Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Saturday, March 22, 2014; News Roundup
Topic Started: Mar 22 2014, 05:09 AM (435 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

Innocence Project hopes to free Durham man in prison for 19 years
By Anne Blythe
ablythe@newsobserver.comMarch 21, 2014 Updated 47 minutes ago

DURHAM — Nineteen years have passed since Darryl Anthony Howard buried his head in his hands in a Durham County Superior Court room and sobbed at the three guilty verdicts returned by the jury.

“I didn’t do it,” Howard said pounding his fist against the defense table. “I didn’t kill those girls, I can’t believe it.”

The Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that has freed 18 wrongly convicted people from death row in its 22 years, has taken up Howard’s case. In documents filed this week in Durham County Superior Court, attorneys Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project, and Jim Cooney, a Charlotte lawyer working with him, claim new evidence they’ve uncovered should free Howard from the two second-degree murder convictions and felony arson conviction that brought him an 80-year sentence.

“Darryl Anthony Howard is an innocent man,” the attorneys assert in their motion for appropriate relief.

New DNA evidence, the attorneys say, points to a career criminal known to be associated with The New York Boys, a gang of drug dealers who were in Durham in the 1990s.

The attorneys also contend an informant provided police with a credible tip incriminating someone other than Howard, and though that information was written on a police memo and put in the investigatory file, it very likely was never shared with the defense team.

The Howard case, which the Innocence Project and Cooney took on in 2006, raises many of the same questions about the Durham justice system that came under a critical light during the Duke lacrosse case.

There are allegations that key evidence was withheld from the defendant and accusations that the prosecutor charged ahead with a crumbling case.

Mike Nifong, the former district attorney disbarred and ousted for his misconduct during that case, was the prosecutor for the Howard case.

Daughter warned of danger

Howard, who was 32 when he was convicted, knew the victims. He was no stranger to Durham police then or the public housing complex where the homicides occurred.

Doris Washington, 29, reputedly sold drugs and used cocaine in a public housing complex that became so crime-ridden that the city tore it down a little more than a decade ago.

Nishonda, her 13-year-old daughter, was an eighth-grader at Holton Middle School.

Few Gardens, some 240 units stacked in red-brick, barracks-style buildings, was one of the city’s more blighted neighborhoods. Drug dealers and gang members had transformed the 16 acres in central Durham into a hub of illegal drug dealing.

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Nov. 27, 1991, the Durham Fire Department responded to a call about a fire at the complex. The first-responder found no flames coming from the front of the two-story apartment building. Inside, at the top of the stairwell, heavy smoke made the visibility “absolutely zero.”

Through the haze, though, the responder found two female bodies, both nude, both face down on one bed in the second-floor front bedroom.

Autopsies showed the fire didn’t kill the mother and daughter.

Washington had a 4-inch tear in her liver and extensive internal bleeding, fatal injuries caused by the force of a blunt, wide object against her abdomen. A ligature had been used to strangle her, but that was not the cause of her death. She also had laceration on her forehead, a half-inch long, three bruises on her right cheek and other scratches near her right eye and jaw. She had abrasions on her lower back and a cut on her right arm that was inflicted by a sharp object shortly before she died.

Nishonda died from “strangulation by ligature, such as a cord or rope.” She had scratches and tears on her lips, injuries inflicted shortly before her death, and abrasions on her upper back – signs, according to the pathologist, that the teen struggled with her assailant.

The medical examiners also collected evidence for sexual assault kits, steps they testified are taken when a victim “has obviously” been sexually assaulted or there is “a possibility” that such a crime has occurred.

Howard does not dispute that he was at Few Gardens around the time of the murders. He and Washington had been friends for more than five years. Howard would give Washington rides occasionally, even taking her to look for Nishonda after she ran away from home several times.

Nishonda had complained about a constant stream of strangers parading into and out of the Few Gardens apartment where she and her mother lived.

Washington dealt drugs in the complex and, according to trial testimony, let the well-known New York Boys sell cocaine out of her apartment.

Nishonda was aware of the illicit activities. She broke down in tears four days before her murder as she told the director of the Few Gardens community center that she was frightened for her life. Her mother owed drug dealers money, and she was afraid what might happen.

