On Sunday's episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," Larry David engaged in what was humorously referred to as "social assassination," in which his eponymous character assaults others in an attempt to rectify their annoying habits.

Among his targets was the use of the insipid texting phrase "LOL" in place of actual laughter. David, 64, is supremely adept at ridiculing the expanding conformist "social" trends in our society that those younger than 35 seem hellbent on forcing on the rest of us.

I found this a fitting - if seemingly unconnected, peripheral and tangential - parallel to the notice of allegations the NCAA filed against North Carolina.

Last week the NCAA found that from February through June 2010, the university "did not adequately and consistently monitor social networking activity that visibly illustrated potential amateurism violations within the football program, which delayed the institution's discovery and compounded the provision of impermissible benefits."

The statement included an NCCA request for "copies of materials posted on Twitter by football student-athletes. ... Furthermore, the NCAA is requesting information regarding the institution's efforts to monitor the social networking activity of football student-athletes."

So the NCAA is now seeking to become a social networking assassin of its own. Or should I say it is just playing another variation of its familiar role of assassin, as the NCAA is often in the business of search and destroy, usually of its own making.

This brings up a multitude of thorny legal issues, namely the invasion of privacy of the "monitoring," either by a university or the NCAA, of student-athletes' words. (It's still difficult to stifle a laugh when writing "student-athlete" in reference to high-profile Division I stars, no matter how many outstanding exceptions there are to the rule.)

I'll leave these questions to the legal experts, but even from a neophyte's standpoint it seems ridiculous to enter into the arena of stalking someone's Twitter or Facebook account in search of lurid or damning details.

UNC did its best to directly address the matter. Chancellor Holden Thorp came out immediately and said: "I deeply regret that Carolina is in this position. We made mistakes, and we have to face that. When the investigation started a year ago, we pledged to cooperate fully with the NCAA, to go where the facts took us and to face the issues head on. Our level of cooperation is evident in the allegations, some of which arise from facts that we self-reported to the NCAA. We will emerge with a stronger athletics program, and we will restore confidence in Carolina football."

Of course, hypocrisy is ever-present when discussing NCAA investigations. For universities to be surprised by any sordid matters is ridiculous. Most Division I universities have become shameless and reflexive marketing machines that salivate at the promise of millions in TV deals, and any publicity for their school via the "student-athlete" brings in more money. Hence the reason so many schools have no rules regarding social networking.

In fact, far from being above the fray and providing a voice of desperately needed perspective on contemporary mores, colleges and universities have rapidly embraced any and all social media platforms, no matter the cost in integrity or reputation. It's just another way to promote their institutions.

So it's a bit of a stretch to expect colleges to self-police any incriminating evidence that results from social networking sites. The universities themselves have become enablers of the manifest narcissism that their athletes - and countless millions of other users - engage in by posting dimwitted and pointless commentary.

Colleges are supposed to offer a buffer - a pause button, if you will - on the tyranny of conformity by offering an environment in which unbiased and un-PC platforms can thrive. But higher education, like nearly every other American institution, has fallen prey to the immediacy and ubiquity of social networking sites.

This is where the NCAA, through no fault of its own, has stumbled on a truth: Colleges have quietly ignored warning signs and have not taken the time to monitor or educate their students - athletes or otherwise - about the pitfalls of expressing any and all thoughts in a public forum.

But even with constant criticism, nothing ever seems to change with college sports: Do whatever it takes to win, and damn the consequences. So the chance of a unified front from Division I schools on social networking, or any other matter, has about as much chance of happening as a professional athlete shunning Nike in favor of a made-in-America clothing brand.