The Carolina Way VIII
- Thread starter DevilDJ
- Start date
- Status
TRANSLATION:
Posted: Today 8:41 AM Re: Cheaters Scandal Thread: SIATGR edition - ANOA back to 1989?
jackjackelson
Dork Dorkelson
Rating: 2.8/5 this site
895 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
16.11.2.1
The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "extra benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. [R] (Revised: 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13)
10
Ethical Conduct
14.01.3
To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a student-athlete shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the constitution and bylaws of the Association and all rules and regulations of the institution and the conference, if any, of which the institution is a member. A violation of this bylaw that relates only to a violation of a conference rule shall be considered an institutional violation per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such a violation shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility. (Revised: 10/27/06, 5/29/08)
19.1.1
A severe breach of conduct is one or more violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. Among other examples, the following, in appropriate circumstances, may constitute a severe breach of conduct: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 7/31/14)
(a) Lack of institutional control;
(b) Academic misconduct;
(c) Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation;
(d) Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I;
(e) A bylaw 11.1.1.1 violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program;
(f) Cash payment or other benefits provided by a coach, administrator or representative of the institution's athletics interests intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a prospective student-athlete;
(g) Third-party involvement in recruiting violations in which institutional officials knew or should have known about the involvement;
(h) Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(i) Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.
"Not yet..."
Bob Verona @BobVerona
@HeelTruths @RCCPMD Sorry, he says he has viewed screen shots. I believe him.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BobVerona @HeelTruths I will post them very soon. Would do it now but it's not my call. Will be on Twitter or the cover of the N&O.
Not UNC PR @HeelTruths .
@RCCPMD @BobVerona If Kane had it, the thing would b up on his Twitter & online N&O so fast ur head would spin. Kane has nothing re ANOA.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@HeelTruths @BobVerona Dan Kane is NOT my source. Never talked to him. Not yet.
Bob Verona @BobVerona
@HeelTruths @RCCPMD Sorry, he says he has viewed screen shots. I believe him.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BobVerona @HeelTruths I will post them very soon. Would do it now but it's not my call. Will be on Twitter or the cover of the N&O.
Not UNC PR @HeelTruths .
@RCCPMD @BobVerona If Kane had it, the thing would b up on his Twitter & online N&O so fast ur head would spin. Kane has nothing re ANOA.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@HeelTruths @BobVerona Dan Kane is NOT my source. Never talked to him. Not yet.
I like everything about the last few pages of this thread. 
So much "win" in those tweets. I liked this one...
I will post them very soon. Would do it now but it's not my call. Will be on Twitter or the cover of the N&O.
THIS^^^! Times 10!!! Really hopin' it happens. unx has their ANOA and would like nuthin' more than to scrub it of any reference to Roy , mbb and , most importantly , Deano. Then they can release it an' say , "See abc'er's...it was all about rogues , Jan Boxill and women's basketball. Nuthin' to see here , move along." If screen-caps and whatever other damning info is released , unx can't control the narrative. Faced with such a scenario , most serial offenders would push to make some kinda deal in the interests of damage control. unx can go to "summary judgement" and , basically , beg for mercy. Obviously , they're way too corrupt , delusional and shameless to do that so we'll probably get another few months of watching unx die by a thousand cuts. Sit back an' enjoy...
Posted: Today 7:40 PM Re: Cheaters Scandal Thread: SIATGR edition - ANOA back to 1989?
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1528 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
The FI exhibits of the new NOA are rife with MBB references.
Everybody relax.
Three more Hollywood Blasts to go; great day to ride the Herc and clear the mind.
More later... assuming there are no malfunctions that lead to an unscheduled bounce, of course!
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1528 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
The FI exhibits of the new NOA are rife with MBB references.
Everybody relax.
Three more Hollywood Blasts to go; great day to ride the Herc and clear the mind.
More later... assuming there are no malfunctions that lead to an unscheduled bounce, of course!
"Fifteen...?!?!?!"
Posted: Today 9:55 PM Re: Cheaters Scandal, SIATGR edition: ANOA 1989-2011?
