Former Gov. Martin's letter on red flags over no-show classes, and what the record shows

My response to this tit-for-tat between the Governor and Kane is, "So what?"

At some point, members of the UNC community got concerned about independent study classes taken by students and by student athletes. A brief investigation was done into the proportion of students and student-athletes taking these courses. Based on that data, they decided not to investigate further. Perhaps it's because they believed the data was sufficient. They were wrong. Perhaps it's because they were lazy. The easiest explanation is that we got very full of ourselves at UNC and we didn't want to believe that academic fraud was occurring, so we didn't look. The politics alone of investigating the AfAm department would have kept all but the most intrepid from looking into fraud. We got caught sniffing our own ACADEMIC scent and thinking everything was roses. It seems most likely that the error made at UNC was not being diligent enough. Why, then, must the N&O keep implying that this is all a massive, intentional conspiracy to keep athletes eligible?

Dan Kane isnt lying.... but neither is Gov. Martin. His report is not a coverup or a whitewash but perhaps could have been more thorough. Dan Kane is a fine journalist I`m sure, but sometimes the story comes to an end or just doesnt really go anywhere...no matter how badly one may wish that it would. This "story" is growing stale for front page / op ed news.

If the N&O is serious about change in college athletics, then the N&O should stop glorifying it on its sports page and front page.
No more special pull out sections. No more banner headlines when a team wins a championship. No more glossy,color ads for ticket sales from the area schools. No more sports columnists (so long Caulton, JP, and Luke).

Turn you sports coverage into a one page insert with scores, schedules and stats.... and start talking about something that really is a story (mental health, deficits, entitlements...there is plenty else to pick from) but this "story" has turned into a pi!!ing contest...and it`s tiresome.

Predictable that a few would use any thread of evidence to surmize that a "red flag" was raised. Even IF clear warnings were issued, there is zero doubt that no formal actions were taken to restore academic integrity to the classes and to ensure that no student-athlete was able to use bogus classes to maintain academic eligibility.

We are mired in tangential issues, but it is worse than even that.

Frankly, mere mention of a subject without any context of what was actually said cannot be logically taken as indication of a warning. A warning is the level at which reasonable people conclude that a "red flag" was raised.

Further, to interview five people who were at these meetings and have none of them assert there were any warnings raised, is pretty damning to the accuracy of the claims there were such warnings raised. I don't see how any fair-minded person can argue with that.

I can see how people with an agenda would try to attack the messenger, but that speaks a lot more about the motives of the attackers than it does on the actions of the messenger.

Jim Martin attempted to defend himself by openly questioning the journalistic integrity of the messenger. The messenger then provided significant proof that proper journalistic method was used -- in fact, he used more than is normally required. The journalistic standard is to have three separate sources on the record, whether quoted or not. Dan Kane had five.

I just read the minutes that Kane specifically uses to "debunk" Martin's claims. The portion that is most relevant is when the minutes state, "Based on this review, the committee did not feel that the level of independent study registration by student-athletes reflects abuse of the opportunity."

Now a reasonable person would ask themselves, 'Self, why would the committee specifically say that the actions of the athletes did not constitute abuse if no one raised a red-flag about potential abuse? Does the committee typically say that, after "further reviewing" the data, no abuse was found in regards to other issues? Why was this "further reviewing" necessary if it wasn't discussed as a potential problem previous to the meeting in question?'

Further, in the second attachment the notes state that questions were raised regarding "Issues raised by the Auburn incident that involved unusual concentration of independent study courses supervised by one faculty member."

It takes a special kind of moron to say that what was included in the notes did not show evidence of warnings regarding the classes. It takes an ever worse kind of moron to attach, as evidence, documents that specifically contradict what is being asserted.

I voted for and liked the guy.

I really don't think he's as incompetent as this poor excuse for a "report" and even worse "reply" would have one think.

The ONLY plausible answer seems to be massive cover-up, a complete soaking of taxpayer monies, or both.

No reasonable person would take 3+ months to deliver nothing of substance - then try to defend it with "my hands were tied. . .". That should have come out week 1 - not week 15.

It always hurts more the longer you wait. SOMEONE on the BOG needs to grow a pair and INDEPENDENTLY investigate. This stinks of cover-up and somebody is going to talk(and have the evidence to back it up). They always do. . .

I believe Gov. Martin is an honorable person. However, he was hired by UNC and as such he was not truly independent. I doubt he was explicitly told to steer the investigation away from the athletic department, but it is obvious that this was the outcome desired by the UNC-CH administration. The UNC athletic “brand” is worth millions to UNC-CH. What do you suppose would have been the result if Martin had admitted the fraudulent program was mainly run to benefit the athletic department? I believe if this had happened, the NCAA would have been forced to act and the UNC Basketball program would have been directly on the hit list. Only a fool would have lit that match. Martin isn't a fool. What shocks me is that someone working for the N&O keeps pushing the case. Times certainly have changed.

The ball is back in your court Gov. Martin because you've just been served!