UNC Athletic Scandal: New Wainstein Document Details

[arnie]

sorry, but i don't agree...i think the sports media in general will pretty much ignore it for the "already been punished for this now look how great they are to come back and be in this postion" bs...


i just dot see the national media having any teeth for the story if the baby blues get into the final 4 somehow...

moon "just call me the most depressing pessimistic buzz-stripper of all time about unc getting their due" pie

Moonpie, you're overstating your status. At best you're the 2nd most depressing pessimistic buzz-stripper as I am 1st. I've not thought, but known with 100% confidence that Heels men's bball and football will skate. No more than a couple of lost scholarships and warning. Soccer, what's left of the Sylvia's, etc. another story.

[53n206]

past wont be revisited (carolinacommitment.unc.edu

"won't" Interesting.

[Duke95]

Moonpie, you're overstating your status. At best you're the 2nd most depressing pessimistic buzz-stripper as I am 1st. I've not thought, but known with 100% confidence that Heels men's bball and football will skate. No more than a couple of lost scholarships and warning. Soccer, what's left of the Sylvia's, etc. another story.

LOL @ this

[swood1000]

Don't get me wrong, swood, I wasn't saying you're minimizing their guilt. I'm saying I don't find the letter credible or appropriate. Here's where you really lose me:


and


That is certainly not the sort of thing advocated by those criticizing the letter (even if we might experience some schadenfreude). To suggest it is to erect a strawman.

It's also something that UNC has not really done even in the non-hyperbolic sense (an admission of the extent of wrongdoing). Recall Bubba's comments about the Wainstein report being "one man's opinion" or some such foolishness.

As to the question of whether there is a point at which UNC should move on, and whether it is appropriate to try to raise morale, the question is a trivial one that can be easily answered in the affirmative. The real question of interest is a slight variation: have they yet reached that point at which it is appropriate? As for raising morale, sure, why not? But to cease investigation, discussion, etc., and consider the matter resolved? I can't think of a compelling argument why that should be the case, so I do fault Ashby for signing the letter.

My guess is that those in charge of hiring Ashby determined that the job of an administrator in that situation is to attempt to restore normalcy and improve morale as quickly as it could be done. If morale couldn't be improved then the university was going to start losing faculty, and the drop in alumni donations would continue. Those were the concrete problems that such a letter was to address. It had to mention institutional guilt enough to show that this was being acknowledged but the purpose was not to be the primary communication of that to the outside world. It was addressed to faculty and alumni. Clearly, those who hired Ashby concluded that her actions were the appropriate ones for an administrator in that situation, and the ones that they would want to see from an administrator at Duke given a similar situation.

[uh_no]

My guess is that those in charge of hiring Ashby determined that the job of an administrator in that situation is to attempt to restore normalcy and improve morale as quickly as it could be done. If morale couldn't be improved then the university was going to start losing faculty, and the drop in alumni donations would continue. Those were the concrete problems that such a letter was to address. It had to mention institutional guilt enough to show that this was being acknowledged but the purpose was not to be the primary communication of that to the outside world. It was addressed to faculty and alumni. Clearly, those who hired Ashby concluded that her actions were the appropriate ones for an administrator in that situation, and the ones that they would want to see from an administrator at Duke given a similar situation.

well...duke has plenty of administrators around who have handled far worse situations gracefully...not sure why they need another /s

[dudog84]

I agree that Ashby's remark about intolerance is disturbing, for the reasons given, but such an attitude seems to be more the rule than the exception in universities today and I think that it would be difficult to single out Ashby for criticism on this point. With respect to the "indefensible "let's stop looking" letter at UNC" I think you are referring to the letter below. The way I read this letter it finds fault with the academic scandal and with those who were not vigilant in upholding academic integrity, but the main thrust seems to be that the media have failed to acknowledge that corrections have been made. She said:



I don't interpret this as saying that known leads should not be pursued or that an active investigation should be truncated but rather that credit should be given for putting in place systems that will prevent a recurrence and so the problem should not be reported as a current one. That's fine with me. If there are no active leads they should accept their punishment and move on. Do you interpret it as an attempt to cut short a promising avenue of investigation? Of course, what the punishment should be for past infractions is still open for discussion, but short of convening a star-chamber or Inquisition I'm not sure how they should proceed other than to put it behind them and to turn over a new leaf. In any event that's what I would expect most university administrators concerned about faculty and alumni morale to propose.