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1529 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
This may be it for awhile.
I see where some of the usual unc apologists have been attacking RCCPMD on Twitter.
That’s wasted time and misplaced blame… not to mention whistling past the graveyard.
I can tell you for a fact that athletic departments from around the country have been displeased at what unc has not only gotten away with for over two decades – but more pointedly because of their administration’s insistent stonewalling. Compliance officials have moved past displeased, and closer to irate, I’d say.
Though I’ve never conversed with him, it appears that RCC doesn’t really have any sort of personal axe to grind. Rather, it’s that he takes his job (and the moral responsibilities held therein) personally. So I applaud him for speaking out on an issue and profession that should be fronted with integrity, and I’m sure others in his specified area are doing the same.
But getting back to the ANOA -- attacking RCC is unfortunately just an ill-guided attempt to make those attackers feel better. Because whatever he shares or doesn’t, the information is out there. RCC did nothing wrong, and certainly hasn’t crossed any legal lines; all you have to do is look through the NCAA’s (and specifically, the Committee on Infractions’) actual bylaws and procedures.
Here’s a breakdown that should help to shine some more light on the situation:
For an idea as to who has access to a decent amount (though not all) of the information contained in the ANOA, I would suggest reviewing Chapter 3-6 of the Committee on Infractions’ Internal Operating Procedures.
There are other people (other than Bubba and Folt, for example) who are also privy to information within the ANOA – pay careful attention to Chapter 3-12-3-1. “Involved individuals” is a very broad term, and can apply to anyone who is a current (or past) collegiate employee and might be facing any sort of show-cause penalty.
Now think… who was interviewed the first go-round who might one day have aspirations to work with college athletes (in ANY capacity) again at some point? How many can you count? If they are deemed “involved individuals”, they have copies. Hmm.
One last bit, and it’s just to give further explanation as to how we’ve reached this particular point in time.
Sticking with the Procedures, there are several events that have exacerbated UNC’s problems and burned any bridges of “gentlemanly courtesy” that might have once existed.
One is pretty obvious, and is covered in Chapter 3-13-1. They gambled, but Nova won.
The other instances are ones that the specifics of which likely won’t ever be publicized; I certainly have no interest in doing so. But they fall under Chapter 4-5.
There is some bad news, though.
Three “banners” likely aren’t at risk.
..… It could be a lot closer to 15, if some of the chatter is correct.
There’s a decent chance that I’m going to be out of pocket for a bit; will find out soon.
Na zdrowie.
Posted: Today 9:55 PM Re: Cheaters Scandal, SIATGR edition: ANOA 1989-2011?
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1529 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
This may be it for awhile.
I see where some of the usual unc apologists have been attacking RCCPMD on Twitter.
That’s wasted time and misplaced blame… not to mention whistling past the graveyard.
I can tell you for a fact that athletic departments from around the country have been displeased at what unc has not only gotten away with for over two decades – but more pointedly because of their administration’s insistent stonewalling. Compliance officials have moved past displeased, and closer to irate, I’d say.
Though I’ve never conversed with him, it appears that RCC doesn’t really have any sort of personal axe to grind. Rather, it’s that he takes his job (and the moral responsibilities held therein) personally. So I applaud him for speaking out on an issue and profession that should be fronted with integrity, and I’m sure others in his specified area are doing the same.
But getting back to the ANOA -- attacking RCC is unfortunately just an ill-guided attempt to make those attackers feel better. Because whatever he shares or doesn’t, the information is out there. RCC did nothing wrong, and certainly hasn’t crossed any legal lines; all you have to do is look through the NCAA’s (and specifically, the Committee on Infractions’) actual bylaws and procedures.
Here’s a breakdown that should help to shine some more light on the situation:
For an idea as to who has access to a decent amount (though not all) of the information contained in the ANOA, I would suggest reviewing Chapter 3-6 of the Committee on Infractions’ Internal Operating Procedures.
There are other people (other than Bubba and Folt, for example) who are also privy to information within the ANOA – pay careful attention to Chapter 3-12-3-1. “Involved individuals” is a very broad term, and can apply to anyone who is a current (or past) collegiate employee and might be facing any sort of show-cause penalty.
