Death threats and denial for woman who showed college athletes struggle to read

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/us/ncaa-athletes-unc-response/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

(CNN) -- The death threats, Mary Willingham expected.

More shocking is that the University of North Carolina is now disavowing her research as a whistle-blower -- research that showed between 8% and 10% of the school's football and basketball players are reading below a third-grade level.

UNC issued a statement Wednesday night saying it did not believe Willingham's account of a basketball player who could not read or write.

It went on: "University officials can't comment on the other statistical claims mentioned in the story because they have not seen that data. University officials have asked for that data, but those requests have not been met."

As well as questioning UNC many times about the story before publication, CNN has also detailed Willingham's research.

And purported e-mail exchanges obtained by CNN since August show that Willingham did share her findings at least twice -- once with Executive Vice Provost James W. Dean Jr., and once with a member of a university committee on academics and athletics.
In addition, Willingham says her research on the students in the athletics programs that make money for the university was done based on screenings that the university itself paid for. And, she says, she has gotten permission from the university several times since 2008 to access those findings to continue her research.

"It's already available to them," Willingham said. "It's in their system. ... They have all the data and more. It belongs to them, and they paid a lot of money for it."

Last year, when CNN asked UNC for comment on Willingham's research, officials initially denied knowing about it, and said: "Such analysis is not part of her job duties at the university."

Then, after being shown the e-mails, a spokesperson admitted that Willingham did share her findings and did have permission from the university to do the research in the first place, and said a meeting with Willingham was being scheduled.

Apart from Wednesday's statement, UNC has not responded to CNN's request for an explanation.

In the meantime, Willingham said she has heard from one branch of the university -- the Department of Public Safety.

Since CNN's report, Willingham said she's gotten four death threats, and more than 30 other alarming messages.

"Not people who disagree, people who put in the subject or body (of the e-mail) straight-up hate speech," she said.

But there have also been notes of support from several other academic advisers around the country, Willingham says, and they make it worth the trouble.

"I've been getting more and more nice notes from high school teachers and literacy specialists across the country saying 'Thank you.'"

A formal incident report hasn't been made yet, but university police said: "We are looking into it and making effort to reach out and investigate the nature of the threats."

"It's really OK," Willingham said of the threats, "because I'm telling the truth."

**SagesStone**

So she discovers something so obvious it's almost assumed and their response is to just shove their fingers in their ears and shout "YOU'RE LYING! STOP LYING! WHEN YOU LIE IT MAKES THE BABY JESUS CRY!!" pretty much.

**LordofHats**

Only 8 to 10 percent? Damn its better than I thought it was XD The real problem of course is that that 8 to 10 percent go on to run UNC

**Kilkrazy**

"Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England ... have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old."

The US grad 3 is equivalent to age 8-9 so it's hardly surprising at all that athletes, who are not recruited on their academic ability, would be poor performers in this area.

That is not to blame the researcher, of course, as apparently she was just doing the job they paid her to do.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England ... have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old."

The US grad 3 is equivalent to age 8-9 so it's hardly surprising at all that athletes, who are not recruited on their academic ability, would be poor performers in this area.

That is not to blame the researcher, of course, as apparently she was just doing the job they paid her to do.

Is your figure for England based on those who have/are attending university, or the general population? Also scholar athletes are supposed to achieve minimum standards of reading, not being able to read past a 9 year old's level while attending college is problematic.

**Easy E**

Scholar athletes.... I lolled.

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
Only 8 to 10 percent? Damn its better than I thought it was XD The real problem of course is that that 8 to 10 percent go on to run UNC

Well, that and UNC having been censured not too long ago for having a huge scandal about their African American studies.

**kronk**

I would also have put money that it was higher than 8-10%. However, softball chicks I've met in college were pretty smart (and butch).

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The US grad 3 is equivalent to age 8-9 so it's hardly surprising at all that athletes, who are not recruited on their academic ability, would be poor performers in this area.

It's a problem that they're recruited with apparent complete disregard for their academic ability, in my opinion. I like college football as much as the next guy, but it got out of hand a long time ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
I would also have put money that it was higher than 8-10%. However, softball chicks I've met in college were pretty smart (and butch).

I'm sure literacy's a lot better among the non-money sports. I bet the guys and gals who row crew can read the gak out of something.

**Captain Fantastic**

Have college sports ever had anything to do with college in the last twenty years?

**Steve steveson**

Death threats? People get far too angry about things. I know there is allot of money involved and people are big on college football, but death threats for someone who stated a fact, and something no one is surprised about?

And then her university are to scared to support her... I wonder how long it will take them to realize that as financially damaging as upsetting your athletes and sports sponsors is, upsetting your academics and research sponsors is far worse for a university. Who is going to want to work for them or invest in research knowing they will disown it and you so quickly. If they do that over sports, imagine how they will react if your work upset Christian Fundies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

kronk wrote:
I would also have put money that it was higher than 8-10%. However, softball chicks I've met in college were pretty smart (and butch).

I'm sure literacy's a lot better among the non-money sports. I bet the guys and gals who row crew can read the gak out of something.

Makes you wonder how bad literacy levels must be among football players if it is 8-10% across all sports...