The girl also expressed her concerns to the Department of Social Services that same day, begging to be removed from her home.

The social worker assigned to investigate the complaint talked with Washington but did not interview Nishonda, violating the department’s policy.

No steps were taken to remove the girl from her home. Homicide investigators learned she had been staying with friends in the days before her death instead of going home at nights to face the danger.

Howard had problems, too

Howard had his problems with Washington, too.

He was critical of how she tried to persuade women around her to either trade sex for drugs or money and often kept a cut for herself.

Howard worried that Washington was trying to prostitute his girlfriend. On the day before the homicides, he was seen and heard outside Washington’s apartment, begging her as she looked down from the second-floor window not to “do” his sweetheart like that. The next day he was back, standing outside asking if his girlfriend was inside. But Washington told him: “I don’t do her like that.”

Howard, a drug dealer who had been banned from Few Gardens, had been arrested at least 70 times for trespassing at the public housing complex, including the week before the homicides.

On the day that Washington and her daughter were killed, he had been at another apartment just a short walk away from the crime scene with his brother and girlfriend.

Drugs were sold at that apartment, too, and Howard claims to have seen some of The New York Boys in the area.

One of The New York Boys lived with Washington, according to the court documents, and Howard and his girlfriend had been sent over to pick up drugs there.

After they knocked on the door and waited for someone to throw drugs out the window, Howard said he noticed smoke coming from the second story. Hearing blaring sirens and knowing he could be thrown in jail if he collected another trespass charge, Howard said he ran with his girlfriend back to the other apartment and remained there through the night.

Howard left the next day to go get food with his girlfriend, but he returned in her car and was arrested there for driving without a license and received another trespass charge. No weapons or fire-starters were found inside the vehicle.

Tipster had key details

It was about six months after the murder that Durham police detective Darryl Dowdy turned his focus to Howard as a lead suspect. Howard was in the hospital, recovering from injuries he suffered after one of The New York Boys shot him in the back several times.

Howard lost a kidney because of the assault, and he became increasingly frustrated as Dowdy asked him more about Doris and Nishonda Washington than the shooting that had incapacitated him.

During that visit, according to the court documents, Howard told Dowdy that he believed The New York Boys had killed the mother and daughter.

That fit with a tip that came from an anonymous informant several days after the Few Garden homicides.

The tipster, according to a Durham police department routing slip dated Dec. 1, 1991, said Doris and Nishonda Washington were “probably murdered” because Doris Washington “owed $8,000 to drug dealers from either Philadelphia or New York.”

The informant also stated that when the dealers came to get their money “they first raped” the mother “before strangling her.” The tipster added that Nishonda “unknowingly walked in” on the scene, so they “killed her.”

The tip was singled out for Dowdy. “There might be something to this. I don’t remember any public info on the rape.”

At the time, according to court documents, The New York Boys were building their drug pipeline along the East Coast, and with two heavily traveled interstates running through it, Durham was a key stop. They also had been charged with crimes of a similar pattern to the Durham homicides and fire.

As the months went by with no arrests, police turned their sights to Howard. He was arrested in November 1992.

At trial, Nifong argued that Howard killed Washington because she owed him money. The prosecutor contended that Howard killed the 13-year-old when she walked in on the violence and set the fire to get rid of evidence.

Woody Vann, the defense attorney for Howard at the 1995 trial, argued that no physical evidence linked his client to the crimes, that police had arrested the wrong person and that whoever had killed the Washingtons had also sexually assaulted the mother and daughter.

There was evidence that both women had been sexually assaulted, but DNA collected from the teenager and mother did not implicate Howard.

Dowdy testified during the trial that police never considered the possibility the women had been sexually assaulted, and Nifong echoed that during his closing statement, a contradiction of the tipster memo.

The court documents submitted by the Innocence Project also show that key witnesses for the prosecution had either been paid or faced charges of their own and offered deals for their testimony.

“Newly discovered evidence strongly suggests that law enforcement completely disregarded powerful and credible evidence pointing to other suspects in its prosecution of Mr. Howard, who has served nearly 20 years for a crime which mounting evidence now shows he didn’t commit,” Scheck said in a statement. “This evidence raises deeply disturbing questions about the lengths to which the state was willing to go to secure a conviction.”