Now think… who was interviewed the first go-round who might one day have aspirations to work with college athletes (in ANY capacity) again at some point? How many can you count? If they are deemed “involved individuals”, they have copies. Hmm.
One last bit, and it’s just to give further explanation as to how we’ve reached this particular point in time.
Sticking with the Procedures, there are several events that have exacerbated UNC’s problems and burned any bridges of “gentlemanly courtesy” that might have once existed.
One is pretty obvious, and is covered in Chapter 3-13-1. They gambled, but Nova won.
The other instances are ones that the specifics of which likely won’t ever be publicized; I certainly have no interest in doing so. But they fall under Chapter 4-5.
There is some bad news, though.
Three “banners” likely aren’t at risk.
..… It could be a lot closer to 15, if some of the chatter is correct.
There’s a decent chance that I’m going to be out of pocket for a bit; will find out soon.
Na zdrowie.
WOW! What would 15 mean exactly? Is this 15 MBB banners or does this mean 15 banners combined over various sports?
With so many programs involved , I'm guessin' various sports would be affected. Would be fitting to see that women's soccer program they're so proud of lose a banner or three....
Can't make this up...
North Georgia?!?! Oh yeah. Prestigious award. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B-Rad had to beat out some heavy competition for the honor too. Himself! Pretty easy to win some obscure meaningless "award" when your doc IS THE ONLY ENTRANT IN THE CATEGORY! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Lobbied for it too. Beggin' for additional funds just days ago now pan-handling for obscure citations...
Bradley Bethel @BradleyBethel
In other festival news, please vote online today for my film to win this award! Thanks for your support!
He has no idea how big of a tool he is. More hilariously pathetic? Him or the idiots that contributed money to his Kickstarter? Tough call. Lulz.
North Georgia?!?! Oh yeah. Prestigious award. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B-Rad had to beat out some heavy competition for the honor too. Himself! Pretty easy to win some obscure meaningless "award" when your doc IS THE ONLY ENTRANT IN THE CATEGORY! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Lobbied for it too. Beggin' for additional funds just days ago now pan-handling for obscure citations...
Bradley Bethel @BradleyBethel
In other festival news, please vote online today for my film to win this award! Thanks for your support!
He has no idea how big of a tool he is. More hilariously pathetic? Him or the idiots that contributed money to his Kickstarter? Tough call. Lulz.
Mary an' Jay...
SACS, Lies and Audiotapes
“We’ve made more than 70 reforms.” “Oh, behold the reforms we’ve made!” UNC-Chapel Hill has sounded this refrain ever since Chancellor Carol Folt and Provost Jim Dean moved into South Building in summer 2013. The fixes, these leaders have repeatedly suggested, have always already been in place. Who, therefore, could be so churlish as to ask questions about problems? How could problems exist after “more than 70 reforms”?
Everything is fixed so let’s move on. So deep-seated is this attitude in South Building, so reflexive is the insistence that all is well, that the University even claimed in a recent report to its accrediting agency, SACS, that the revelations of the 2014 Wainstein report had uncovered no new areas of concern. This was because the University, “well before the Wainstein investigation even commenced, had gone to extraordinary lengths to design and implement over 70 distinct reforms that comprehensively addressed the past irregularities even as described in the Wainstein report.” Even with the University’s accreditation at risk, our leaders ask: Problems? What problems? Look at our reforms, which we’ve always already been making! (For now we’ll leave aside the comical nature of many of the specific “reforms”–renaming an academic department, creating a website, hiring a new head football coach, etc.)
