swood1000
04-10-2016, 07:08 PM
There are some new NCAA rules (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-academic-integrity-proposal?sf23996574=1) about to be put into place dealing with academic misconduct. There is a version of the actual changes to the bylaws as of October 2015 here (http://compliance.pac-12.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Proposal-No.-2015-66.pdf), but there have been some changes since then and I haven't been able to locate the most recent text. In February 2016 the NCAA released a Q&A document (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Feb2016_DIProposalNo2015-66QuestionandAnswerDocument_20160226.pdf) explaining the rationale for the new rules, which I will try to summarize here.
What was the problem with the existing rules?
There was a confusing interplay between academic misconduct and extra benefits. For example, Syracuse was charged with improper academic support but Syracuse determined that this did not violate its academic misconduct policy and claimed it had to end there because the NCAA had stated that schools had the final say on academic misconduct. The enforcement staff turned around and charged extra benefits. Syracuse appealed this all the way to the Legislative Council on the grounds that if it had determined that no academic violation had occurred they could not be charged with the same offense as an extra benefit. So what does it mean that the school has the final say on academic misconduct?
The academic misconduct rules fall under the rules governing ethical conduct (Bylaw 10) and there is no explicit de minimis exception. Suppose a player was told by a student who is in another section of a history class that on the exam being given that day he better know the date of the Battle of Hastings. It was one question out of 50 on the exam. The coach overhears the player saying that he's glad he at least got that one right. Now what? Unethical behavior so the coach has to pull him and he has to apply for reinstatement, meanwhile he's branded publicly as a cheat?
The extra benefit rules were written with monetary value in mind. For example, there has been a de minimis exception for extra benefits having a value less than $100. Under 16.01.1.1 if the student-athlete pays it back or to charity then it goes away. But shouldn't there be a de minimis exception to extra benefits of an academic nature?
Under the current rules
Institutions could be subject to both an academic misconduct violation and extra benefit violation.
An extra benefit violation could involve assistance between only students even when a student is not an institutional staff member.
It is not specified how much assistance is necessary for an extra benefit violation.
It can be unclear when academic misconduct involving student-athletes falls within the purview of the NCAA and when academic misconduct should be an institutional matter.
The regulatory structure for academic misconduct is located in bylaws, interpretations and educational columns and should be consolidated in a single article (Bylaw 14).
Academic misconduct violations are determined by outcome, whereas they should be determined by actor and/or outcome.
A new category is being created for academic malfeasance currently charged as extra benefits, called "impermissible academic assistance." So there will be two main categories: (a) academic misconduct (for conduct that violated the institution's policies and procedures regarding academic misconduct) and (b) impermissible academic assistance (when the institutions policies were not violated). An act can only fall into one category or the other.
Academic misconduct
This requires a violation of the institution's policies and procedures regarding academic misconduct. There are two categories, depending on whether an institutional staff member or coach is involved.
1. A student-athlete commits academic misconduct alone or in concert with another student(s) who is not an institutional staff member, and the academic misconduct results in at least one of the following:
a. The alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record;
i. Changing or doctoring transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which a student-athlete did not enroll or did not complete (i.e., fraudulent academic credit).
b. An erroneous declaration of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics and the student-athlete subsequently competes while ineligible;
c. An erroneous declaration of eligibility to receive financial aid and the student-athlete subsequently receives financial aid while ineligible; or
d. The erroneous awarding of an NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) point.
2. A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interests is involved in the academic misconduct involving a student-athlete, regardless of whether the misconduct involved alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record or an erroneous declaration of eligibility.
a. An institutional staff member is any individual, excluding a student employee, who performs work for the institution or athletics department, regardless of whether the individual receives compensation for the work.
b. A student employee can be an institutional staff member under some circumstances.
c. Not all institutional staff members are similarly situated. For example, within an athletics department, some staff members are in leadership roles (like coaches, administrators and compliance officials), while others are further removed (like trainers and equipment managers). Outside of athletics, certain staff members are in closer proximity to sport programs and have greater responsibility than others.
i. Misconduct by coaches, leaders and others nearest a sport program are more likely to be alleged as Level I .
ii. Whereas if a student teaching assistant acting on his or her own accord provides a student-athlete answers to a quiz without the knowledge or involvement of any coach or administrator this might be processed as a Level III violation.