The attorneys hope to persuade the Durham district attorney’s office to agree to vacate the convictions. They have had discussions with Acting District Attorney Leon Stanback, a former Superior Court judge, and with other prosecutors in the office.

Blythe: 919-836-4948; Twitter: @AnneBlythe1


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/21/3722203/innocence-project-hopes-to-free.html#storylink=cpy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Group: UNC broke state law by harassing Willingham
By MARTHA WAGGONER
Associated PressMarch 21, 2014 Updated 12 hours ago

RALEIGH, N.C. — University of North Carolina officials appear to have violated state law when they criticized a reading specialist who concluded that some basketball and football players couldn't read at a third-grade level, the head of a government accountability advocacy group says.

School officials' actions make UNC-Chapel Hill look like a bully, and they will make others hesitant to come forward, the president of the Government Accountability Project wrote in his letter to Chancellor Carol Folt. GAP President Louis Clark urged UNC-CH to investigate whether school officials have harassed or intimidated Mary Willingham, who worked with athletes and researched their reading skills.

"In my 36 years of dealing with whistleblower cases, this course of action seems necessary and palpably prudent, and I implore you to undertake such a step immediately," Clark wrote in the letter, dated March 6.

He also demanded that the school release the names of a third-party independent board that school officials have said is investigating Willingham's analysis of athletes' literacy. "Specifically, how were members selected, how is the panel's independence guaranteed and what is its current status?" he wrote.

UNC responded Friday evening to GAP, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that calls itself the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. School spokesman Joel Curran said the school expects to release an external review of Willingham's data soon. He also pointed to the hiring of Kenneth Wainstein, a 19-year veteran of the U.S. Justice Department, "as independent counsel to conduct a new inquiry."

The school hired Wainstein in February to conduct an independent review of irregularities in an academic department featuring classes with significant athlete enrollments. Neither Wainstein nor UNC spokeswoman Karen Moon immediately responded when asked whether Wainstein's is investigating Willingham's claims or treatment.

North Carolina's law says state employees should "be free of intimidation or harassment when reporting to public bodies about matters of public concern ..." It also says employees can't be discharged, threatened or discriminated against for reporting problems, including gross mismanagement or gross abuse of authority and fraud.

In a CNN story in January, Willingham said her research on 183 football or basketball players at UNC from 2004-12 found 60 percent reading at fourth- to eighth-grade levels and roughly 10 percent below a third-grade level.

During a Faculty Council meeting, Provost James W. Dean Jr. said the findings were based largely on standardized scores in a 10-minute timed vocabulary test that isn't an appropriate way to measure literacy levels. Dean, the school's top academic officer, called it "flawed analysis" and said it was unfair to use the data to say students can't read. He said outside consultants will review their analysis of Willingham's data.

That's a classic response to whistleblowers, Willingham said. But she said what's important is the students. "It's about the athletes who are not getting what we promised them. They're not getting a real education. ... And they leave without anything except some injuries and some concussions," she said.

She said she hopes her situation results in a policy that protects whistleblowers and produces real leaders at the school. "We have amazing people who work at this university," she said. "We need leadership. We just don't have any."

In an interview, Clark said he was hopeful when Folt said in January that academic oversight had failed for years, leading to no-show classes with significant athlete enrollment and unauthorized grade changes. But he's disappointed with the university's response to Willingham's research. "She doesn't need to embrace the cover-up, and she doesn't need to sit there while the provost essentially trashes Mary in front of the faculty," he said of Folt, who is in her first year as chancellor.

In his letter, Clark takes issue with three parts of school officials' response to Willingham's analysis: comments made in response to the CNN story; the Jan. 17 faculty meeting; and Dean's public statements.

UNC-CH initially denied Willingham's claim and called it unfair to student athletes, and said the university had not seen her data. The denial and attempts to discredit Willingham resulted in UNC-CH being perceived as a bully, Clark wrote.

"This conduct has a chilling effect that will dissuade other potential witnesses from coming forward," he wrote.