The great failing of this “look over there!” strategy, as we have noted before, is that it renders impossible the identification of the root problem that caused the UNC scandal: an eligibility-first culture that encouraged corner-cutting and favor-doing for a too-big-to-fail athletic program. It is not the removal of rogues but the overhaul of a culture that is required in Chapel Hill. To hear Carol Folt and Jim Dean tell SACS that they learned nothing particularly decisive from the Wainstein report is thus doubly disheartening. Not only does the statement contradict documented fact–page after page of emails in the Wainstein supplemental documents show for the first time that our institutional failure spanned many offices and involved many individuals–but it suggests that UNC leadership remains committed to bathing in the river DeNile. They refuse to acknowledge the fundamental reality behind our scandal, namely, that a propensity to “favor” athletes had become so pervasive, so ingrained, and so unremarkable that it led to the systematic lowering–and ultimately the systematic corruption–of UNC’s academic standards. Nowhere in the list of “70 reforms” that the University ceaselessly trumpets will readers find an item that addresses the deformities of that culture. We are asked to believe that the retirement or firing of a handful of individuals, the standardization of independent study protocols, the provost’s verification that professors actually hold classes, and the new (but not really new) requirement that all courses have syllabi have now banished academic “irregularities” from our midst. Onward!
But the evidence from the Wainstein report, together with the evidence from our book Cheated, shows why this approach to managing the scandal fallout is so woefully inadequate. That evidence makes clear that, for many years, the overriding priority of the Academic Support Program was to find the easiest pathways to eligibility for UNC’s athletes–particularly those in football and basketball. There were many cogs in the eligibility machine, academic counselors knew about every one of them, and many people outside of athletics either wanted or felt compelled to help athletes who found themselves in academic “need.” Pieces of UNC’s corrupted eligibility machine were scattered all over campus, far beyond the precincts of the former department of African and Afro-American Studies.
Consider the full breadth of the independent studies scam. The go-to courses for athletes with stressful schedules or perilously low GPA’s were always independent study courses or “topics” courses that could be managed like independent studies. Academic counselor, Philosophy lecturer, and sports ethicist Jan Boxill taught many such courses herself, including 160 in one eight-year period (see Cheated, p. 185.) But Boxill knew she was not alone. A longtime instructor with contacts all over campus and an iron will to help athletes, she also regularly leaned on colleagues in other departments to offer their own independent study (or similar) courses whenever select populations of athletes needed them. The assignments in these courses were presumably cooked up in a professor’s office with little or no input from the student (making a mockery of the very concept of the independent study), and in some cases the connection between “instructor” and “project” was so thin as to be non-existent. During one summer session an athlete emailed Boxill to find out the identity of the Geography instructor for whom he or she had written a paper. The unconcerned Boxill responded that “I’m calling to see if you can just send them directly to John Florin,” thus naming a key contributing partner to the UNC eligibility system over a period of decades. A neighbor and friend of basketball team counselor Burgess McSwain, Florin offered sections of Geography 95, “Topics in Geography,” every year, with athletes crowding in each time. They invariably got helpful grades. (One basketball player in desperate straits enrolled in TWO sections of GEOG 95 in a single summer session in the 1990s, making A’s in both sections.) In 2007 Boxill approached another friendly faculty member about scheduling an independent study in Sociology. When told that the course would need the approval of the department chair, Boxill instructed her friend to “tell him you’re doing it for me!” (She had many friends–including department chairs–from whom she could call in favors.) Another email from January 2010 shows football academic counselor Beth Bridger pointing to Exercise and Sport Science instructor Deb Stroman as someone likely to allow an athlete to do a “paper class” under her auspices. (Counselors Boxill and Jaimie Lee are likewise shown setting up courses with Stroman for other students in other semesters–Stroman even assures Lee that she “can handle two more” athletes for an independent study she created in January 2011.) For many years Anthropology 99, “Special Projects,” bailed out academically weak athletes with easy A’s and B’s. Independent study and special topics courses in Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures and the later Communications department also littered the course records of many athletes in the revenue or “profit” sports.