So basically, if the action violates the school's academic misconduct rules and an institutional staff member or coach was involved it's a violation. If no staff member or coach is involved then one of the four additional conditions must be present for there to be an academic misconduct violation.
[B]Impermissible academic assistance
This is the new category that replaces academic extra benefits. It comes into play if the conduct does not violate the institution's policies and procedures involving academic misconduct. For there to be a violation, each of the following must be present:
1. A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interest provides the impermissible academic assistance;
2. The institution determines that academic misconduct has not occurred pursuant to its policies and procedures;
3. The academic assistance or academic exception provided is not generally available to the institution's student-body or students involved in the course;
4. The assistance is substantial;
a. This determination is fact specific. Assistance such as proofreading, assisting a student with a problem on a math assignment or tutoring should not be considered substantial. Substantial assistance generally includes a considerable amount of assistance provided to the student-athlete that is of significant value to the student-athlete.
5. The assistance is not permitted in Bylaw 16.3; and
a. Bylaw 16.3 permits an institution to make general academic counseling and tutoring services available to all student-athletes, which may be provided by the department of athletics or the institution's nonathletics student support services.
6. The assistance leads to the certification of a student-athlete's eligibility to practice, compete, receive financial aid or earn an APR point.
a. Suppose in the fall it is discovered that the previous spring a professor had provided a student-athlete with an academic exception not generally available to the student body, but which did not violate the school's rules on academic misconduct. The exception resulted in the SA earning full credit for the spring course but the course was not necessary for the SA to be eligible fall term. There is no violation because the academic exception did not impact the SA's eligibility fall term.
b. But suppose the same facts and we get to the next semester and now it appears that the credit for that class is necessary for the SA to be eligible. It doesn't matter. They only look at the impact on eligibility during the period of time between when the conduct occurred and when the institutional determination was made (fall). So there is an incentive to discover these things and make these determinations quickly.
When weighing whether an impermissible academic assistance violation might be Level I, II or III, the enforcement staff would also look carefully at the individuals involved and the impact of the misconduct.
The new rules require that institution policies and procedures be in writing, applicable to the general student-body, including student-athletes, approved through the institution's normal process for approving such policies and kept on file or accessible on the institution's website.
A failure to investigate and adjudicate alleged academic misconduct of a student-athlete in accordance with the institution's policies and procedures is also a violation.
It is stated that the new rules are intended to have no impact on level or severity of penalties. However, it's not clear to me what guidance a school has on whether a student-athlete will be rendered ineligible as a result of a violation. Examples of academic misconduct are given and described as only being "processed as a Level III violation." A similar statement is made about impermissible academic assistance. So a Level III violation athlete would not be ineligible? It is clearly stated in 16.01.1 that receipt of extra benefits renders a student-athlete ineligible but I don't see any statement to that effect regarding the new "impermissible academic assistance." However, the most recent rule change text I have seen is from October 2015.
Question: The writing center coordinator at my institution provided proofreading and edited sentence structure on a student-athlete's paper. This type of assistance does not violate our institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures and similar services are available through the writing center to other students on campus. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: No. The assistance is generally available to the institution's students and it is likely "proofreading" would not be considered "substantial assistance."
Question: An English professor on my campus allowed a student-athlete to turn in a term paper two semesters after the course was completed for full credit. The professor did not allow any other student in the course to receive the exception and institutional policy does not address this type of issue. This type of exception does not violate our institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. The exception resulted in the student-athlete receiving a passing grade in the course and, but for the grade, the student-athlete would not have been eligible to compete. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: Yes. The academic exception was not generally available to the institution's student-body or students in the involved course, the institution did not find academic misconduct pursuant to its policies and procedures, an institutional staff member was involved and the exception resulted in certification of eligibility for competition for the student-athlete.
Question: A booster arranged for a student employee in the dining hall to complete a term paper for a student-athlete, who was in his fourth year of enrollment. The paper was submitted to the professor and the student-athlete received a passing grade in the course, which subsequently kept the student-athlete eligible for competition. After exhausting eligibility at the institution, the student-athlete withdrew from the institution. The institution investigated the issue but determined that its academic misconduct policies and procedures did not apply to this scenario, citing the student-athlete's withdrawal from the institution. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: Yes. While the institution determined that academic misconduct did not occur, the academic assistance provided was not generally available to the institution's student-body or students in the involved course. The assistance was substantial and not permitted in Bylaw 16.3. A booster and an institutional staff member were involved (due to the student working at the direction of a booster). Finally, the assistance resulted in certification of eligibility for competition for the student-athlete.
