Re,cE.\\IE.0 GOVERNMENT ...1>.ai\'l \)11\l~fu\ WHISTLEBLOWER.ORG ACCOUNTABIL/ l\1'" e_tl"I' 1612 KStreet,NW,Suite#llOO PRQ.~i;;:.T. . p~1~S\0 Washington, DC 20006 .~JQJJ!i.~.~-- .. \CE. Of . ·..·•. (202) 457-0034 I info@whistleblower.org """'""""""""'-='""'.:=~;;;_;\l~~~~~""":.;ilo ~;' MAy 1 3 1M4 May 6, 2014 Dear President Ross: I write today as a follow-up to my March 6 letter' addressed to University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Chancellor Carol Folt. You and UNC Board of Govetnbts Chair Peter Hans were copied on that letter. Two weeks after I sent my letter, and only after it received media attention, UNC-CH Vice Chancellor of Communications and Public Affairs Joel Curran responded to it2 and a subsequent email. 3 His responses were woefully inadequate 01nd failed to address my primary concerns. Although there was no formal obligation to answer my correspondence, I do think it ill-advised to ignore or refuse to directly address the concerns that I identified. Consequently, and because of Folt's complete silence, I am directing this query to you in the hope that you will make clear UNC's position on these issties. In particular, I am greatly disturbed by what seems to be the continued mistreatment, harassment, and retaliation inflicted .upon whistleblower and UNC-CH learning specialist Mary Willingham. UNC-CH's Lack of Response to Initial Inquiries For your review, my correspondence with Folt and Curran can be found at the links in the footnotes of this letter. Despite Curran's assertions that UNC-CH is "committed to accountability across campus" and that the school "will be as transparent as possible in [its] processes," he repeatedly declined to comment on: A.) Whether Chancellor Folt would publicly address whether an investigation will be launched into UNC-CH officials' actions to determine whether such actions constitute intimidation or harassment against Willingham. B.) Whether independent counsel Kenneth L Wainstein will specifically be investigating the 4 treatment of and actions taken against Willingham since the CNN piece on student-athlete literacy levels was published on January 7, 2014. There is confusion about this point because of conflicting information from UNC-CH officials. The school's announcement on February 21 5 (referenced in my initial letter) indicated that the scope of Wainstein's work is confined to the "paper-class" scandal. But a CNN piece from March 22 6 states that Wainstein "may or may not look into alleged violations of the whistleblower law involving Willingham, according to {Curran and UNC-CH Spokeswoman Karen Moon]." [emphasis added] More http'.//bit.ly/lqdxlno http://bit.ly/QdYyJC 'http://bit.ly/1sN6yQP 1 CNN, 1/7/14, CNN Analysis: Some College Athletes Play Like Adults, Read Like 5th-Graders, http://cnn.it/K3hsij 1 2 s http:// u ncnews. u nc.edu /2014 / 0 2 /21 / i ndependent-counsel-cond uct-inq uil-y-infor1nation-academ i ci rregulariti es/ 6 CNN, 3/22/14, UNC Probe Urged Over Public Attacks on Whist/eblower, http://cnn.it/RbGvE8 1 recently, an April 15 Associated Press article' reported on the meeting of the two and qualified Wainstein as "looking into academic fraud at the school." More ambiguity is evidenced by an April 22 Fayetteville Observer masthead editoria1 8 stating "it's not clear the illiteracy claims are within the scope of his inquiry." Please make clear for the public record whether Wainstein has been directed to investigate actions taken against Willingham since January 7. Conversely, is the scope of his work purely confined to looking at the "paper-class" scandal and subsequent fallout from that? To be 9 clear, I am aware of the "Carolina Commitment" website that UNC-CH recently published. The website fails to relay this information, as under the FAQ page, in an answer related to the "scope" of Wainstein's inquiry, he is to take "any further steps necessary to address questions left unanswered during previous reviews." But these previous reviews relate to the "paper-class" scandal, not the retaliation Willingham has experienced since the literacy disclosures involving CNN. While school officials are quick to say Wainstein and his associates operate independently, the FAQ page also specifically notes that school officials can instruct him, as "Chancellor Folt and President Ross have directed Mr. Wainstein to ask the tough questions and follow the facts." C.) How members of the "independent panel" commissioned by UNC-CH to analyze Willingham's data were selected and how their independence was guaranteed. As answers to this final question have been superseded by the university's release of its commissioned analyses, I discuss this point in the next section of this letter. Further Acts Against Willingham Multiple actions taken by UNC-CH officials against Willingham since my letter of March 6 are troubling. First, the March 27 presentation before the \JNC-CH Board of Trustees, entitled "A Day in the Life of a Student Athlete" that involved Chancellor Folt and UNC-CH Athletics Director Bubba Cunningham, seemed deceptive. By showcasing both non-revenue-sport student-athletes and select revenue-sport student-athletes, the school continues to cloud the issue, a tactic that is a true disservice to public discourse and transparency. I covered this type of imprecise and damaging statistical misrepresentation in my first letter. Willingham's key assertion in the CNN piece, which I continue to focus on, is that approximately 8-10 percent of past student-athletes (2004-12) who participated in revenue-sports read below a third-grade level, and some that Willingham interacted