| Blog and Media Roundup - Wednesday, February 26, 2014; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 26 2014, 05:53 AM (288 Views) | |
| abb | Feb 26 2014, 05:53 AM Post #1 |
|
Lawyer's investigation of UNC academics could cost up to $990 an hour By Dan Kane dkane@newsobserver.comFebruary 25, 2014 Updated 5 hours ago The work by a veteran lawyer and former U.S. Justice Department official to unravel a long-running academic scandal at UNC-Chapel Hill likely won’t come cheap, according to a letter released by a UNC system official late Monday. The letter, dated Feb. 24, shows that the time of lawyer Kenneth Wainstein and three others in his firm will be billed at rates ranging from $450 an hour to $990 an hour to investigate the fraud within UNC’s African studies department. UNC system President Tom Ross and UNC-CH Chancellor Carol Folt have agreed to pay $990 an hour for the services of Wainstein, a former U.S. Justice Department official now in private practice. One associate attorney, Joseph Jay, will be billed at $775 an hour, while another, Colleen Kikowski, will be billed at $535 an hour. The firm will collect $450 an hour for the time of another attorney, Katherine Preston. “We also understand that other attorneys or staff may provide additional services, and that their time will be charged at their applicable hourly rates,” wrote Thomas Shanahan, a UNC system vice president and general counsel. The letter does not set a time limit or a cap on costs of the investigation. Joni Worthington, a UNC system spokeswoman, said the money will not come from taxpayer funds or tuition. In the past, that has meant drawing on money from a university foundation. Wainstein is a partner with the Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft law firm in Washington, D.C. He has served as general counsel and chief of staff to the FBI in a 19-year career with the Justice Department. Last year, he produced a report for the NCAA that dug into the botched investigation into improper benefits paid to University of Miami players by a booster. The report cited missteps tied to an NCAA enforcement official using the booster’s attorney to collect evidence in the case during bankruptcy proceedings. Wainstein said investigators resorted to “expedient but questionable tactics.” A spokesman for the Cadwalader firm said its work for the NCAA ended last month. Wainstein’s expertise in NCAA matters could come into play in the academic fraud scandal. Previous investigations have identified more than 200 classes that are either suspected or confirmed of never having met. Typically a paper was assigned at the end of the semester and often received a high grade. Athletes made up 45 percent of the enrollments in the classes, raising concerns that some involved in the scandal were using the classes to help keep athletes eligible. NCAA officials did not respond to a request for information. Ross and Folt called upon Wainstein after an internal UNC investigation and another led by former Gov. Jim Martin did not determine the cause of the academic fraud. They said Wainstein’s work would flow from new information gathered in a criminal investigation that led to a fraud charge against Julius Nyang’oro, the former chairman of the African studies department. In January 2013, NCAA President Mark Emmert said he was awaiting the outcome of that criminal investigation to see whether UNC could face possible violations. But several months later, an NCAA enforcement official confirmed to the university in an email that he did not see a need for further action. The new inquiry will add to a tab that has exceeded $1 million in the academic fraud case. Baker Tilly, a management consulting firm that Martin used for his investigation, cost the university more than $940,000 for its work. That firm used five employees who charged rates ranging from $180 an hour to $440 an hour. The university has also spent $500,000 on outside public relations work related to the scandal. All of that money came from a university foundation. Kane: 919-829-4861 Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/25/3653683/wainsteins-work-for-unc-could.html#storylink=cpy |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 26 2014, 06:00 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.dailytarheel.com/blog/pit_talk/2014/02/530cc2e736094 Current reading specialist challenges Willingham's claims By Amanda Albright | The Daily Tar Heel Updated: 18 hours ago A current UNC reading specialist for student-athletes has weighed in on claims made by a person who once held a similar position, Mary Willingham. Bradley Bethel posted in “Coaching the Mind,” a blog he maintains, Monday night that he was appalled by the claims Willingham has repeatedly made, challenging her methodology, research ethics and the way she has represented UNC’s athletes. “The difference between an inability to read and write sufficiently for UNC academics and, on the other hand, reading and writing at an elementary level or lower is significant,” Bethel said. It wasn’t until Willingham appeared on CNN, saying that UNC could just let in third and fourth graders rather than adult student athletes, that he became “appalled” and began investigating her claims, he said. “Willingham had used results from the Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA) (not to be confused with the SAT) to assess athletes’ reading levels, but according to the Provost, she used only the reading vocabulary subtest. Citing the SATA manual, he explained that the vocabulary subtest is not sufficient to determine overall reading performance. Furthermore, according to the Provost, Willingham apparently confused standard scores with grade equivalents, leading to a major error in interpretation.” Willingham later claimed she combined the SATA results with ACT and SAT scores, which Bethel said is not a proper way to evaluate literacy. The representation of student-athletes as described by Willingham is also unfair, he said. Bethel said as a reading and writing specialist at two different universities, he had only worked with three student-athletes who fit Willingham’s — and they had reading disabilities. He went on to say: “My point is that academic preparedness is more than reading fluency, and that limited fluency due to a disability can be overcome. Those three student-athletes with reading disabilities were capable of succeeding because they were highly prepared in other ways. Academic preparedness, like merit, includes standard achievement and aptitude factors, but it also includes non-cognitive factors such as