This chart was created a few months ago and there may have been some slight modifications since then:
6271
What was the problem with the existing rules?
There was a confusing interplay between academic misconduct and extra benefits. For example, Syracuse was charged with improper academic support but Syracuse determined that this did not violate its academic misconduct policy and claimed it had to end there because the NCAA had stated that schools had the final say on academic misconduct. The enforcement staff turned around and charged extra benefits. Syracuse appealed this all the way to the Legislative Council on the grounds that if it had determined that no academic violation had occurred they could not be charged with the same offense as an extra benefit. So what does it mean that the school has the final say on academic misconduct?
The academic misconduct rules fall under the rules governing ethical conduct (Bylaw 10) and there is no explicit de minimis exception. Suppose a player was told by a student who is in another section of a history class that on the exam being given that day he better know the date of the Battle of Hastings. It was one question out of 50 on the exam. The coach overhears the player saying that he's glad he at least got that one right. Now what? Unethical behavior so the coach has to pull him and he has to apply for reinstatement, meanwhile he's branded publicly as a cheat?
The extra benefit rules were written with monetary value in mind. For example, there has been a de minimis exception for extra benefits having a value less than $100. Under 16.01.1.1 if the student-athlete pays it back or to charity then it goes away. But shouldn't there be a de minimis exception to extra benefits of an academic nature?
Under the current rules
Institutions could be subject to both an academic misconduct violation and extra benefit violation.
An extra benefit violation could involve assistance between only students even when a student is not an institutional staff member.
It is not specified how much assistance is necessary for an extra benefit violation.
It can be unclear when academic misconduct involving student-athletes falls within the purview of the NCAA and when academic misconduct should be an institutional matter.
The regulatory structure for academic misconduct is located in bylaws, interpretations and educational columns and should be consolidated in a single article (Bylaw 14).
Academic misconduct violations are determined by outcome, whereas they should be determined by actor and/or outcome.
A new category is being created for academic malfeasance currently charged as extra benefits, called "impermissible academic assistance." So there will be two main categories: (a) academic misconduct (for conduct that violated the institution's policies and procedures regarding academic misconduct) and (b) impermissible academic assistance (when the institutions policies were not violated). An act can only fall into one category or the other.
Academic misconduct
This requires a violation of the institution's policies and procedures regarding academic misconduct. There are two categories, depending on whether an institutional staff member or coach is involved.
1. A student-athlete commits academic misconduct alone or in concert with another student(s) who is not an institutional staff member, and the academic misconduct results in at least one of the following:
a. The alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record;
i. Changing or doctoring transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which a student-athlete did not enroll or did not complete (i.e., fraudulent academic credit).
b. An erroneous declaration of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics and the student-athlete subsequently competes while ineligible;
c. An erroneous declaration of eligibility to receive financial aid and the student-athlete subsequently receives financial aid while ineligible; or
d. The erroneous awarding of an NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) point.
2. A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interests is involved in the academic misconduct involving a student-athlete, regardless of whether the misconduct involved alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record or an erroneous declaration of eligibility.
a. An institutional staff member is any individual, excluding a student employee, who performs work for the institution or athletics department, regardless of whether the individual receives compensation for the work.
b. A student employee can be an institutional staff member under some circumstances.
c. Not all institutional staff members are similarly situated. For example, within an athletics department, some staff members are in leadership roles (like coaches, administrators and compliance officials), while others are further removed (like trainers and equipment managers). Outside of athletics, certain staff members are in closer proximity to sport programs and have greater responsibility than others.
i. Misconduct by coaches, leaders and others nearest a sport program are more likely to be alleged as Level I .
ii. Whereas if a student teaching assistant acting on his or her own accord provides a student-athlete answers to a quiz without the knowledge or involvement of any coach or administrator this might be processed as a Level III violation.
So basically, if the action violates the school's academic misconduct rules and an institutional staff member or coach was involved it's a violation. If no staff member or coach is involved then one of the four additional conditions must be present for there to be an academic misconduct violation.