He also challenged Dean's comments in a Bloomberg Businessweek article where the provost said Willingham "said that our students can't read, our athletes can't read, and that's a lie." Dean conceded in the article that he had misspoken. In a later article, the reporter said Dean said he doesn't think Willingham is a liar.

"It is simply unacceptable for a person in a position of such authority to make disparaging comments about an employee who has raised legitimate and important concerns about the education of student-athletes," Clark wrote.

The school's whistleblower protection policy, which relies on state law, says school employees should be "free of intimidation or harassment" when they come forward. Considering the public comments from school officials, "it is difficult for me to see how these occurrences do not qualify as unlawful intimidation or harassment and violations of both the UNC-CH policy and state law," Clark writes.

---

Online:

UNC Policy: http://policies.unc.edu/policies/protect-reporting/

NC State Policy: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter-126/Article-14.html

GAP Letter to Folt: http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/LetterToFolt.pdf

UNC's statement when Kenneth Wainstein was hired: http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/02/21/independent-counsel-conduct-inquiry-information-academic-irregularities

Follow Martha Waggoner at http://twitter.com/mjwaggonernc


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/21/3721266/group-unc-broke-state-law-by-harassing.html#storylink=cpy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Make judiciary discipline process open again
March 21, 2014

So if there is a proposal to change the way complaints against judges are handled, specifically to deny the public access to the process, who would be among those qualified to review it?

The chief justice of the state Supreme Court, of course. The head of the Judicial Standards Commission, which investigates disciplinary matters and recommends penalties, to be sure. Some past presidents of the N.C. Bar Association would be appropriate reviewers.

Sorry, you’d be wrong. Republicans in the General Assembly apparently could care less what those who are invested in the legal system for their careers think. Last year, they approved and Gov. Pat McCrory signed a change in North Carolina law that basically pulls down the curtain on disciplinary proceedings involving judges.

This is bad law courtesy in part of Republican Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam of Apex, who’s a lawyer and ought to know better. Stam declined to comment on the new law in a recent N&O report. He said at the time of its passage last August that the bill moves the authority to discipline of judges to the Supreme Court. Previously investigations involving Supreme Court members were settled by senior members of a lower court, the N.C. Court of Appeals.

“Why should we let a lower court discipline the Supreme Court? That’s why we call it ‘supreme,’ ” Stam said.

A problem with the changes is that the public cannot see the judicial discipline process until the final stage where the Supreme Court approves a punishment. And the process as it existed was fair and supported by those in the highest levels of the system. Some 30 past presidents of the state Bar Association, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Sarah Parker and the chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission, Judge John Martin, all opposed the change making the process secretive.

The North Carolina Bar Association so adamantly opposed the bill that it asked for a veto for the first time in its history.

The previous disciplinary process provided protections and confidentiality for judges who were the subject of a complaint until the standards commission determined evidence was sufficient to warrant punishment. Then the charges would be made public. That delayed disclosure was as it should be. Given the power in their positions, judges could indeed be targets of disgruntled defendants who would file baseless complaints in an attempt to damage a judge’s reputation. The system thus tried to ensure that only when a responsible oversight group determined that charges were valid would the public be able to see them.

In this week, called “Sunshine Week,” newspapers and other media are stressing the need for open government, for the business of the people to be conducted in public. It is also important to note that public records and open meetings laws aren’t just for the benefit of the media. Many times, individuals have a reason to seek public records or to attend meetings of government committees.

Providing that access makes some appointed and elected officials uncomfortable. That’s just too bad. If they are not comfortable with the public part of holding public office, then they have the option of not seeking office, or turning down an appointment.

In the case of the judiciary, protections to a point are warranted. And they existed in the law. But now more curtains have dropped.

Openness is fundamental to democracy, and one of its strengths. But it North Carolina, it appears some lawmakers are afraid of it. But they don’t wish to explain why.


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/21/3720154/make-judiciary-discipline-process.html#storylink=cpy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Jose L. Lopez Sr.: Charges of racism in Durham Police Department absolutely false
March 21, 2014

In the last few months, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, the NAACP and Fostering Alternatives to Drug Enforcement have made allegations that the Durham Police Department discriminates in its policing activities, with the most recent one alleging illegal payments to informants based on convictions.

