https://unverifiedthefilm.net/2016/08/05/a-counter-qa-on-the-unc-scandal/
There have been statements made, numerous articles written, and intense and widespread speculation about this case during the past five years. The temptation to use public speculation and other unverified information is a very real part of this case. – Response to NCAA Amended Notice of Allegations, August 1, 2016
After five years of sensationalized media coverage, a more accurate narrative about UNC’s paper-class scandal is finally beginning to circulate.
No one denies that what happened in UNC’s African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department makes for an embarrassing chapter in the history of the nation’s oldest public university. As I have consistently argued for the past two and half years, the paper-class scandal exposes a troubling reality of American research universities: the utter disregard for teaching quality at the undergraduate level. How else do we explain the failure of UNC deans to notice that the chair of the AFAM department essentially skipped class for more than a decade?
Yet because the paper classes came to light in the wake of an actual athletics scandal, reporters — no less susceptible to confirmation bias than the rest of us — were immediately convinced that athletics was behind this new scandal. Thus, the press framed the narrative as one of academic fraud even before the facts came in, and that narrative became the filter through which the public interpreted emerging information about the case. Despite subsequently discovered facts to the contrary, commentators and rival fans remained certain the UNC scandal was driven by a corrupt athletics department.
As writer Walter Kirn once stated, “This is how it works now with the news: the story begins with a moral, then a narrative is fashioned to support it.”
The moral, of course, is justified: college athletics is long overdue for reform. However, reformers were overly eager for the definitive case study in athletics corruption, and they seized on the UNC case without acknowledging its nuances. Reformers believed they found a textbook case of academic fraud perpetuated by athletics, but their case was far more fictional than factual.
Nevertheless, with the passing of time — and despite the persistence of blowhards such as Kent Sterling — the public discourse on the UNC scandal is becoming more reasonable, and onlookers are beginning to realize that the scandal was not what the news media initially portrayed it as.
Following UNC’s response to the NCAA’s amended notice of allegations this week, I believe now is an appropriate time to clarify the issues further for those still trying to discern fact from fiction. Rather than develop my own set of questions for a Q&A, I’ve decided to counter N&O reporter Dan Kane’sQ&A from earlier this year. In so doing, I hope not only to add clarity to the discourse but also to illuminate the way Kane has misconstrued the facts to support the news media’s narrative.
There have been statements made, numerous articles written, and intense and widespread speculation about this case during the past five years. The temptation to use public speculation and other unverified information is a very real part of this case. – Response to NCAA Amended Notice of Allegations, August 1, 2016
After five years of sensationalized media coverage, a more accurate narrative about UNC’s paper-class scandal is finally beginning to circulate.
No one denies that what happened in UNC’s African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department makes for an embarrassing chapter in the history of the nation’s oldest public university. As I have consistently argued for the past two and half years, the paper-class scandal exposes a troubling reality of American research universities: the utter disregard for teaching quality at the undergraduate level. How else do we explain the failure of UNC deans to notice that the chair of the AFAM department essentially skipped class for more than a decade?
Yet because the paper classes came to light in the wake of an actual athletics scandal, reporters — no less susceptible to confirmation bias than the rest of us — were immediately convinced that athletics was behind this new scandal. Thus, the press framed the narrative as one of academic fraud even before the facts came in, and that narrative became the filter through which the public interpreted emerging information about the case. Despite subsequently discovered facts to the contrary, commentators and rival fans remained certain the UNC scandal was driven by a corrupt athletics department.
As writer Walter Kirn once stated, “This is how it works now with the news: the story begins with a moral, then a narrative is fashioned to support it.”
The moral, of course, is justified: college athletics is long overdue for reform. However, reformers were overly eager for the definitive case study in athletics corruption, and they seized on the UNC case without acknowledging its nuances. Reformers believed they found a textbook case of academic fraud perpetuated by athletics, but their case was far more fictional than factual.
Nevertheless, with the passing of time — and despite the persistence of blowhards such as Kent Sterling — the public discourse on the UNC scandal is becoming more reasonable, and onlookers are beginning to realize that the scandal was not what the news media initially portrayed it as.
Following UNC’s response to the NCAA’s amended notice of allegations this week, I believe now is an appropriate time to clarify the issues further for those still trying to discern fact from fiction. Rather than develop my own set of questions for a Q&A, I’ve decided to counter N&O reporter Dan Kane’sQ&A from earlier this year. In so doing, I hope not only to add clarity to the discourse but also to illuminate the way Kane has misconstrued the facts to support the news media’s narrative.
