www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/0...t-we-could.html


I believe he he had enough of BS from pecker-head pride, Jay Smith, and the N$$$O

OUCH........go Jim...

Good for him!!!! He has obliviously had enough of his reputation being run thru the mud by people with questionable intentions.

To avoid more hits for that Rag, below is the full text of the article:

A football scandal in 2010 led to the first evidence of anomalous courses in the African and Afro-American Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. An internal review found 54 courses that were approved and listed as lecture courses but did not meet and required only a single term paper for credit and high grades.

With support from the Baker Tilly firm, I was asked to investigate when this unethical practice began, whether other departments had engaged in similar abuses and who was involved. We answered all of those questions and more.
We found no evidence that anyone else in Afri/Afam or any other department was culpable and that the practice began in 1997, a few months after Afri/Afam studies received full departmental status. These were important findings and revealed the nature of an extensive but isolated academic fraud. Many critics object that we did not accuse football and basketball coaches and did not find any money trail implicating boosters or NFL agents, as was widely assumed.

We dug into that as far as our power allowed and reported what we found. If money was a motive, the District Attorney can find it.

Immediately, there was outrage over the fact that no evidence implicated anyone other than former Department Chair Julius Nyang’oro and administrator Deborah Crowder in creating and offering these phantom courses.

Your Dec. 21 editorial lamented that our review did not go deeper. Specifically, you complained that we did not interview Nyang’oro or Crowder. Neither did your excellent reporters. Neither you nor we had the power to compel anyone to talk, and we assumed they had legal advice against it.

Leading up to our report and immediately afterward, you issued demands that we examine term papers for plagiarism. What term papers? None is retained beyond a year.

I assumed that your conclusion was correct: that extensive plagiarism was likely. I commented that it was likely that not all of the hundreds of term papers submitted in these courses were actually read for the grades posted. We could not proofread papers that no longer exist.
________________________________________
On Dec. 23, you published a Point of View piece from history Professor Jay Smith. We did interview him for an hour. He provided an extensive array of leads, and we looked into each point. For some, we found solid supporting evidence, and they are in our report. Others could not be corroborated. We were tasked to find evidence, not compile a list of imagined grievances.

Moreover, Smith offered to provide witnesses, but they never came forward to support his accusations. Now he complains that we did not return for a second interview, but my judgment was that he was not a useful source. Smith now says that he could have explained the changes in independent studies enrollments because he was associate dean for undergraduate curricula between 2004 and 2008. Ironically, those were the years when a dramatic increase in “term paper courses” erupted to levels far greater than before or since.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have asked why he was oblivious to the anomalous courses in Afri/Afam during his term of responsibility for the undergraduate curriculum. That would have had some bearing on why too many academic officials seemed to look the other way, in what was clearly an academic scandal.

You have objected to our finding that leaders of the Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) raised questions with the Faculty Athletic Committee in April 2002 regarding the various forms of independent studies in seven departments, including Afri/Afam. They say they were told “the faculty have wide latitude how to teach their courses.”

In checking this, you found three members of the committee who deny this was presented, only one of whom was present in April 2002. While discrediting testimony on behalf of ASPSA as self-serving, you need similar skepticism about motives of the accusers. The minutes of that meeting clearly state that this subject was discussed, and there is an appended “Report on Independent Studies.” For our part, we relied on this and four witnesses who were there and affirmed it happened, plus a later conversation with a participant who did not deny it.

We found answers to the issues we were asked to investigate. We also pursued many other issues that were brought to our attention. Lacking police power, we had to rely on those who were willing to be interviewed. With the exception of a few previously indicated, we received full cooperation from all we contacted and a number who contacted us.
What we found and reported was true and fair to all concerned. It is always possible that some truths could not be discovered because of the limitations of our authority.

-Jim Martin, Former governor

John Dresher just got smacked in the face by a 2x4 with Jim Martins name on it. Martin called out the N&O, it's reporters and disgruntled UNC employees who are full of accusations but no evidence.

I'm just shocked John had the intestinal fortitude to actually print facts that show his incredible lack of journalistic integrity or ability in his own paper.

John, be a man and wear that black eye out in public.

since the academic portion of our problrms came to light two years ago I have been unable to even smile while thinking about it...

but Jim Martin's letter actually made me laugh for the first time...

so there really are ABCers who are so incredibly stupid that they believed this academic investigation was going to turm up a money trail from agents after the NCAA and UNC had already been all over it?

how does someone like this co-ordinate walking and breathing at the same time?