Independent studies courses were not the only safe harbors, however. Fred Vogler’s “French Novel in Translation,” and Fred Clark’s “Brazilian Literature in English Translation,” both offered virtually every year, made the Romance Languages department a favored destination for athletes for thirty-plus years. Vogler expected so many athletes in his course that he held his review sessions in the Academic Support Center in the East Endzone Building. (In 2002 Fred Clark, in his capacity as assistant dean, arranged for an athlete “to drop Math 10 and pick up an independent study with him” to compensate for the dropped three hours–all conveniently arranged in week ten of the fall semester. This huge favor was done long past the final drop/add date, with only three weeks of classes left in the term.) Gerald Unks from the School of Education annually taught “Education in American Life,” a virtual freebie course that few athletes ever skipped. (Counselor Brent Blanton is heard assuring women’s soccer coach Anson Dorrance in one email that Unks is “EXTREMELY accommodating” to athletes.) Elsewhere in the Wainstein documents, one Mathematics instructor is shown awarding passing grades to football players whose marks warranted F’s, and in the same email in which she shares that happy news she also alerts football counselors (rather than Honor System personnel) to the troubling fact that she had found “fairly clear” evidence of illicit collaboration on an exam. But not to worry, she adds, since “I will not take this any further than this email.” (Football player Erik Highsmith benefited from similar favoritism in 2011, when his plagiarized blog assignment in a Communications course was reported not to the Honor Court but to the Academic Support Program, where the allegation went to die a silent death. ASPSA counselors cultivated faculty–particularly vulnerable, untenured faculty–precisely so that athletes would get special treatment in treacherous situations of this sort...)
SACS, Lies and Audiotapes
“We’ve made more than 70 reforms.” “Oh, behold the reforms we’ve made!” UNC-Chapel Hill has sounded this refrain ever since Chancellor Carol Folt and Provost Jim Dean moved into South Building in summer 2013. The fixes, these leaders have repeatedly suggested, have always already been in place. Who, therefore, could be so churlish as to ask questions about problems? How could problems exist after “more than 70 reforms”?
Everything is fixed so let’s move on. So deep-seated is this attitude in South Building, so reflexive is the insistence that all is well, that the University even claimed in a recent report to its accrediting agency, SACS, that the revelations of the 2014 Wainstein report had uncovered no new areas of concern. This was because the University, “well before the Wainstein investigation even commenced, had gone to extraordinary lengths to design and implement over 70 distinct reforms that comprehensively addressed the past irregularities even as described in the Wainstein report.” Even with the University’s accreditation at risk, our leaders ask: Problems? What problems? Look at our reforms, which we’ve always already been making! (For now we’ll leave aside the comical nature of many of the specific “reforms”–renaming an academic department, creating a website, hiring a new head football coach, etc.)
The great failing of this “look over there!” strategy, as we have noted before, is that it renders impossible the identification of the root problem that caused the UNC scandal: an eligibility-first culture that encouraged corner-cutting and favor-doing for a too-big-to-fail athletic program. It is not the removal of rogues but the overhaul of a culture that is required in Chapel Hill. To hear Carol Folt and Jim Dean tell SACS that they learned nothing particularly decisive from the Wainstein report is thus doubly disheartening. Not only does the statement contradict documented fact–page after page of emails in the Wainstein supplemental documents show for the first time that our institutional failure spanned many offices and involved many individuals–but it suggests that UNC leadership remains committed to bathing in the river DeNile. They refuse to acknowledge the fundamental reality behind our scandal, namely, that a propensity to “favor” athletes had become so pervasive, so ingrained, and so unremarkable that it led to the systematic lowering–and ultimately the systematic corruption–of UNC’s academic standards. Nowhere in the list of “70 reforms” that the University ceaselessly trumpets will readers find an item that addresses the deformities of that culture. We are asked to believe that the retirement or firing of a handful of individuals, the standardization of independent study protocols, the provost’s verification that professors actually hold classes, and the new (but not really new) requirement that all courses have syllabi have now banished academic “irregularities” from our midst. Onward!
But the evidence from the Wainstein report, together with the evidence from our book Cheated, shows why this approach to managing the scandal fallout is so woefully inadequate. That evidence makes clear that, for many years, the overriding priority of the Academic Support Program was to find the easiest pathways to eligibility for UNC’s athletes–particularly those in football and basketball. There were many cogs in the eligibility machine, academic counselors knew about every one of them, and many people outside of athletics either wanted or felt compelled to help athletes who found themselves in academic “need.” Pieces of UNC’s corrupted eligibility machine were scattered all over campus, far beyond the precincts of the former department of African and Afro-American Studies.