Seriously?!?

The letter praises "...the detailed, transparent approach of the Universitys (sic) leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems...". Yeah, right. Do you really believe this? First we had the whitewash of the Martin report. Then they were forced into hiring Wainstein but gave him an extremely limited scope. If he hadn't added the appendices, much would still be unknown. Not just whitewash, hogwash.

Also, they were "... shocked and angered by the academic scandal revealed in the Wainstein report and the preceding investigations.". Casablanca, anyone? Captain Renault would be proud.

I could go through every single line of that ridiculous letter and shred it to pieces but I don't have the time. And I just feel dirty through any contact with these people. That entire letter is dreck. Anyone that signed it should be ashamed. And our Dean signed it. I refuse to believe there weren't better candidates available. She is in one of the top academic posts in our entire University. Bah.

[porcophile]

Bob Martin really took that letter apart, here:
http://mindingthecoach.blogspot.com/...1_archive.html

[Olympic Fan]

It's really getting ugly over in Chapel Hell. Buck Sanders, listed as President of Inside Carolina, said last week that Mary Willingham ... "along with Jay Smith and the N&O, should be drenched in gasoline and lit on fire in a parking lot."

http://paperclassinc.com/mary-willin...nough-already/

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Seriously?!?

The letter praises "...the detailed, transparent approach of the Universitys (sic) leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems...". Yeah, right. Do you really believe this? First we had the whitewash of the Martin report. Then they were forced into hiring Wainstein but gave him an extremely limited scope. If he hadn't added the appendices, much would still be unknown. Not just whitewash, hogwash.

Also, they were "... shocked and angered by the academic scandal revealed in the Wainstein report and the preceding investigations.". Casablanca, anyone? Captain Renault would be proud.

I could go through every single line of that ridiculous letter and shred it to pieces but I don't have the time. And I just feel dirty through any contact with these people. That entire letter is dreck. Anyone that signed it should be ashamed. And our Dean signed it. I refuse to believe there weren't better candidates available. She is in one of the top academic posts in our entire University. Bah.

Allen Building sit-in...

[CameronBornAndBred]

Allen Building sit-in...

I was thinking about those who said they were writing letters/emailing Dr. White, President Brodhead, etc.
Those letters are fine, but probably won't get much attention from anyone. If you want to start a letter writing campaign that will get noticed, send it to people that are in the business to get noticed. I'd start with the Duke Chronicle, and think about including the N&O as well.
I'm not a Duke grad, but it does still affect my opinion that Amy Herman was such an active participant in the cheating at UNC and she now holds a similar position at Duke. That makes me cringe; anyone with that kind of history shouldn't be anywhere near our programs. That's akin to hiring Butch Davis to be your football coach and expecting things to be run cleanly.

[sagegrouse]

I was thinking about those who said they were writing letters/emailing Dr. White, President Brodhead, etc.
Those letters are fine, but probably won't get much attention from anyone. If you want to start a letter writing campaign that will get noticed, send it to people that are in the business to get noticed. I'd start with the Duke Chronicle, and think about including the N&O as well.
I'm not a Duke grad, but it does still affect my opinion that Amy Herman was such an active participant in the cheating at UNC and she now holds a similar position at Duke. That makes me cringe; anyone with that kind of history shouldn't be anywhere near our programs. That's akin to hiring Butch Davis to be your football coach and expecting things to be run cleanly.