**Kilkrazy**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
"Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England ... have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old."

The US grad 3 is equivalent to age 8-9 so it's hardly surprising at all that athletes, who are not recruited on their academic ability, would be poor performers in this area.

That is not to blame the researcher, of course, as apparently she was just doing the job they paid her to do.

Is your figure for England based on those who have/are attending university, or the general population? Also scholar athletes are supposed to achieve minimum standards of reading, not being able to read past a 9 year old's level while attending college is problematic.

The general population. Of course 11 year olds are expected to have better literacy than 8-9 year olds. Though that said, the UK is notorious for pushing children to learn to read arguably far too early.

However I think we would all agree that people at university are supposed to be above average in education.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The US grad 3 is equivalent to age 8-9 so it's hardly surprising at all that athletes, who are not recruited on their academic ability, would be poor performers in this area.

It's a problem that they're recruited with apparent complete disregard for their academic ability, in my opinion. I like college football as much as the next guy, but it got out of hand a long time ago.

I agree with you. There should be regard for the education of the students, not just treating them as sports machine components.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
I would also have put money that it was higher than 8-10%. However, softball chicks I've met in college were pretty smart (and butch).

And volleyball chicks... (definitely not butch).

Women’s Volleyball…Your And My New Favorite Sport

**kronk**

Off Topic: Women's Beach Volleyball is the only Olympic sport worth a damn.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
Off Topic: Women's Beach Volleyball is the only Olympic sport worth a damn.

Agreed.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
However I think we would all agree that people at university are supposed to be above average in education.

No argument here.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with you. There should be regard for the education of the students, not just treating them as sports machine components.

Absolutely. The main point of attending college if for an education

**LordofHats**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Absolutely. The main point of attending college if for attempting to become one of a miniscule number of people actually good enough at throwing/kicking/hitting an object who can make a living off it while absconding all other plans for the future and being a jerk ass to everyone else who actually had to study to get into the four year training camp.

Just a few typo corrections

(/sarcasm)

**Dreadclaw69**

LordofHats wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Absolutely. The main point of attending college if for attempting to become one of a miniscule number of people actually good enough at throwing/kicking/hitting an object who can make a living off it while absconding all other plans for the future and being a jerk ass to everyone else who actually had to study to get into the four year training camp.

Just a few typo corrections

(/sarcasm)

Good thing I wasn't speaking about attending college in general then

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Absolutely. The main point of attending college if for an education

I don't think that's been true for decades, even for non-athletes. The main point of attending college is to get a job once you're done with it. I would bet it's a tiny percentage of college students who are there because they genuinely want a post-secondary education.

And for the top 1% (or whatever the number is) of high school athletes, there's no alternative professional recruiting pipeline, at least for most sports. If you're a standout football player in high school, you go to college and play football. If you're a standout football player in college, you get drafted. The same's largely true for the other three major sports. I know the NBA's drafted a couple guys out of high school, but that's rare, and it always provokes controversy. So if you've genuinely got the chops to make it in a major league, going the college athletics route is really your only option.

**Dreadclaw69**

But the point of the education is to obtain employment - the two are not mutually exclusive.

**LordofHats**

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I went to college to get drunk and bang hot girls (more sarcasm).

On the face college is about education and then jobs, in realitty I think only about half the people I went to school with were actually there to achieve anything. The other half were basically overgrown babies at a very expensive day care center with lots of booze.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But the point of the education is to obtain employment - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Mutually exclusive? No. But the intent isn't the education. The education's just the prerequisite that is becoming increasingly less valued and has long since stopped being considered important or worthy in and of itself to most.

**Easy E**

Seaward wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But the point of the education is to obtain employment - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Mutually exclusive? No. But the intent isn't the education. The education's just the prerequisite that is becoming increasingly less valued and has long since stopped being considered important or worthy in and of itself to most.

I think Seaward and I actually agree on something.

Everyone mark your Dakka calendars!

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

whembly wrote:
kronk wrote:
Off Topic: Women's Beach Volleyball is the only Olympic sport worth a damn.

Agreed.

What about women's field hockey?

Spoiler:

**hotsauceman1**

Geeez, it is almost like they get recruited not for their mental ability.

**Kanluwen**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Geeez, it is almost like they get recruited not for their mental ability.

Being recruited for sports ability is one thing.

Having systematic "covers" of your inability to use key life skills(i.e. "reading") to keep you as part of the sports program is another thing entirely.

**whembly**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
whembly wrote:
kronk wrote:
Off Topic: Women's Beach Volleyball is the only Olympic sport worth a damn.

Agreed.

What about women's field hockey?

Spoiler:

Them too!

**Easy E**

Wow, how quickly this thread devolved.

**kronk**

What were we walking about?

Is this the Dolphins with guns thread?

**Palindrome**

Seaward wrote:
The education's just the prerequisite that is becoming increasingly less valued and has long since stopped being considered important or worthy in and of itself to most.

I don't agree with this. What has changed is that higher education is simply too expensive for the vast majority of people to be anything more than a means to make money. Very, very few people these days can afford to not work for 3 years, maintain themselves and pay tuition fees simply to learn about something that they enjoy but can't use in the world of work.