Consider the full breadth of the independent studies scam. The go-to courses for athletes with stressful schedules or perilously low GPA’s were always independent study courses or “topics” courses that could be managed like independent studies. Academic counselor, Philosophy lecturer, and sports ethicist Jan Boxill taught many such courses herself, including 160 in one eight-year period (see Cheated, p. 185.) But Boxill knew she was not alone. A longtime instructor with contacts all over campus and an iron will to help athletes, she also regularly leaned on colleagues in other departments to offer their own independent study (or similar) courses whenever select populations of athletes needed them. The assignments in these courses were presumably cooked up in a professor’s office with little or no input from the student (making a mockery of the very concept of the independent study), and in some cases the connection between “instructor” and “project” was so thin as to be non-existent. During one summer session an athlete emailed Boxill to find out the identity of the Geography instructor for whom he or she had written a paper. The unconcerned Boxill responded that “I’m calling to see if you can just send them directly to John Florin,” thus naming a key contributing partner to the UNC eligibility system over a period of decades. A neighbor and friend of basketball team counselor Burgess McSwain, Florin offered sections of Geography 95, “Topics in Geography,” every year, with athletes crowding in each time. They invariably got helpful grades. (One basketball player in desperate straits enrolled in TWO sections of GEOG 95 in a single summer session in the 1990s, making A’s in both sections.) In 2007 Boxill approached another friendly faculty member about scheduling an independent study in Sociology. When told that the course would need the approval of the department chair, Boxill instructed her friend to “tell him you’re doing it for me!” (She had many friends–including department chairs–from whom she could call in favors.) Another email from January 2010 shows football academic counselor Beth Bridger pointing to Exercise and Sport Science instructor Deb Stroman as someone likely to allow an athlete to do a “paper class” under her auspices. (Counselors Boxill and Jaimie Lee are likewise shown setting up courses with Stroman for other students in other semesters–Stroman even assures Lee that she “can handle two more” athletes for an independent study she created in January 2011.) For many years Anthropology 99, “Special Projects,” bailed out academically weak athletes with easy A’s and B’s. Independent study and special topics courses in Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures and the later Communications department also littered the course records of many athletes in the revenue or “profit” sports.
Independent studies courses were not the only safe harbors, however. Fred Vogler’s “French Novel in Translation,” and Fred Clark’s “Brazilian Literature in English Translation,” both offered virtually every year, made the Romance Languages department a favored destination for athletes for thirty-plus years. Vogler expected so many athletes in his course that he held his review sessions in the Academic Support Center in the East Endzone Building. (In 2002 Fred Clark, in his capacity as assistant dean, arranged for an athlete “to drop Math 10 and pick up an independent study with him” to compensate for the dropped three hours–all conveniently arranged in week ten of the fall semester. This huge favor was done long past the final drop/add date, with only three weeks of classes left in the term.) Gerald Unks from the School of Education annually taught “Education in American Life,” a virtual freebie course that few athletes ever skipped. (Counselor Brent Blanton is heard assuring women’s soccer coach Anson Dorrance in one email that Unks is “EXTREMELY accommodating” to athletes.) Elsewhere in the Wainstein documents, one Mathematics instructor is shown awarding passing grades to football players whose marks warranted F’s, and in the same email in which she shares that happy news she also alerts football counselors (rather than Honor System personnel) to the troubling fact that she had found “fairly clear” evidence of illicit collaboration on an exam. But not to worry, she adds, since “I will not take this any further than this email.” (Football player Erik Highsmith benefited from similar favoritism in 2011, when his plagiarized blog assignment in a Communications course was reported not to the Honor Court but to the Academic Support Program, where the allegation went to die a silent death. ASPSA counselors cultivated faculty–particularly vulnerable, untenured faculty–precisely so that athletes would get special treatment in treacherous situations of this sort...)