This is absolutely false. Because payments to confidential informants, a common practice in law enforcement, varies from agency to agency, we do wish to ensure we’re using best law enforcement practices and will be reviewing our procedures with the District Attorney’s office. The Durham Police Department does not pay for results-based testimony.

Three key factors, along with community input, determine how and where we police.

• Data – The Durham Police Department has a highly trained and experienced Crime Analysis Unit that focuses on “hot spots” or high crime areas. The district commanders, using best practices, will then deploy extra patrols and proactive techniques to try and deal with criminal activity and quality of life issues in these areas.

• Victimization – The Durham Police Department’s top priority is to the victims of crime. We use information provided by victims to develop and investigate suspects. We agree that while arrest information of suspects shows a disparity, it also overwhelmingly mirrors the race of the perpetrators provided by victims. Extensive research by the Durham Police Department clearly shows a disparity in victimization with people of color overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of crime, particularly violent crime. This information has been ignored by the groups making allegations of racism.

• Where the investigation leads – Leads developed in criminal investigations can often point to additional suspects and witnesses. This goes to the heart of the informant issue. When an informant tells an investigator that he knows who is selling drugs, we follow up and investigate the crime, based on the evidence and suspect information provided. We never make investigative decisions in narcotics investigations based on the race of a possible suspect. Other than when a description is provided by a victim, race is never a factor in determining how and where we police.

A city of Durham resident satisfaction survey released last month had an overall very positive response toward the police and how safe residents feel in their communities. These factors show a clear picture of a police department that, although not perfect, is not the racist, unprofessional organization that the Southern Coalition and FADE have portrayed us to be.

Finally, your March 15 editorial “ Deals in Durham” suggested that an independent investigation of the Durham Police Department may be needed concerning the informant payments and all the other allegations already discussed. We welcome any governmental agency that wants to inquire about our practices and policies; we are ready to cooperate in any way we can.

The continuing decrease in crime can occur only in a trusting relationship between the community and its police department. We will continue to build on that trust and ensure a safer Durham.

Jose L. Lopez Sr.
Chief, Durham Police Department
Durham

The length limit was waived for a fuller response to the editorial.


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/21/3721745/jose-l-lopez-sr-charges-of-racism.html#storylink=cpy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/48-2014/3264-unc-challenged-for-smearing-athlete-literacy-whistleblower


UNC Challenged for Smearing Athlete-Literacy Whistleblower
Print
by Dylan Blaylock on March 21, 2014 ( The Whistleblogger / 2014 )

basketball_1Today, March 21, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) is releasing its March 6 letter sent to University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Chancellor Carol Folt regarding university officials' efforts to smear whistleblower Mary Willingham. A literacy specialist, Willingham disclosed that many past UNC-CH student-athletes could not read at a third-grade level.

Folt has not responded to GAP's letter. Update (3/21/14, 6:30 pm): After the Associated Press published a story on the GAP letter earlier today, a UNC-CH official has responded to GAP for the first time. See below for more information.

In January, a CNN report showcased Willingham's research, which revealed that an estimated 8-10 percent of UNC-CH revenue-sport student athletes from 2004-12 read below a third-grade level and that some were functionally illiterate. GAP's letter describes the retaliation Willingham faced following the CNN story.

"UNC is failing 'Whistleblowing 101'," stated GAP President Louis Clark earlier today. Clark is a founder of GAP – the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization – and has been involved in protecting whistleblowers for the last 36 years. "School officials' reaction to this whistleblower – who exposed a major academic scandal at the school a few years earlier – is disgraceful, morally wrong and legally questionable."

Willingham is the whistleblower who exposed the "paper-class" scandal at the university. Media reports show Folt, on behalf of the school, recently accepted responsibility for that scandal, asserting that UNC-CH should be held "absolutely" accountable for allowing it to occur.

"While I applaud Folt for her leadership in admitting the school's culpability and striving for accountability with regard to the 'paper-class' scandal, the conduct of UNC-CH officials toward Willingham does not conform to the Chancellor's assertions of school responsibility," stated Clark today.