Martin clearly referred to these people and their lunatic complaints to show how absurd his detractors actually are...

good for the N&O to learn what sort of company they are keeping, as if they didn't already know...

---------------------------------------------
--- MojaveHeel wrote:

since the academic portion of our problrms came to light two years ago I have been unable to even smile while thinking about it...

but Jim Martin's letter actually made me laugh for the first time...

so there really are ABCers who are so incredibly stupid that they believed this academic investigation was going to turm up a money trail from agents after the NCAA and UNC had already been all over it?

how does someone like this co-ordinate walking and breathing at the same time?

Martin clearly referred to these people and their lunatic complaints to show how absurd his detractors actually are...

good for the N&O to learn what sort of company they are keeping, as if they didn't already know...

---------------------------------------------

Mojave, much love for that post!

Just makes the N&O look like the desparate and dying newspaper that it is.

I sincerely believe that the journalists who work for the NANDO are dumber that the West Raleigh dolts that consume their drivel.

That is saying a lot.

N&O just got busted

Shadow:

glad if I could do for you what Jim Martin did for me...

since his report I am starting to feel for the first time we can put this behind us...

now if that loser of a governor in PA would just get himself abducted by aliens, my day would be complete...

---------------------------------------------
--- todmax wrote:


Your Dec. 21 editorial lamented that our review did not go deeper. Specifically, you complained that we did not interview Nyang’oro or Crowder. Neither did your excellent reporters.
---------------------------------------------

BAM!

"We were tasked to find evidence, not compile a list of imagined grievances."

*snicker*

---------------------------------------------
--- RoyIsTheBest wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- todmax wrote:


Your Dec. 21 editorial lamented that our review did not go deeper. Specifically, you complained that we did not interview Nyang’oro or Crowder. Neither did your excellent reporters.
---------------------------------------------

BAM!

---------------------------------------------

Now, that's funny.

The Governer doesn't have to take this shyt. Good for him.

---------------------------------------------
--- relapsing wrote:

"We were tasked to find evidence, not compile a list of imagined grievances."

*snicker*

---------------------------------------------

LMAO

---------------------------------------------
--- relapsing wrote:

"We were tasked to find evidence, not compile a list of imagined grievances."

*snicker*

---------------------------------------------

Kick in the nuts to packpride and DDK!!!

Thank you Governor Martin for having the cajones to say to media members what our Chancellor will not say.

Never did I think that it would be someone like Martin, to actually take a stand.

This response by Martin is simply awesome. The N&O just got b***h slapped and the witch hunt is now apparent for all to see.

Is it the chemtrails which are making a significant percentage of the population so averse to facts these days? Or maybe those folks are just susceptible to a Mayan calendar flu, if so, they can be assured the cure will be along in approximately 26,500 years.

---------------------------------------------
--- Jason113 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- relapsing wrote:

"We were tasked to find evidence, not compile a list of imagined grievances."

*snicker*

---------------------------------------------

LMAO

---------------------------------------------

we should all repeat that as often as possible.

Those fools at the N&O spent the last 2+ years furiously trying to hang UNC and instead wound up with the noose around their necks. Governor Martin just kicked the box they were standing on out from under them.

Wish Jim Martin was our chancellor.

Gov Martin also blew the fulcrum out of Kane's hit pieces:

Moreover, Smith (History professor Jay Smith) offered to provide witnesses, but they never came forward to support his accusations. Now he complains that we did not return for a second interview, but my judgment was that he was not a useful source. Smith now says that he could have explained the changes in independent studies enrollments because he was associate dean for undergraduate curricula between 2004 and 2008. Ironically, those were the years when a dramatic increase in “term paper courses” erupted to levels far greater than before or since.

Dan this what happens when you use facts instead of conjecture. You just got slapped very hard by a real man.

Professor, better to keep you mouth shut and let people think your a fool, rather that open your mouth and remove all doubt...

---------------------------------------------
--- unosee wrote:

Wish Jim Martin was our chancellor.

---------------------------------------------

That would be interesting.

if you peel back the layers of the onion on this...

you know Martin would have said he found fraud, if he had...

moreover, he had an independent firm with a national reputation there to confirm each and every step he took...

in the end it means the ABCers are trying to give him grief for telling the truth...

and all they can point to is a disgruntled employee under whose watch the problems were, arguably, getting worse...

but they still refuse to accept the obvious...

not hard to understand why an independent thought would die of loneliness in an ABCers brain...

