How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?
This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”
This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”
What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?