The letter is available here.

Specifically, GAP's letter focuses on instances of misconduct by school officials intent on retaliating against Willingham. These include:

The day after the CNN report was published, UNC-CH distributed a problematic and erroneous official statement that challenged Willingham's honesty or competence, obfuscated her allegations, and relayed incorrect information (proven so by a follow-up media report). In reference to the university's statement, Clark writes that "the school's official reaction to negative publicity from Willingham's disclosure was to contest the findings without having a basis to do so and attempt to personally discredit her by making prejudicial, misleading and/or inaccurate statements to the media ... This conduct has a chilling effect that will dissuade other potential witnesses from coming forward."
Later in January, according to media reports, a UNC-CH faculty meeting took place at which Vice Chancellor & Provost Jim Dean stated "Using this data set to say that our students can't read is a travesty and unworthy of this university." Further, an official UNC-CH news release distributed on the day of the meeting states, in the opening paragraph, that Chancellor Folt and Vice Chancellor Dean "shared facts that laid out a range of serious mistakes made by Willingham." Subsequent media reports (Bloomberg Businessweek, News & Observer) show that UNC-CH faculty attending the meeting were troubled by the discussion. States Clark in the letter, "the negative effect on those UNC-CH employees who would consider providing information or insight into the matters at hand or reporting future wrongdoing is immeasurable."
Vice Chancellor Dean's negative public remarks about the matter have been labeled by independent journalists as "a gross distortion of Willingham's statements." In his letter to Folt, Clark writes, "Consequently, his false and explosive comments can have long-lasting and damaging effects on transparency within the university and on Willingham's personal and professional standing. It is simply unacceptable for a person in a position of such authority to make disparaging comments about an employee who has raised legitimate and important concerns about the education of student-athletes."

Weeks after the actions commenced, GAP inquired to the UNC-CH Office of University Counsel and the UNC General Counsel's Office about the school's whistleblower protection policy. Essentially, UNC-CH's policy relies nearly verbatim on the North Carolina state employee whistleblower protection policy, which also affects Willingham as a state employee. The UNC-CH policy states school employees should be "free of intimidation or harassment" when blowing the whistle.

The letter concludes with two requests of Folt. First, given the Chancellor's previous pledge to investigate "all the claims being made" regarding Willingham's allegations, Clark urged that she "publicly address whether a separate investigation into [actions against Willingham] will be launched, so as to determine whether intimidation or harassment has occurred against Willingham."

Second, the letter requests that "the school release information about the third-party independent board that is investigating Willingham's claims," so that the panel's independence can be verified. The panel was alluded to in the school's statement on the day of the January faculty meeting, and mentioned by school officials in various media reports since. However, little information is publicly known about it.

Copies of GAP's letter were also received (two weeks ago) by UNC President Thomas W. Ross and UNC Board of Governors Chair Peter Hans. They have not responded.

Update (3/21/14, 6:30 pm): After the Associated Press published a story on the GAP letter earlier today, a UNC official has responded to GAP for the first time. Unfortunately, the response from UNC-CH Vice Chancellor for Communications and Public Affairs Joel Curran overwhelmingly fails to address the concerns raised by GAP President Louis Clark in his letter. Curran's email, and Clark's response, can be found here.



Dylan Blaylock is Communications Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dailyadvance.com/opinion/other-views/scott-mooneyham-ross-fails-grasp-problem-heart-athletics-dilemma-2424632

Scott Mooneyham: Ross fails to grasp problem at heart of athletics dilemma
Thursday, March 20, 2014

RALEIGH — After four years of athletics-related scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC system president Tom Ross ought to have a firm grasp on the problems faced by academic institutions navigating the treacherous waters of big-time college athletics.

Listening to some of his recent comments, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Ross recently participated in talks with the Knight Commission, a group formed in 1989 to try to stem some of the excesses in college athletics, as it met in Miami.

Upon his return, Ross told WRAL-TV in Raleigh that an idea he put forward is to reduce the academic course load of entering athletes during their freshman year.

It’s a proposal that appears to contradict the commission’s own statement of principles, which includes language that colleges offer academic experiences to athletes that are “as close as possible to the academic experiences of their classmates.”

