it to be cruel. To quote Coach Krzyzewski, out of context, admittedly, but apropos: "It's not personal; it's the truth."

For all I know, Roy is a more admirable person than K, a gentler soul, a sweeter person. [Bloody obvious confession: he's almost certainly gentler and sweeter than I.] But there's no evidence whatsoever that he possesses anything other than a shallow understanding of academic excellence and success. No evidence that he's a thoughtful person about the myriad functions, not to mention the ennobling intellectual crevices, of a great university.

What did Roy know? IMO, he was't -- isn't -- mentally or psychologically inclined to know much about book learning. He knows coaching. He knows his world, and knows his players take courses, and at some point probably knew something "funny" was going on with all these guys majoring in the same thing. Probably heard some joking around about Swahili, but didn't think -- because he didn't know maybe he was supposed to think -- about what that stuff might portend.

Should the buck stop with Roy? Yes, though that might be holding him to a higher standard than his actual awareness of the meaning of a university can stand.

ETA, in case there's a reader or two out there yet insufficiently offended or appalled by my comments about Coach Williams: I have no doubt whatsoever that Coach Williams loves UNC more than I love either UNC or Duke. But I have some doubt that he respects UNC as much as I do, or did, and might do again.

[sagegrouse]

I am myself rather less interested in the controversy over Willingham's research than in her matter-of-fact assertion that the scam was an open secret within the athletic department. The role of Coach Roy Williams is also a mystery. I can imagine a couple of scenarios, which are by no means opposite, but do differ. [Others will come up with alternate possibilities.] (1) Roy knew a lot. At some point he became aware of the number of AFAM courses being taken by his players, and actually became interested enough to know that his players were part of a scam. (2) Roy knew only a little. At some point he became aware of the number of AFAM courses being taken by his players, but never became interested enough to realize that his players were part of a scam.

I "favor" the second of these hypothetical explanations of Roy's role. Why? Because there's no evidence that I know of that Roy -- nor many, many coaches -- has the first clue as to what would constitute real education. I'm skeptical that Roy, with his aw-shucks personality, even knows how to take education seriously. Does this seem unnecessarily cruel? I don't think I mean it to be cruel. To quote Coach Krzyzewski, out of context, admittedly, but apropos: "It's not personal; it's the truth."

For all I know, Roy is a more admirable person than K, a gentler soul, a sweeter person. [Bloody obvious confession: he's almost certainly gentler and sweeter than I.] But there's no evidence whatsoever that he possesses anything other than a shallow understanding of academic excellence and success. No evidence that he's a thoughtful person about the myriad functions, not to mention the ennobling intellectual crevices, of a great university.

.

In about 2009 UNC hired Jennifer Townsend from Minnesota as academic counselor for basketball. She replaced Wayne Weldon, who came with Roy from Kansas. While Townsend has not commented publicly, no UNC basketball player has taken a no-show course since she arrived. Mary Willingham says that Townsend was appalled by those classes and put her foot down.

Roy must have had a say in the hiring of his own team's academic counselor. He gets points for hiring, or acceding to the hiring, of Jennifer Townsend.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Wait a second. You've followed the story closely enough to see and pass along the latest blog post from angry Rant Guy, but you missed the allegations from former players that were reported by the New York Times, ESPN and HBO? How does that work?

Because now it's more convenient. I respect a lot of what Wheat has to say. But this is at least the second time he's done this. I can't find the post but he claimed ignorance of the PJ stuff early on because he hadn't been following it and then finally showed up just when it seemed there was some support for the UNC-centric view of things. Let's call it selective participation in the dialogue(s).

[77devil]

That's very smug of you.

Nobody knows individual players reading issues. Their records are private and we don't know who, nor should we, of who struggles to read, so we don't know what schools recruited who.

Talking basketball here, I simply made a general statement that I find it curious that the kids UNC recruits, and some of these kids with reading issues would have to be among them, are also recruited by other top major programs.

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

The only thing smug are the baby blues like you who have always maintain that the Carolina Way is superior to other top programs. UNC is being singled out because the hypocrisy of its self righteousness and its well documented and long standing cheating make it an easy target. In its race to the bottom, the Heels have demonstrated they are no different.

You can generalize all you want, but don't invoke Duke in your narrative unless you can back it up.

[77devil]

I haven't seen that...links?

Really? You been on a long trip?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/...-academic.html

More like head in the sand or selective participation as noted above. Here is more.

"What if the internal investigation stretched back further? And focused on the basketball team? The school would find that seven members of UNC’s title-winning team coached by Roy Williams in 2005 majored in African/Afro-American Studies. The Indy Star documented it in 2010:"

"That includes Sean May of the Sacramento Kings, the Bloomington prep star and son of former IU star Scott May. Sean May entered the NBA after three years in college, capped by an NCAA title in 2005. He graduated last summer. May said he started as a double major with communications, but dropped it so he could graduate faster after leaving for the NBA. Afro-American and African studies, May said, offered “more independent electives, independent study. I could take a lot of classes during the season. Communications, I had to be there in the actual classroom. We just made sure all the classes I had to take, I could take during the summer.”

[JTH]

That's very smug of you.

