Possumblog

The Scandal That Squeaked

How can you tell when the New York Times is wrong about something?

When the original story takes up 3,245 words, and the story reporting the final outcome of the investigation [NYTimes registration required] that was launched by that original story only yields 857 words.

In the end, the University's investigation found that--despite the Times' breathless hopefulness for a rousing athletic scandal at an SEC school (check the title of that first article--"Top Grades and No Class Time for Auburn Players")--the problem lay more with the lax standards for assigning directed study classes.

The University has now released a revised standard for how, when, and to whom directed studies classes may be assigned, and the two professors holding leadership positions within the disputed areas of study have stepped aside and returned to normal teaching duties.

There is still a petulent tawdry little tale in here, however, of academic snittiness by folks who by all rights should know better. The professor who first brought up the allegations of abuse made a point of directly accusing not only a professor, but also the athletic department of wrongdoing, but he now seems to think the University was wrong to concentrate on clearing the athletics department. Or something--here's his quote:

[...] Gundlach said in a telephone interview Thursday evening that the changes were “much more than I expected, to be honest.”

“I expected them to do everything possible to clear athletics,” Gundlach said. “You can see that when this first came out, athletics was their primary concern. With those kinds of policy changes in directed readings, and a change in administrators because they are not maintaining academic integrity, I think are all pretty good things to come out of this.” [...]

Why NOT do everything possible to make sure the athletics program was cleared? THAT'S WHO WAS ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING. That department would be the one most harmed were the charges of "easy grades for athletes" to be accurate. That department would be the one which stood to lose millions of dollars if any sort of NCAA violations took place.

And THAT is why the good professor decided to use the athletics department as a foil to make SURE he got changes made. I am certain he could see from his own data that athletes weren't the only ones to benefit from the poor control over assignment of directed studies, but he knew they would be the only tool to make sure the University did something.

And a sports scandal is the only thing sexy enough to make the New York Times take any notice of anything related to Alabama at all. Because, let's face it, there is no such thing as a scandal when just regular students stumble upon a way to make an easy A, but there IS when it involves big time athletics. If, indeed, it actually did in the first place.

Now, whether using the athletics program as a tool to further his goals was smart on his part, or whether this was driven by a pure desire to hold the Sociology department to the most rigorous academic standards, or whether it was just a crass attempt to embarrass a colleague whom he disliked, I can't say. But for the love of all that's holy, DON'T sit there and act surprised that the university did exactly what you'd hoped they'd do--snap to attention when an allegation of misdeeds by the athletic department were made, and were made in a way guaranteed to cause as much heat as possible by peddling the story to the Times.

The Times allows this to end the article:

[...] Gundlach said he was optimistic that there would be positive changes in academics. He noted a memo sent to professors insisting that they provide rigor in their regular courses.

“I think we’re going to see a noticeable change in the academic climate at Auburn,” Gundlach said. “I think we’ll see a lot more students on study dates then [sic--or, at least I think it is... Ed.] drinking dates.”

Yes, now there will be no more drunken debauchery upon the Plains. Not that I don't think it's a noble goal--I happen to believe life for everyone would be a lot better if folks didn't dip into the booze vat. And further, I think the vast majority of directed study classes ARE a crock, and I wouldn't have my feelings hurt if they were done away with completely. But I think the good professor might be indulging in a bit of self-serving wishful thinking here. Just a smidge.

Anyway, as things move forward from here, let's remember one thing: sociology isn't exactly up there with aerospace engineering when it comes to the amount of mental rigor required to be successful at it.

Or as my good friend Dan Rather might say, "Just because you saw a dancing chicken at the state fair doesn't mean Fred Astaire could lay eggs."

Posted by Terry Oglesby at August 11, 2006 09:58 AM