....We could multiply the examples endlessly. What these examples have in common, other than the fact that they do not involve the AFRI/AFAM department, is that they point to the existence of a pervasive culture of permissiveness, a university-wide culture developed and sustained to support the eligibility needs of the athletic program. (It is an irony, and a tragedy, that this permissiveness has harmed rather than helped the athletes themselves, whose educations were stolen from them.)
The recent modification of independent study rules that limit the number of students a professor can supervise in any one term is a good thing. So, too, are the new procedures for linking the online assignment of grades to professors’ personal identification numbers (PINs). These changes will make cheating at least somewhat more difficult going forward. But the only conditions academic corruption requires are the presence of a willing faculty member, an importunate student or advisor, and enough privacy to do the wrong thing undetected. Absent a change of culture–and so far there has been not even a perfunctory effort to modify UNC’s longstanding culture–no reasonable person should assume that the imperative to cut corners, and the willingness of some faculty and staff to cut them as needed, has gone anywhere. Indeed, many of the actors at UNC who facilitated shameful athletics favoritism over the years are still with us on the campus; some of them exercise positions of real influence. Over the past two years there has been a lot of rearranging of deck chairs on the good ship Carolina Way (though, to be fair, sometimes the deck chairs were simply left in the exact same spot.) But there have been no signs of a bold change in direction. Until Carol Folt, Jim Dean, and other leaders tell the world their plans for countering the influence and the long-established habits of the many athletics-friendly personnel at UNC, until they outline the steps they will take to overturn an institutional culture that fostered fraud and willful blindness for decades, skeptics will be right to scoff at the “70 reforms” and the diversion they were meant to create.
To share our own thoughts about the ability of our current leadership to inaugurate transformative changes, we will soon be posting to this website transcripts of audiotapes recording the conversations Mary Willingham had with a succession of influential leaders between 2010 and 2014. What those transcripts show, we believe, is a leadership cohort so in thrall to the athletic program that it was aggressively uninterested in learning what a whistleblowing insider might have to teach academic officers. With remarkable consistency, the questions and comments they offered were limited, hostile, defensive, and dismissive. Why? Stay tuned.
http://paperclassinc.com/sacs-lies-and-audiotapes/
Ruh-Roh....
The recent modification of independent study rules that limit the number of students a professor can supervise in any one term is a good thing. So, too, are the new procedures for linking the online assignment of grades to professors’ personal identification numbers (PINs). These changes will make cheating at least somewhat more difficult going forward. But the only conditions academic corruption requires are the presence of a willing faculty member, an importunate student or advisor, and enough privacy to do the wrong thing undetected. Absent a change of culture–and so far there has been not even a perfunctory effort to modify UNC’s longstanding culture–no reasonable person should assume that the imperative to cut corners, and the willingness of some faculty and staff to cut them as needed, has gone anywhere. Indeed, many of the actors at UNC who facilitated shameful athletics favoritism over the years are still with us on the campus; some of them exercise positions of real influence. Over the past two years there has been a lot of rearranging of deck chairs on the good ship Carolina Way (though, to be fair, sometimes the deck chairs were simply left in the exact same spot.) But there have been no signs of a bold change in direction. Until Carol Folt, Jim Dean, and other leaders tell the world their plans for countering the influence and the long-established habits of the many athletics-friendly personnel at UNC, until they outline the steps they will take to overturn an institutional culture that fostered fraud and willful blindness for decades, skeptics will be right to scoff at the “70 reforms” and the diversion they were meant to create.
To share our own thoughts about the ability of our current leadership to inaugurate transformative changes, we will soon be posting to this website transcripts of audiotapes recording the conversations Mary Willingham had with a succession of influential leaders between 2010 and 2014. What those transcripts show, we believe, is a leadership cohort so in thrall to the athletic program that it was aggressively uninterested in learning what a whistleblowing insider might have to teach academic officers. With remarkable consistency, the questions and comments they offered were limited, hostile, defensive, and dismissive. Why? Stay tuned.
http://paperclassinc.com/sacs-lies-and-audiotapes/
Ruh-Roh....
UNC Scandal: Compelling Speculation And A Bombshell From Mary Willingham
Mary Willingham is about to seriously piss off some bigwigs in Chapel Hill.