It is fairly unusual for a public official to respond the way Gov. Martin did in this case. It is a testament to the outrageously slanted editorializing by Dan Kane that Martin, who is more than used to the typical headline seeking reportage of the news media(right and left, nature of the game) did so so vehemently. The N&O really looks bad here.

N&O reporters were "stage 5 clingers" to this story, and Jim Martin in an ever so eloquent and polite manner drop-kicked their tails off the map with his response. Kudos to Martin for not taking their crap.

N&O headline from last month: "Meeting minutes don't confirm Martin report in UNC academic fraud scandal"

Martin's response: "In checking this, you found three members of the committee who deny this was presented, only one of whom was present in April 2002. . . . The minutes of that meeting clearly state that this subject was discussed, and there is an appended 'Report on Independent Studies.' For our part, we relied on this and four witnesses who were there and affirmed it happened . . . ."


The only question is whether the N&O is biased and unethical or grossly incompetent.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

N&O headline from last month: "Meeting minutes don't confirm Martin report in UNC academic fraud scandal"

Martin's response: "In checking this, you found three members of the committee who deny this was presented, only one of whom was present in April 2002. . . . The minutes of that meeting clearly state that this subject was discussed, and there is an appended 'Report on Independent Studies.' For our part, we relied on this and four witnesses who were there and affirmed it happened . . . ."


The only question is whether the N&O is biased and unethical or grossly incompetent.

---------------------------------------------

(e) all of the above?

No Mcauley, we must remember we're dealing with aggreived woofies. They feel slighted and insignificant, and as we all know, slandering Carolina is more important to those tools than their own school.

---------------------------------------------
--- McauleyStreet wrote:

Is it the chemtrails which are making a significant percentage of the population so averse to facts these days? Or maybe those folks are just susceptible to a Mayan calendar flu, if so, they can be assured the cure will be along in approximately 26,500 years.

---------------------------------------------

Thank you, Governor Martin.

DK's stoolie just got outed. This phenomena also what happens when law enforcement relies on a jailhouse stoolie. JS had an agenda all along and DK was willing to ignore that agenda to get his initial piece. However, under the pressure of cross examination, the stoolie's story falls apart, and the jury decides that his story is not credible, so it is discounted for the most part. "JS offered to provide witnesses (to support his accusations)." My question is......why didn't he? He didn't need a second interview for this. Just write their names, addresses and telephone contact information down, along with a summary of their information. Simple. At the bottom, any additional information that you feel extends your previous statement. Then, take it to a notary, sign it, and make your statement an affidavit. Congressmen do this all the time, called "revised and extended" remarks for the Congressional Record. The only difference......immunity. JS would be liable for his slander.....congressmen are not.

Professor Smith, it's not too late. Simply prepare an affidavit, sign it. Submit it to DK, and he will publish it, if he can get a confirmation. You, sir, are a coward.

---------------------------------------------
--- kirksdad66 wrote:

Gov Martin also blew the fulcrum out of Kane's hit pieces:

Moreover, Smith (History professor Jay Smith) offered to provide witnesses, but they never came forward to support his accusations. Now he complains that we did not return for a second interview, but my judgment was that he was not a useful source. Smith now says that he could have explained the changes in independent studies enrollments because he was associate dean for undergraduate curricula between 2004 and 2008. Ironically, those were the years when a dramatic increase in “term paper courses” erupted to levels far greater than before or since.

Dan this what happens when you use facts instead on conjecture. You just got slapped very hard by a real man.

Professor, better to keep you mouth shut and let people think your a fool, rather that open your mouth and remove all doubt...

---------------------------------------------

Isn't this what we always knew anyway. Kane and Drescher have never been interested in the truth and as far as the agdogs are concerned, they wouldn't know the truth if it took a crap on their heads.

This has never been about getting to the truth. This has been about a group of individuals (Drescher, Kane, Riley and Curliss) with little to no journalistic integrity, creating and milking a story for personal gain with absolutely no regard to those they damage in the process.

I hope that Carolina people make living in this area pure hell for these pieces of crap and that someday, people see them for what they truly are.

The next time they try to spin and manipulate a story to suit their own interests with personal gain as their primary motive, it might be about one of us, or a member of our family. This type of obvious character assassination could happen to anyone on this board or anywhere else for that matter. These are despicable people and should be treated as such.