with are functionally illiterate. Combating her allegations with cherry-picked current nonrevenuesport athletes is a disingenuous action that failed to address her concerns. I would also like to point out several glaring shortcomings with the production and release of the three reports made public on April 11 by the school's commissioned academic panel. That day, a 10 message posted to the Carolina Commitment webpage from Provost Dean , whose office produced the joint executive summary of the three reports, stated that: Associated Press, 4/15/14, UNC Investigator Meets with Willingham, http://bit.ly/lnQcE23 Observer, 4/22/14, Our View: Whistleb/ower Gone; UNC Officials Not Of/the Hook http://bit.ly/PXFY8b 9 http:/ /carolinacommitment.unc.edu/ 10 http:/ /carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/message-from-provost-james-w-dean-jr/ 7 B Fayetteville 2 Outside experts examined the data and found no evidence to support the literacy claims that have been widely reported in news media accounts and via social media. I was immediately troubled to see that the office of Provost Dean was involved in writing the Executive Summary. Dean has been previously criticized by independent journalists and others for his actions specifically in regard to retaliation against Willingham. Please see my March 6 letter for some of these eye-raising incidents, including his assertion that Willingham lies (only to retract the statement when pressed) and his January 17 presentation with Folt lambasting Willingham and her data - calling it a "travesty" - before commissioning outside experts. That particular action was nothing but prejudicial propaganda. Not surprisingly, the reports did not suggest the findings were as cut-and-dry as the Provost's office led the public to believe. The announcement that the experts examined "the data" was a shocking mischaracterization of what was analyzed. They apparently only reviewed some related data. Almost immediately, news articles about the reports raised questions: 1. On April 11, CNN reported 11 that commissioned author "Lee Alan Branum-Martin ... said he was not given enough data to answer many of the questions posed about the reading levels of those tested." 2. On April 14, Bloomberg Businessweek's Paul Barrett" stated that "Willingham told me her work included a writing test as well as the vocabulary questions assessed by the outside experts. And her evaluation incorporated athletes' SAT and ACT entrance exams, she said. As best I can tell, UNC's hired experts weren't asked to look at till the information on which Willingham based her conclusions. Why not? And why didn't they interview her to try to get to the bottom of the confusion?" [emphasis added] 3. On April 11, Provost Dean told the Raleigh News & Observer13 that he "didn't give the experts the athletes' tests because Willingham said her findings were based on the data." But the same article states that: "Willingham said she based her findings an the Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults, as well as ACT and SAT scores and her experiences tutoring the students. One of the experts reported Friday that it is possible to determine a reading-grade level with that combination of information." [emphasis added] The News & Observer, after reporting on the findings, went on to state: "But the three also cited a paucity of information about the athletes' reading abilities that did not allow for a clear determination of how well they performed. BranumMartin said the lack of data caused him to recommend that 'UNC build a full database of all athlete test scores ... in order to ensure appropriate allocation of CNN, 4/11/14, UNC: Experts Find F/a(;;s in Whistleblower's Findings on Literacy, http://cnn.it/1pWQRrt Bloomberg Businessweek, 4/14/14, UNC Presses Attack on Whistle-blower in Fake Classes Scandal, http://buswk.co/1 oad54C 13 Raleigh News & Observer, 4/11/14, UNC Says Review ofWi/lingham's Research Doesn't Support her Claims on Athletes, http://bit.ly/1iHfioQ 11 12 3 services to student skills as well as to evaluate the quality of tests being used."' [emphasis added] Willingham's response to the commissioned reports echoes these very concerns. On April 15, Willingham posted the following to her blog 14 : "To avoid technical discussion and to get right to the heart of the matter, I will simply say that the three outside experts who conducted the "independent" review of my data did not come close to replicating my analysis. They were unable to do so because they were denied access to the full range of test scores {i.e., SAT/ACT scores, SATA raw scores, SATA WM scores, WAIS scores, and DOB) that formed the basis of my critical judgment. "Why didn't we release all available data to the independent investigators? lfwe truly want to be open and honest about the situation, why not turn over all available data? That would at least make possible an independent assessment of the validity of the original claims which the independent investigators said they were not able to do with the data given to them." Willingham was also quoted in articles 15 emphasizing this very point: "I am disappointed that the university neglected to take even the most basic steps to ensure the integrity, impartiality, and fairness of its supposedly 'independent' review of my data. The fact that they engaged in this exercise without ever seeking input from me or my research partner, and without the raw scores, or an examination of the full battery of tests {on a majority of these same athletes) ... speaks volumes about the true motivations behind today's press release. UNC