[B]Impermissible academic assistance
This is the new category that replaces academic extra benefits. It comes into play if the conduct does not violate the institution's policies and procedures involving academic misconduct. For there to be a violation, each of the following must be present:
1. A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interest provides the impermissible academic assistance;
2. The institution determines that academic misconduct has not occurred pursuant to its policies and procedures;
3. The academic assistance or academic exception provided is not generally available to the institution's student-body or students involved in the course;
4. The assistance is substantial;
a. This determination is fact specific. Assistance such as proofreading, assisting a student with a problem on a math assignment or tutoring should not be considered substantial. Substantial assistance generally includes a considerable amount of assistance provided to the student-athlete that is of significant value to the student-athlete.
5. The assistance is not permitted in Bylaw 16.3; and
a. Bylaw 16.3 permits an institution to make general academic counseling and tutoring services available to all student-athletes, which may be provided by the department of athletics or the institution's nonathletics student support services.
6. The assistance leads to the certification of a student-athlete's eligibility to practice, compete, receive financial aid or earn an APR point.
a. Suppose in the fall it is discovered that the previous spring a professor had provided a student-athlete with an academic exception not generally available to the student body, but which did not violate the school's rules on academic misconduct. The exception resulted in the SA earning full credit for the spring course but the course was not necessary for the SA to be eligible fall term. There is no violation because the academic exception did not impact the SA's eligibility fall term.
b. But suppose the same facts and we get to the next semester and now it appears that the credit for that class is necessary for the SA to be eligible. It doesn't matter. They only look at the impact on eligibility during the period of time between when the conduct occurred and when the institutional determination was made (fall). So there is an incentive to discover these things and make these determinations quickly.
When weighing whether an impermissible academic assistance violation might be Level I, II or III, the enforcement staff would also look carefully at the individuals involved and the impact of the misconduct.
The new rules require that institution policies and procedures be in writing, applicable to the general student-body, including student-athletes, approved through the institution's normal process for approving such policies and kept on file or accessible on the institution's website.
A failure to investigate and adjudicate alleged academic misconduct of a student-athlete in accordance with the institution's policies and procedures is also a violation.
It is stated that the new rules are intended to have no impact on level or severity of penalties. However, it's not clear to me what guidance a school has on whether a student-athlete will be rendered ineligible as a result of a violation. Examples of academic misconduct are given and described as only being "processed as a Level III violation." A similar statement is made about impermissible academic assistance. So a Level III violation athlete would not be ineligible? It is clearly stated in 16.01.1 that receipt of extra benefits renders a student-athlete ineligible but I don't see any statement to that effect regarding the new "impermissible academic assistance." However, the most recent rule change text I have seen is from October 2015.
Question: The writing center coordinator at my institution provided proofreading and edited sentence structure on a student-athlete's paper. This type of assistance does not violate our institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures and similar services are available through the writing center to other students on campus. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: No. The assistance is generally available to the institution's students and it is likely "proofreading" would not be considered "substantial assistance."
Question: An English professor on my campus allowed a student-athlete to turn in a term paper two semesters after the course was completed for full credit. The professor did not allow any other student in the course to receive the exception and institutional policy does not address this type of issue. This type of exception does not violate our institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. The exception resulted in the student-athlete receiving a passing grade in the course and, but for the grade, the student-athlete would not have been eligible to compete. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: Yes. The academic exception was not generally available to the institution's student-body or students in the involved course, the institution did not find academic misconduct pursuant to its policies and procedures, an institutional staff member was involved and the exception resulted in certification of eligibility for competition for the student-athlete.
Question: A booster arranged for a student employee in the dining hall to complete a term paper for a student-athlete, who was in his fourth year of enrollment. The paper was submitted to the professor and the student-athlete received a passing grade in the course, which subsequently kept the student-athlete eligible for competition. After exhausting eligibility at the institution, the student-athlete withdrew from the institution. The institution investigated the issue but determined that its academic misconduct policies and procedures did not apply to this scenario, citing the student-athlete's withdrawal from the institution. Would this constitute an "impermissible academic assistance" violation?
Answer: Yes. While the institution determined that academic misconduct did not occur, the academic assistance provided was not generally available to the institution's student-body or students in the involved course. The assistance was substantial and not permitted in Bylaw 16.3. A booster and an institutional staff member were involved (due to the student working at the direction of a booster). Finally, the assistance resulted in certification of eligibility for competition for the student-athlete.
This chart was created a few months ago and there may have been some slight modifications since then:
6271