Anyone that DOES NOT take everything that is printed in this low class rag with a HUGE grain of salt should check their brains at the door. This is not an entity that can be trusted.

--- Carolina2009 wrote:

N&O headline from last month: "Meeting minutes don't confirm Martin report in UNC academic fraud scandal"

Martin's response: "In checking this, you found three members of the committee who deny this was presented, only one of whom was present in April 2002. . . . The minutes of that meeting clearly state that this subject was discussed, and there is an appended 'Report on Independent Studies.' For our part, we relied on this and four witnesses who were there and affirmed it happened . . . ."


The only question is whether the N&O is biased and unethical or grossly incompetent.

-------------------------------------------------- --------------
Now why would Kane and by default, the N&O, have failed to mention that little nugget in their piece. After all, they're after the truth aren't they? Or, are they only interested in printing those snippets that support their position while conveniently ignoring those that blow their arguments up. Is this the new standard of journalism that Descher supports and promotes.

If anyone ever needed proof as to what the N&O has been trying to do, this is it. This has been an ongoing assassination attempt by the N&O. There is simply NO other way to describe it. Their has been absolutely NO fairness in the way they have handled this and everyone associated should be ashamed.

Let me see if I have this right. Kane finds three people that say they don't recall the discussion taking place and prints that in a column. Martin says that he talked with four people who said it definitely happened the way the discussion is reflected in the minutes.

Now, which part of the story does the N&O go with. Yep, the part that suits their needs.

Guys, why would anyone ever believe anything that comes out of that rag again, about anything. Did Kane lie? No he didn't but did he report all the information, some of which was absolutely pertinent and necessary to present the ENTIRE story? No he did not. He very CONVENIENTLY left a lot out.

Proof positive IMO and an absolute disgrace.

First year J school students at UNC know better. This has been entirely purposeful, not negligent. Their quest for a Pulitzer on the ruins of Carolina failed. Now, all those "journalists" are left to do is strike out in bitterness. Sad for the profession.
---------------------------------------------
--- lightblueblood wrote:

--- Carolina2009 wrote:

N&O headline from last month: "Meeting minutes don't confirm Martin report in UNC academic fraud scandal"

Martin's response: "In checking this, you found three members of the committee who deny this was presented, only one of whom was present in April 2002. . . . The minutes of that meeting clearly state that this subject was discussed, and there is an appended 'Report on Independent Studies.' For our part, we relied on this and four witnesses who were there and affirmed it happened . . . ."


The only question is whether the N&O is biased and unethical or grossly incompetent.

-------------------------------------------------- --------------
Now why would Kane and by default, the N&O, have failed to mention that little nugget in their piece. After all, they're after the truth aren't they? Or, are they only interested in printing those snippets that support their position while conveniently ignoring those that blow their arguments up. Is this the new standard of journalism that Descher supports and promotes.

If anyone ever needed proof as to what the N&O has been trying to do, this is it. This has been an ongoing assassination attempt by the N&O. There is simply NO other way to describe it. Their has been absolutely NO fairness in the way they have handled this and everyone associated should be ashamed.

---------------------------------------------

The agdogs involvement is equally as obvious IMO. You have a school in NCS that is quite frankly an also ran, athletically and academically. They are not viewed by their peers or by a majority of the country as a very impressive school and have done very little to distinguish themselves in either arena.

Their problem is that those associated with the school have convinced themselves that they are some sort of academic powerhouse. This view is not only false but when compared directly to other universities in the surrounding region comes off as a completely ridiculous notion.

The belief that belittling UNC somehow makes them look better may help them sleep at night but the simple truth is that NCS simply does not possess the reputation, prestige or clout that other schools in the area have. That's certainly not the fault of the schools that have surpassed and generally rate higher across the board than they.

People have said for decades that if NCS ever decides to focus on moving their school up the ladder as opposed to spending all their time praying someone above them slips down, they might have something.

As it stands, they seem to have little interest in moving up legitimately and would prefer to rely on childish attacks designed to make them feel better about themselves while the reality is that they are generally considered to be one of the worst schools in the ACC.

That certainly isn't our fault.

You're right about one thing. There are very, very few, outside the cozy confines of the agdog campus, that consider NCS an academic powerhouse. Either there is very little that is "special" about NCS or it's simply a matter of no one else knowing about it.