motivation, resilience, and resourcefulness. The extent to which those three students displayed such qualities was inspiring, and the three of them are the kinds of success stories a reading specialist should be telling.” Bethel also discussed the Institutional Review Board’s decision that Willingham needed a license to conduct her research, stating that this was standard research practice and Willingham should have known not to use identifiers. Bethel has had his own concerns about the way athletes are admitted at UNC, but said hearing from Dean of Admissions Steve Farmer and other administrators has quelled many of his concerns. UNC’s effort to eventually stop admitting UNC athletes with a projected GPA less than a 2.3 is a step in the right direction, he said. “I am not arguing that UNC has never admitted athletes who read at elementary levels or lower, nor am I making any judgments of Willingham’s character,” he said. “In fact, I believe she has had good intentions the whole time. Nevertheless, I am arguing that her methodology and anecdotes are not sufficient to substantiate her claims, and her choosing to publicize those claims has been irresponsible.” You can read the entirety of the post here. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 26 2014, 06:04 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2014/02/sorry-if-i-cant-muster-any-sympathy-for.html Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Sorry if I can't muster any sympathy for Missoula prosecutor who brought charges against Jordan Johnson Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg is not happy that the the U.S. Department of Justice has singled him out for perpetuating gender bias against women when prosecuting cases of sexual assault. Van Valkenburg fumes that he's innocent, damn it! Now read this carefully: he claims that people should "keep in mind that there are always two sides to every story." He also said his office has an "ethical obligation" not to file cases that lack sufficient evidence. Excuse me if I can't muster any sympathy for you, Fred. This is the same man who charged University of Montana quarterback Jordan Johnson with sexual assault -- that trial ended in an acquittal last year, and one alternate juror made the following chilling comment: "The lack of evidence was troubling . . . . there was no evidence that Jordan Johnson knew that he had sex without consent." Kirsten Pabst, former chief deputy county prosecutor before becoming one of Mr. Johnson's attorneys, said that the County Attorney’s Office charged Mr. Johnson with a sex crime just "to send a message." Is it possible Fred Van Valkenburg made Jordan Johnson a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate that he's not soft on sexual assault? You remember the Johnson case, I'm sure. Mr. Johnson and his unnamed accuser had been flirtatious, and at a university ball, the accuser purportedly told Mr. Johnson, “Jordy, I would do you anytime.” They went back to her apartment, and after their encounter, the accuser cried rape, Mr. Johnson denied it, and the accuser sent a text to a friend: "The reason I feel this whole situation is my fault is because I feel like I gave Jordan mixed signals which caused him to act the way he did." In another text message, the accuser told someone, "I don't think he [Johnson] did anything wrong." But she still expressed happiness that he was going to be charged with rape -- according to a defense motion filed in the case, the text message said: "It will hit him like a ton of bricks which I'm okay with [emoticon smiley face] so wanna get lunch Thursday?" This is sufficient evidence to destroy a young man's life? What was that about an "ethical obligation," Mr. Valkenburg? About "two sides" to every story? What you need to know is this: good old Fred Van Valkenburg assigned five prosecutors -- count 'em: five -- including an assistant attorney general and an attorney in private practice, to pursue this case against Jordan Johnson. He even brought in feminist sexual assault guru Dr. David Lisak to testify for the prosecution. (Dr. Lisak was a lot of help: he testified that trauma could explain the changing stories of an alleged rape victim, but that lying could explain the same behavior.) Do you think that Fred Van Valkenburg assigns five prosecutors and flies Dr. Lisak in to testify every time a black woman claims a kid in the inner city raped her? So what was all that about, Freddy? This "win at all cost" mentality in a case where there was so little evidence and two sides to the story? Well, you do that math: the New York Times said the charges against Jordan Johnson were brought "against the backdrop of a federal investigation into how . . . the city and county of Missoula, handled sexual assault allegations . . . ." And then Freddy Van Valkenburg made a startling statement. While he claims he doesn't think the charges were filed because of the federal investigation, he candidly admitted: “I can’t say the atmosphere in Missoula didn’t operate in my mind somewhere” as he considered whether to file the charges. Whoa! We have no idea if this man is really soft on sexual assault. But we do have serious questions about someone who charges a high profile kid in a case that raised so many questions. And notice that the Department of Justice isn't buying that the prosecutor is tough on sexual assault merely because he went after the big man on campus in this one case. Here's the bottom line: the worst thing that can happen to presumptively innocent men accused of sex crimes is when officials buckle to public outcries over rape. Innocence Project guru Mark A Godsey has said that "the risk of wrongful conviction is the highest when there’s public outcry. Most of the exonerations and wrongful convictions have occurred in rape cases." It would be nice if we lived in a world where rape crimes are prosecuted fairly, but the sad fact is that rape hysteria is sometimes fomented over a legitimate perception that rape is tolerated. Ironically, one way to minimize rape hysteria is to insist that prosecutors like Fred Van Valkenburg diligently and fairly prosecute rape cases. If the public perceives that rape is taken seriously and that the cases are fairly prosecuted, the chances of a public outcry about rape that tempts prosecutors to charge innocent men is lessened. Prosecutors who turn a blind eye to rape are no friends of the wrongly accused. They are part of the problem. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 26 2014, 08:08 AM Post #4 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:36 PM Jul 10