A letter-writing plan can be effective, and I wouldn't discourage those who want to do it. But here's an alternative that doesn't create an upheaval in the Duke Athletic Department: Does Amy Herman face potential NCAA sanctions, given her apparent involvement in the "impermissible benefit" scandal at UNC? If so, Duke could let the NCAA process run its course before Duke takes action and avoid having to conduct its own investigation. One has to assume that, with the supervision and leadership she receives at Duke, she is performing at the minimum-satisfactory level, including complying with all NCAA and Duke rules. (Do I sound like an HR puke or what?) But if she is barred from participating in college athletics for several years, then the decision is made by the NCAA.

[Indoor66]

A letter-writing plan can be effective, and I wouldn't discourage those who want to do it. But here's an alternative that doesn't create an upheaval in the Duke Athletic Department: Does Amy Herman face potential NCAA sanctions, given her apparent involvement in the "impermissible benefit" scandal at UNC? If so, Duke could let the NCAA process run its course before Duke takes action and avoid having to conduct its own investigation. One has to assume that, with the supervision and leadership she receives at Duke, she is performing at the minimum-satisfactory level, including complying with all NCAA and Duke rules. (Do I sound like an HR puke or what?) But if she is barred from participating in college athletics for several years, then the decision is made by the NCAA.

Yes, you do. Why shouldn't we take action through a letter writing campaign. Personally, I do not want Duke associated with any of the people involved in the dean smith cheating program - at whatever level. We criticize unc for the Chizik hire. Here we are taking in one of the leaders of the apology campaign and much, much worse. How stupid has Allen Building become?

[swood1000]

Seriously?!?

The letter praises "...the detailed, transparent approach of the Universitys (sic) leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems...". Yeah, right. Do you really believe this? First we had the whitewash of the Martin report. Then they were forced into hiring Wainstein but gave him an extremely limited scope. If he hadn't added the appendices, much would still be unknown. Not just whitewash, hogwash.

Also, they were "... shocked and angered by the academic scandal revealed in the Wainstein report and the preceding investigations.". Casablanca, anyone? Captain Renault would be proud.

I could go through every single line of that ridiculous letter and shred it to pieces but I don't have the time. And I just feel dirty through any contact with these people. That entire letter is dreck. Anyone that signed it should be ashamed. And our Dean signed it. I refuse to believe there weren't better candidates available. She is in one of the top academic posts in our entire University. Bah.

My basic point is that Asby's actions at UNC should be considered in the same light as the actions of a devil's advocate. The evaluation of such a person is not based on whether one approves of the devil but whether the person's advocacy was what we would expect from a competent administrator advocate. If the actions that UNC had taken were clearly inadequate then it was not yet time to move on and Ashby should then be faulted for advocating such prematurely. If the actions were not clearly inadequate then wouldn't you expect a capable administrator to urge faculty that it was time to put it behind them?

I get the impression that your disapproval of Ashby is based on her having worked at UNC, rather than being based on whether the actions she took were those of a competent administrator. At the time of that letter would a competent administrator at UNC think that the best course of action would be to stay mired in the scandal or to move on?

[Pghdukie]

With any job opening, applicants resume's are considered, then a reference, background check is preformed. If ANY RED FLAGS arise - candidate is removed from consideration. This from McDonald's all the way to Corp CEO'S. I don't believe this process was followed by Duke upper echelon.

[Duke95]

Apparently, the owner of Inside Carolina, Buck Sanders, called for Willingham, Smith, and the N&O to be drenched in gasoline and lit on fire in a parking lot.

[PackMan97]

My basic point is that Asby's actions at UNC should be considered in the same light as the actions of a devil's advocate. The evaluation of such a person is not based on whether one approves of the devil but whether the person's advocacy was what we would expect from a competent administrator advocate. If the actions that UNC had taken were clearly inadequate then it was not yet time to move on and Ashby should then be faulted for advocating such prematurely. If the actions were not clearly inadequate then wouldn't you expect a capable administrator to urge faculty that it was time to put it behind them?

