Narrow the scope of a major issue: UNC's PR intent?

     In recent days there has been a sort of "war of words" between a.) a UNC professor who has (for several years) been steadfast in his objection to the school's ongoing athletic/academic scandals, and b.) a UNC learning specialist who has tried to discredit both the professor and another UNC faculty member (who also happens to be a whistleblower of sorts).  The professor is Jay Smith, and the whistleblower, of course, is Mary Willingham -- essentially the only two university faculty members who have consistently spoken out about the scandals that have not only damaged the university's reputation, but also brought into question its morals.

     As has often been the case in recent years, whenever a UNC apologist has spoken up and tried to turn the focus away from the school and/or tried to discredit those who question the university's actions/morals, the focus of his/her argument is much too narrow in scope.  This is a popular Public Relations tactic: draw the public's attention away from the more important and damaging issues.  In this particular case the efforts deal with the wording in emails, the possible intent of Smith and Willingham's continued strong stance, and other "small picture" issues meant to deflect from the big picture: ongoing academic fraud that clearly benefited athletics.

     So the question is this:  what would the apologists latch onto if the BIG PICTURE of all of the university's past questionable practices were ever fully revealed for the nationwide public to peruse, while also allowing those people to come to an unbiased conclusion based on the entirety of those events?  There would be no small nuances of wordings to focus upon, nor bickering emails to parse over and dissect in an effort to look for intent (while deflecting from the main issues at hand), or anything else of such a limited scope.

     The answer to that question may soon rise to the surface.

Willingham, Smith, and Levine stand alone at UNC-CH

                Mary Willingham, Jay Smith, and Madeline Levine.  They are unique in that they are three adults and professionals associated with The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who have actually had the courage to speak out against the athletic/academic fraud that has taken place at the university.  At an institution with over 3,000 faculty members, however, they constitute an extremely small percentage.

                There have been numerous (other) professionals whose pasts are/were interestingly connected to athletics.  These have included academic assistants, support personnel, professors, numerous individuals in committee and/or leadership roles, and even some in administrative positions.  Whether coincidentally or not, many of those with ties to athletics have either been directly connected to portions of the athletic/academic fraud, or else have seemingly missed (or purposely overlooked) instances of impropriety that should have otherwise raised red flags.  In some cases these oversights spanned decades.  Conversely to Willingham, Smith, and Levine, many of these other individuals have chosen to remain mute on the negative issues that have come to light over the past four years.  Some of the names have already shown up in print media; some have not.

                Smith, Willingham, and Levine continue to essentially stand alone.  More information on those who chose silence (and in some cases even misplaced support) over courage, however, will be detailed in the future.  A major announcement regarding the athletic/academic scandals at UNC is now a little over one month away.