personnel with the knowledge and expertise to verify my claims continue to remain and/or are being forced to remain silent." Therefore, drawing on my previous letter and current reports, legitimate concerns have been raised about the validity of this panel's findings, both prior to and after publication of them. Although I cannot claim to be an expert in educational (or other) statistical interpretation, it strikes me as exceedingly odd and counterintuitive that "independent" investigators did not speak with the whistleblower or several of her associates who had collected different types of data to reach 6 significant conclusions. Even after the commissioned reports were published, a CNN report' relayed that "the psychologist who administered the tests to the student-athletes in Willingham's study said she backs Willingham, and verified that no one at UNC has ever reached out to talk to her about her work." The notion that the school's commissioned report is an "independent" effort designed to competently evaluate the issue is belied by the facts. UNC-CH officials set the parameters, controlled the flow of information to the outside professionals, and posed a very narrow set of questions to be answered - queries that apparently did not require interaction with the 11 http://paperclassinc.com/response-uncs-independent-evaluation-research/ is Bloomberg Businessweek, 4/14/14, UNC Presses Attack on Whistle-blower in Fake Classes Scandal, h ttp://buswk.co/1 oad54C 16 CNN, 4/11/14, UNC: experts Find Flaws in Whistlehlower's Findings on Literacy, http://cnn.it/lpWQRrt 4 whistleblower or her collaborators. Based on my experience working with many different whistleblowers over three decades, such an approach is not a legitimate methodology for investigating a whistleblower's disclosures. Commissions and investigators are supposed to operate independently of the alleged offending organization (UNC-CH), not decline to meet with those who may have evidence of wrongdoing. (Please note that in no way am I suggesting that the three commissioned outside academic professionals acted improperly- the problem with their analyses appear to be the result of UNC-CH's instructions and actions.) It was incumbent upon UNC-CH to ensure the integrity of its investigative process; particularly considering Folt's and Curran's previous pledges of accountability and transparency, the public nature of UNC-CH, and the fact that the Willingham controversy is inherently about transparency. The university's approach in dealing with this panel - first one of secrecy, now one of disingenuousness - is ill advised and counterproductive, both in discovering the truth of the matter and in establishing your school's treatment of whistleblowers. I believe that the actions taken since January 7 - including the framing of the commissioned reports and their media rollout - may constitute further harassment and intimidation of Willingham that could comprise a violation of both school policy and state law. To that end, an independent inquiry needs to address the serious questions about possible intimidation or harassment of Willingham. 17 Finally, I am aware from media reports that Willingham plans to resign her position (or already has), apparently deciding so after having a one-on-one meeting with Folt. Curran told reporters that Folt said "that she had what she felt was a productive meeting." If the whistleblower decided to leave after this meeting, how "productive" could it have possibly been? Alternatively, how does Chancellor Folt define productive? Unless the intention of the meeting was to pressure Willingham into leaving, I do not see how the meeting could be described as such. 18 After the meeting, Willingham stated that she is leaving at least in part because "It's been a hostile work environment the entire year." Allowing her to withdraw from the school, sans any attempt by UNC-CH superiors to entice her to remain in her position, makes it abundantly clear that whistleblowers are not welcome at UNC. The chilling effect of UNC's hostile behavior toward Willingham will last for years and hinder the institution's ability to root out future wrongdoing and take corrective action. As I'm sure you're aware, a recent band of UNC-CH history professors told 19 Folt in a letter that UNC-CH officials' actions have "featured evasion, denial, and the punishment of whistleblowers." I urge you, if you have not yet done so, to invite Willingham to stay. She could prove an essential party if the university chooses to revamp and strengthen its existing whistleblower protection policy and overcome the credibility problems that the school now faces. In my experience, many institutions, when faced with whistleblowing disclosures, have followed a path of denial, mischaracterization, cover-up and retaliation. Involving whistleblowers in a meaningful way is difficult. However, the rewards for doing so can be significant in resolving 11 Raleigh News & Observer, 4/21/J4., UNC Whistle-blower Resigns after Meeting with Chancellor, http://bit.ly/lmljejW 18 CNN, 4/21/14, UNC Athletics Whistle-blower is Leaving: 'It's Been a Hostile Work Environment'. http://cnn.it/Shz2oq 19 http://bit.ly/lnQgCrz 5 problems and enhancing the reputation of the organization. I urge you to lead your university down this more challenging path. I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues raised herein and I am willing to make myself available if you would like to discuss these matters further. Sincerely, President, Government Accountability Project Cc: UNC-CH Chancellor Carol Folt UNC Board of Governors Chair Peter Hans 6