I get the impression that your disapproval of Ashby is based on her having worked at UNC, rather than being based on whether the actions she took were those of a competent administrator. At the time of that letter would a competent administrator at UNC think that the best course of action would be to stay mired in the scandal or to move on?

I think a reasonable person would agree that UNC has yet to come to terms with the full scope of this scandal and attempts to move on are premature.

[swood1000]

As those following the scandal closely know already, Duke has made questionable hiring decisions with at least two former UNC employees. I usually give the students calling me for alumni donations an earful about Valerie Ashby (Dean of Trinity College of Arts & Sciences as of July 2015), who signed the "move on, nothing to see here" letter originating with the UNC Chemistry department.

The more troublesome hire (from a scandal-proximity standpoint) was Amy Herman, whose current work address is "111 Cameron Indoor, Durham, NC 27708."

Herman was the Assistant Director of Compliance and then Associate Athletic Director for Compliance during the 11 years she worked for UNC. She came to Duke in 2013 and her current title is Assistant Director of Compliance. Like several other posters, I've wondered since the release of the Wainstein report why she wasn't immediately fired, even if no direct involvement in the scandal could be proven - there's a clear competence issue and an institutional ethical reputation at stake.

As it turns out, I saw (while looking at that IC conection thread) that PackPride unearthed an email discussing another exchange included in the original Wainstein report supplement that I missed the first time around (or forgot) that is really, really, damning for Herman.



I am at my wit's end. I hate the idea of one of these folks working at my beloved university. I wish I could rally enough folks to get the Athletic Department to fire her, but I'm not even sure that's really the right course of action. I doubt my complaining to the donation-begathon student volunteers is really going to accomplish much, though. Maybe someone older and wiser has some ideas? I can't help but feel the situation is a ticking time-bomb.

I dream of Kevin White walking up to her desk and saying, a la Kyle Reese, "I'm here to sack you. I'm Kevin. Vice President, Director of Athletics & Adjunct Professor of Business Administration. Assigned to protect Duke. You've been targeted for termination."

I agree that the hiring of Amy Herman needs some explanation. Even if it is explained as the hiring of the former criminal to take advantage of her criminal know-how, this person's know-how is obviously deficient in that she allowed UNC to become involved in a huge scandal. Isn't that exactly what a Director of Compliance is supposed to prevent? According to the Wainstein Report:

Herman worked in compliance at Chapel Hill for 13 years from 1999 to 2012. Herman knew about the paper classes and described them as “common knowledge” in the Athletics Department; her focus was on whether they were University courses available to all students — not on whether they were valid or rigorous from an academic perspective. She assumed that the paper courses were run by faculty members and knew that the courses required a lengthy paper, however she did not know whether attendance was required or not.

One would think that a Director of Compliance who didn't know if the paper classes "were valid or rigorous from an academic perspective" would look into the question and not simply look the other way, even if the courses were available to all students, given the potential impact on compliance.

[OldPhiKap]

THIS IS A WARNING!!

The moderator team is discussing the content of this thread related to Duke's position on professors and "tolerance." We will post a message when we have decided how the board will proceed.

Thank you for your understanding.

-Jason

At minimum, this side discussion seems like a separate thread or issue and should be moved.

I am interested in the UNC scandal and the updates on it, but that is getting choked out and hard to follow on this thread anymore.

While I am also keenly interested in the integrity of our University, this tangent is just a different question than what happened at UNC and what the status of the NCAA investigation is over there.

$.02

[swood1000]

I think a reasonable person would agree that UNC has yet to come to terms with the full scope of this scandal and attempts to move on are premature.

So a competent administrator at UNC would be recommending what course of action?

[BLPOG]

So a competent administrator at UNC would be recommending what course of action?

- A comprehensive investigation of EXSS, PHIL, SWAH, NAVS,...GEOG
- Firing or sanctioning of the remaining employees that were clearly implicated
- Self-imposition of athletic program penalties
- Apology to affected parties (e.g. students, Mary, opposing teams)