Nobody knows individual players reading issues. Their records are private and we don't know who, nor should we, of who struggles to read, so we don't know what schools recruited who.

Talking basketball here, I simply made a general statement that I find it curious that the kids UNC recruits, and some of these kids with reading issues would have to be among them, are also recruited by other top major programs.

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

You seem to have softened your comment in post # 51 a bit:

"What I also wonder is how is it that these same student/athletes that are supposedly so poorly educated and were still magically able to pass admission into UNC by nefarious means, have multiple scholarship offers from many other top schools around the country, including Duke in many cases?"(emphasis mine)

It appears that you have backed off of this assertion by now acknowledging that you don't actually know who these may be because the records are private. If you do still claim that Duke has offered many of these "same" special admits a scholarship, would you please provide some names and links?

Also, there is quite a bit of difference between recruiting and offering a scholarship. You don't propose to every girl you date. You don't offer a scholarship to every athlete you recruit. It is during the recruiting process that each side evaluates whether the other is a good fit for them and that would include academically.

I do not deny that unc is not alone in offering special admissions to athletes that would not otherwise meet the university's academic standards, and that includes Duke. However, what is at question here is the extent and frequency to which unc lowered the bar and the extraordinary measures they employed to keep these athletes eligible.

[gumbomoop]

In about 2009 UNC hired Jennifer Townsend from Minnesota as academic counselor for basketball. She replaced Wayne Weldon, who came with Roy from Kansas. While Townsend has not commented publicly, no UNC basketball player has taken a no-show course since she arrived. Mary Willingham says that Townsend was appalled by those classes and put her foot down.

Roy must have had a say in the hiring of his own team's academic counselor. He gets points for hiring, or acceding to the hiring, of Jennifer Townsend.

I'm willing both to give Roy points for Townsend's hiring, and detract points for bringing Weldon with him from KU. In truth, I've no idea exactly how deeply Roy is enmeshed in this mess, but in my judgment the extant evidence does not suggest he's pushing for full investigation.

My general point in discussing Roy's yet-uncertain role was to raise the most obvious "elephant in the room" issue re the elementary question, "How many people, and who exactly, knew what was going on?" Willingham's public declaration is along the lines of, "Everybody knew, it was common knowledge." And it's that matter-of-fact comment that interests me far more than what has recently become a deflection -- the understandable controversy about Willingham's research into academic abilities of UNC's major-sports athletes -- from the central question, "How in heaven's name could the scam have happened?"

In my post above I opined that Roy probably didn't know everything, not exactly because he was conscious of needing plausible deniability, but because UNC's academic respectability, much less excellence, is not part of his mental-intellectual world, save in the most cursory, shallow sense.

I could be wrong. Maybe he knew exactly what was going on. In which case, it's an interesting question whether Townsend's hiring was his idea, an implicit admission that things had gotten out of control; or an idea presented to him as a fait accompli, an implicit commentary on how little he understood of what he knew.

[oldnavy]

That's very smug of you.

Nobody knows individual players reading issues. Their records are private and we don't know who, nor should we, of who struggles to read, so we don't know what schools recruited who.

Talking basketball here, I simply made a general statement that I find it curious that the kids UNC recruits, and some of these kids with reading issues would have to be among them, are also recruited by other top major programs.

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

I think the real issues is not in that UNC "took" them, it is what they did or did not "do" for them after they got them...

The implications that UNC staff directed or encouraged or even coerced players to take "ghost" classes that would keep them eligible is the issue...

But once again, look at how far the "Carolina Way" has "slipped" (assuming there ever was such a thing) ... almost every counter argument from the UNC faithful (that basked in the glow from the "Carolina Way") points to other schools doing the same thing.

"but Mom, all the kids are doing it"... falls a little flat after years of claiming the high ground.

[devildeac]

In about 2009 UNC hired Jennifer Townsend from Minnesota as academic counselor for basketball. She replaced Wayne Weldon, who came with Roy from Kansas. While Townsend has not commented publicly, no UNC basketball player has taken a no-show course since she arrived. Mary Willingham says that Townsend was appalled by those classes and put her foot down.

Roy must have had a say in the hiring of his own team's academic counselor. He gets points for hiring, or acceding to the hiring, of Jennifer Townsend.

Plus, he earns extra credit for giving out reading awards at an elementary school in Rolesville, NC recently, too. No link. I just read this short paragraph in yesterday morning's Raleigh N&O. Oh, the irony...

[jv001]

[/B]

I think the real issues is not in that UNC "took" them, it is what they did or did not "do" for them after they got them...

The implications that UNC staff directed or encouraged or even coerced players to take "ghost" classes that would keep them eligible is the issue...

But once again, look at how far the "Carolina Way" has "slipped" (assuming there ever was such a thing) ... almost every counter argument from the UNC faithful (that basked in the glow from the "Carolina Way") points to other schools doing the same thing.

"but Mom, all the kids are doing it"... falls a little flat after years of claiming the high ground.

I'm getting this from most of the usually level headed unc fan and of course from all the idiot unc fans. GoDuke!

[alteran]

Point being, I don't see how UNC should be singled out for taking these players into the program when other top programs would have as well.

Maybe because they had an athletic pipeline to a department using bogus classes to keep players eligible? Just a thought.