Over the last few days we've been following along with increasing fascination as a few people online have talked extensively about what may be coming next in the UNC scandal.
We'll preface this by saying that while we can't confirm what's being said below the radar, in at least one case, we know that the person posting has deep knowledge of the issues and procedures involved and almost certainly has reliable connections within the NCAA. We're not saying anything else, but we know that it's not just some yahoo with an ax to grind.
Among the basic points/allegations which keep coming up are these:
The NCAA either already has or will very soon send UNC the Amended Notification of Allegations.
The ANOA is not merely revised but significantly expanded.
UNC may be facing extraordinary penalties.
UNC is said to have lawyered up and is prepared for a serious fight.
We'll know very soon if this is all correct and will revisit this at that point if needed
These developments coincide with a startling post at paperclassinc.com, the site jointly run by Mary Willingham, who previously worked with UNC's academic support program, and Professor Jay Smith, a leading faculty critic of the athletic department's excesses.
As the NCAA hammer apparently looms, as SACS deliberates on whether to drop or extend UNC's academic probation, Willingham drops this bomb at the end of her most recent contribution:
"To share our own thoughts about the ability of our current leadership to inaugurate transformative changes, we will soon be posting to this website transcripts of audiotapes recording the conversations Mary Willingham had with a succession of influential leaders between 2010 and 2014. What those transcripts show, we believe, is a leadership cohort so in thrall to the athletic program that it was aggressively uninterested in learning what a whistleblowing insider might have to teach academic officers. With remarkable consistency, the questions and comments they offered were limited, hostile, defensive, and dismissive. Why? Stay tuned."
Good night in the day! What does she have? Are these people aware that they were recorded?
In North Carolina, if you are in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can record a conversation without telling the other party. You may record a phone conversation if you have the consent of at least one party.
We have no idea what the hell this is going to be about. It's just another turn in this extraordinary scandal.
We can promise you this though: no one who was recorded is going to be happy about it.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com...pelling-speculation-and-a-bombshell-from-mary
Mary Willingham is about to seriously piss off some bigwigs in Chapel Hill.
Over the last few days we've been following along with increasing fascination as a few people online have talked extensively about what may be coming next in the UNC scandal.
We'll preface this by saying that while we can't confirm what's being said below the radar, in at least one case, we know that the person posting has deep knowledge of the issues and procedures involved and almost certainly has reliable connections within the NCAA. We're not saying anything else, but we know that it's not just some yahoo with an ax to grind.
Among the basic points/allegations which keep coming up are these:
The NCAA either already has or will very soon send UNC the Amended Notification of Allegations.
The ANOA is not merely revised but significantly expanded.
UNC may be facing extraordinary penalties.
UNC is said to have lawyered up and is prepared for a serious fight.
We'll know very soon if this is all correct and will revisit this at that point if needed
These developments coincide with a startling post at paperclassinc.com, the site jointly run by Mary Willingham, who previously worked with UNC's academic support program, and Professor Jay Smith, a leading faculty critic of the athletic department's excesses.
As the NCAA hammer apparently looms, as SACS deliberates on whether to drop or extend UNC's academic probation, Willingham drops this bomb at the end of her most recent contribution:
"To share our own thoughts about the ability of our current leadership to inaugurate transformative changes, we will soon be posting to this website transcripts of audiotapes recording the conversations Mary Willingham had with a succession of influential leaders between 2010 and 2014. What those transcripts show, we believe, is a leadership cohort so in thrall to the athletic program that it was aggressively uninterested in learning what a whistleblowing insider might have to teach academic officers. With remarkable consistency, the questions and comments they offered were limited, hostile, defensive, and dismissive. Why? Stay tuned."
Good night in the day! What does she have? Are these people aware that they were recorded?
In North Carolina, if you are in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can record a conversation without telling the other party. You may record a phone conversation if you have the consent of at least one party.
We have no idea what the hell this is going to be about. It's just another turn in this extraordinary scandal.
We can promise you this though: no one who was recorded is going to be happy about it.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com...pelling-speculation-and-a-bombshell-from-mary
- Status