The idea would also turn on its head one of the key college athletics reforms of the 20th century, the restrictions on athletics eligibility for freshmen to try to allow athletes to acclimate themselves to college before they began competing.

That reform was tossed out in the early 1970s. Ever since, universities have been on a head-long rush to turn their athletes in quasi-professionals, minus the professional compensation.

Ross’ idea would accelerate that push.

It would also put universities on some pretty shaky legal ground.

What Ross fails to acknowledge is that college athletics, in its current form, can only be justified if athletes are being provided real degrees and legitimate educations.

In his comments, he discussed existing reforms that have resulted in more athletes graduating from college.

What Ross didn’t discuss is how college athletics alleged governing body, the NCAA, dropped eligibility standards for entering freshmen in 2003, including eliminating a requirement that they have a composite SAT score of 820 or ACT of 17.

Meanwhile, the Knight Commission’s own reform, to tie post-season athletics participation to graduation rates, may be inadvertently leading to grade inflation or outright academic fraud like that seen at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The implication of criticism like that coming from UNC-Chapel Hill learning specialist Mary Willingham — that some athletes are being admitted who can barely read, who are incapable of college work, who have sub-800 SATs — is that these athletes are nothing more than uncompensated professionals.

The bargain of college athletics only works if the education being provided to revenue-sport athletes is real and actually worth something to them.

Otherwise, universities, as nonprofits without anti-trust exemptions, are doing nothing more than illegally operating professional sports franchises.

That is exactly the charge in pending lawsuits brought by former athletes.

To advocate a supposed remedy that makes further distinctions between athletes and non-athletes on campus, and would delay those athletes’ education, shows a profound lack of understanding of the quaking ground on which college athletics stands.

A UNC system president can and should do better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.heraldsun.com/business/x2025290048/Alleged-false-claim-filings-to-cost-Duke-1M

Alleged false claim filings to cost Duke $1M
Mar. 21, 2014 @ 08:43 PM
Wes Platt

Duke University Health System has agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations that it made false claims to federal health care programs.

The settlement was announced Friday by Thomas G. Walker, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Resolution of the case doesn’t determine liability, but instead leaves the claims classified as allegations.

The allegations were raised by a whistleblower lawsuit, filed by former employee Leslie Johnson. She worked for Duke’s Patient Revenue Management Organization, which provided billing, collection and administrative services to the health system.
In her suit, Johnson accused the nonprofit corporation that operates Duke University Hospital, Duke Regional Hospital and Duke Raleigh Hospital of making false claims to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE. She also alleged that the system billed the government for services provided by physician assistants during coronary artery bypass surgeries when the PA’s acted as surgical assistants, which isn’t allowed under government regulations. Further, she alleged that the system increased billing by unbundling claims, specifically in connection with cardiac and anesthesia services.

“Allegations of health care fraud will be zealously pursued in North Carolina,” Walker said in a statement Friday. “We encourage our citizens to report potential health care fraud to the appropriate authorities. Duke University Health System was forthcoming with the information, and was cooperative in the investigation and resolution.”

Cooper indicated in a statement that his office is working with federal officials to make sure violators pay for such missteps.
“Health care fraud like this wastes tax dollars, harms patients who need care and drives up medical costs for all of us,” he said.
In a statement released late Friday, Duke denied that it intended to submit inaccurate claims, violating the False Claims Act.

“For settlement purposes only, we have agreed to pay back the Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs payments received over a six-year period for claims that resulted from an undetected software problem and through possible misapplication of certain technical billing requirements,” said Doug Stokke, vice president of marketing and communications for Duke Medicine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
New DNA evidence, the attorneys say, points to a career criminal known to be associated with The New York Boys, a gang of drug dealers who were in Durham in the 1990s.


I'm going to raise this issue every time it arises: how does DNA exonerate you? Just because your DNA is not
found, and that of someone else is found, does that make you innocent? Since when is DNA a reliable indicator
of someone's presence at the scene of a crime?

And especially in Durham?

Is this a new conclusion (new since 2006-7)?

Is this a new conclusion for the Innocence Project?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply