Opinion ID: 1826657
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Isolation of the public controversy.

Text: In Waldbaum, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia provided the following discussion on how to address the first prong of this test, stating: As the first step in its inquiry, the court must isolate the public controversy. A public controversy is not simply a matter of interest to the public; it must be a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way. . . . [A] public controversy is a dispute that in fact has received public attention because its ramifications will be felt by persons who are not direct participants. To determine whether a controversy indeed existed and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question. A general concern or interest will not suffice. [ Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill (1979)]. The court can see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public formulate some judgment. It should ask whether a reasonable person would have expected persons beyond the immediate participants in the dispute to feel the impact of its resolution. If the issue was being debated publicly and if it had foreseeable and substantial ramifications for nonparticipants, it was a public controversy. 627 F.2d at 1296-98 (footnotes omitted). Several factors lead to the conclusion that a public controversy existed before, during, and after the NCAA investigated the alleged rule violations by The University in 2000 and imposed the severe penalties against The University in 2002. In 2000, The University and the public learned about the NCAA's investigation into Young's involvement in recruiting Means and the federal charges that had developed. In light of The University's being on probation and in light of the efforts in 1998 by The University to comply with the enforcement rules and the NCAA's apparent disregard for that effort, a public debate developed about the 2000 investigation, including speculation on the propriety of the involvement, of The University's compliance staff in the investigation, the benefit, if any, of The University's self-reporting NCAA rule violations, and the NCAA's treatment of The University. Additionally, discussion focused on the fairness of the investigation process itself and on the NCAA's accountability with regard to fitting the penalty imposed to the offense. Consequently, widespread local and statewide media coverage was generated for over three years as the media sought to unravel precisely what had happened that resulted in The University's being charged and found guilty of several rule violations. The public concern for The University and its football program was evidenced by the number of articles written and the detail of the information provided from the first allegations of a recruiting scandal in Memphis, the revelation of a secret witness assisting the NCAA, in establishing the rule violations by The University, the statements made by Yeager that The University of Alabama football program was staring down the barrel of a gun, the harshness of the penalties imposed, and the apparent inequity of the penalty in light of The University's efforts in compliance with the enforcement process. Moreover, the citizens of Alabama had a legitimate interest in the controversy because The University is a public institution that receives State funds. The football program provides revenue for The University and, in light of the football program's tradition and history, is a source of pride for many of its graduates and the citizens of this State. Therefore, when The University of Alabama football program was staring down the barrel of a gun  facing potential termination of its football program  public discussion of all the circumstances creating the risk that the program could be terminated was rampant; a public controversy existed. We reject Culpepper's argument that the public controversy included debate concerning the character, integrity, and fitness of Cottrell and Williams to coach and work for The University. Culpepper relies on the reasoning of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F.Supp. 1110 (N.D.Cal.1984), in defining the public controversy in that defamation case. In Barry, Barry, a former head coach for the basketball team at the University of San Francisco (USF) sued one of his former basketball players, alleging that the player had defamed him when the player accused him of assisting an athletic representative of the basketball team in making improper cash payments to the player in violation of NCAA rules. In determining whether Barry was a limited-purpose public figure, the district court held that a public controversy existed involving the alleged recruiting violations at USF before Barry's acceptance of the position of head basketball coach. 584 F.Supp. at 1116. The district court noted that USF had twice been the subject of NCAA investigations involving USF's basketball program, that one of those investigations had led to the resignation of one head basketball coach and the other had led to the firing of the head coach who had preceded Barry, and that USF had been trying to solve the problems of its basketball program for many years. Additionally, the court noted that the president of USF, when he appointed Barry as head coach, insisted upon a `clean' program. 584 F.Supp. at 1116. The court concluded that a public controversy existed because the reputation of USF was at stake and there was a dispute as to what the University should do about allegations of recruiting violations. Id. Culpepper argues that the public controversy surrounding the investigation into alleged NCAA rule violations by The University is analogous. He reasons that because The University, like USF, was a repeat offender, intense scrutiny and substantial discourse regarding the rule violations developed. He further argues that because Cottrell and Williams were named in various articles as the coaches who were involved in the controversy, because they were closely associated with Young, and because they had been interviewed by the NCAA, a public debate developed about their character, integrity, and fitness. Culpepper, however, fails to recognize that although The University, like USF, was a repeat offender of NCAA rules, the public controversy did not focus on the actions of the coaching staff. Allegations of violations of NCAA rules by The University and by Cottrell and Williams did not lead to the resignation or firing of any of the football coaches. Indeed, none of the articles submitted impugned the character of Cottrell or Williams. Additionally, the articles did not suggest that the major violation of the NCAA rules was an ongoing problem involving football coaches or that The University had an ongoing problem that it had been trying to solve for years. Indeed, the evidence established that The University was making every effort to run a clean program and that, if the NCAA or the SEC had informed The University of the situation in Memphis, of which they were aware, actions would have been taken to prevent the egregious violation by the athletic representative who was the focus of the investigation. Unlike the public debate at USF, the public debate in this case did not question the reputation of The University or the integrity of its coaches; rather, the public debate concerned how the NCAA would view the efforts of The University to run a clean program and to engage in self-enforcement of NCAA rules. Therefore, evidence established that the focus of the public controversy surrounding The University was different from the public controversy involving USF. Based on the content, context, and forum of the controversy surrounding The University as presented in the record, we refuse to conclude that the public controversy involved the character, integrity, and fitness of Cottrell and Williams to coach and to work for The University. In conclusion, a public controversy existed; therefore, we must now focus on the roles of Cottrell and Williams in the controversy.