UNC Athletics Scandal

[Reilly]

... Glad you decided to run with Joe Walsh, and not Paula Abdul ...

I dunno ... I can very easily picture Roy and PJ playing off of each other and singing this:

I take things serious
And you take 'em light
I go to bed early
And I party all night

Our friends are sayin'
We ain't gonna last
Cuz I move slowly
And baby I'm fast

I like it quiet
And I love to shout
But when we get together
It just all works out

I take--2 steps forward
I take--2 steps back
We come together
Cuz opposites attract

[devildeac]

Look, either Roy knew and therefore should be fired, or he wasn't paying attention and should be fired. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Which reminds me: The Helms Bakery people really need to put this under review. No matter how you slice it, that stupid banner needs to come down. It might cost UNC-CH some dough in the form of lost donations, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. It would certainly leaven my mood.

Good thread, full of lots of rye comments.

That loaf of bread was half-baked and suffering from a yeast infection. It should've never risen to the rafters.

Posts getting pretty crusty here. Just thought I'd sandwich this in along with some other scandal talk.

[devildeac]

That's genius right there, Marty. Must wait to re-Spork unfortunately.

(Glad you decided to run with Joe Walsh, and not Paula Abdul!)

He's covered. Henderson started a re-write of Hell by the Squirrel Nut Zippers on the Status Check thread. I'm gonna encourage him to finish.

[OldPhiKap]

He's covered. Henderson started a re-write of Hell by the Squirrel Nut Zippers on the Status Check thread. I'm gonna encourage him to finish.

"Well, the D and the A and the M and the N and the A and the T and the I, O, N;
Lose your face,
Lose your name,
Then get fitted for a suit of flame"

Sounds like they got UNC recruiting right. And as for their present situation:

"But all the things that you tried to hide
Will be revealed on the other side"


Love me some SNZ, even if they are a Chapel Hill band.

[uh_no]

"Well, the D and the A and the M and the N and the A and the T and the I, O, N;
Lose your face,
Lose your name,
Then get fitted for a suit of flame"

Sounds like they got UNC recruiting right. And as for their present situation:

"But all the things that you tried to hide
Will be revealed on the other side"


Love me some SNZ, even if they are a Chapel Hill band.

In the classroom, with no students, near the dean dome
paper classes, agent payments, tired tutors
pitchfork bearers run down tattlers in the papers
hear no evil, see no evil, do no evil

i'll sit in this place, where the buck never stops;
wait in this place, where the guilty run from themselves

-Cream

[NSDukeFan]

We could add Wheat/"/"/" to the mix, but I'm not sure he would rise to the occasion.

Folks, we have a winner. This is an upper crust post. (Sorry, I couldn't do any better than that.)

[grad_devil]

NOTICE: This post could get rather lengthy - if you're not interested in NCAA legislation regarding Academic Misconduct and procedures dealing with committee on infractions, in the words of Brother Maynard, you may want to "Skip a bit, brother".

It seems there is much mystery surrounding the NCAA legislation regarding academic fraud, as well as what happens during the investigation/infraction phase. I thought I would try to assemble some of the information into a single location so we can have it for reference.

-Mods, if you think this belongs elsewhere, please relocate.

Unethical Conduct
The NCAA legislation regarding academic misconduct is found under Bylaw 10, Unethical Conduct, specifically 10.1-(b).

10.1 Unethical Conduct.
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
...

(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;

Educational Column on Academic Misconduct
The NCAA publishes Educational Columns to provide clarification on legislation, giving examples, reminders, and interpretations. On April 16, 2014, they published one regarding Academic Misconduct.

Essentially, it outlines two categories of Academic Misconduct (umbrella term)- (1) Misconduct Violations and (2) Academic Offenses.

Institutions are required to report Misconduct Violations. They include:

1. Institutional Staff Member Involvement. Any time an institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant) is involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or enrolled student-athlete regardless of whether the institutional staff member acted alone or in concert with the prospective or enrolled student-athlete.
2. Student-Athlete or Prospective Student-Athlete. Any time a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete, acting alone or in concert with others, is involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts, regardless of whether such conduct results in an erroneous declaration of eligibility.
3. Competition While Ineligible. Any time academic misconduct results in an erroneous declaration of eligibility and the student-athlete subsequently competes for the institution.

An Academic Offense is not a violation and does not need to be reported as such. This is your typical academic dishonesty that is on every college campus - cheating, plagiarism, etc. (Unfortunately, I know it's typical because I'm a professor at a small university.) In these circumstances, the institution is expected to discipline a student-athlete in accordance with "the established academic policies applicable to all students". While these are not violations, there may be violations of the extra benefit legislation, even if this doesn't meet the definition of a Misconduct Violation.

The Educational Column then publishes a series of questions/answers. I'll link to the full document at the bottom of this post, but here are some of the questions that seem relevant to the UNC-CH situation:

Q4: If an institutional staff member is involved, either alone or in concert with a prospective or enrolled student-athlete, in committing academic misconduct should an institution report an academic misconduct violation?

A: In cases involving an institutional staff member, an institution should only report an academic misconduct violation if the institutional staff member arranged for a prospective or enrolled student-athlete to receive fraudulent academic credit, false transcripts, or any time academic misconduct results in an erroneous declaration of eligibility and a student-athlete subsequently competes for the institution.


Q6: What is the meaning of the phrase "arranging to receive fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts?"

A: This phrase refers to conduct such as altering or "doctoring" transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete did not enroll or he or she did not complete.


Q7: Bylaw 10.1-(b) uses the phrase "knowing involvement" in reference to conduct by an institutional staff member, student-athlete or prospective student-athlete which results in a misconduct violation. Why don't the above-referenced guidelines refer to knowing involvement"?

A: An institutional staff member, student-athlete or prospective student-athlete who knowingly engages in the underlying conduct that ultimately results in a violation of Bylaw 10.1-(b), is deemed to have been "knowingly" involved in the violation itself, regardless of whether the institutional staff member, student-athlete or prospective student-athlete knew such conduct would result in an academic misconduct violation. As suck, knowledge is generally presumed.


Q9: What constitutes an "erroneous declaration of eligibility?"

A: An erroneous declaration of eligibility occurs when academic misconduct results in an institution certifying a prospective or enrolled student-athlete as eligible when he or should [sic] would otherwise have been ineligible for competition.


Q11: If an institution concludes after an investigation that no "academic misconduct" occurred, does that mean that no other violations of NCAA legislation occurred?

A: No, the student-athlete may have received impermissible benefits.

In the NCAA violation structure, Academic Misconduct is considered a Level I Violation (Bylaw 19.1.1-(b)), as is Lack of Institutional Control (Bylaw 19.1.1-(a)).

Investigation and Enforcement Procedures
As we know, there is an ongoing investigation at UNC-CH, and, according to Emmert, they have been cooperating fully with said investigation. What many of us may not know, is what happens next.

Members of the NCAA enforcement staff are performing an investigation and collecting facts. Next, the Committee on Infractions "determine(s) what findings (if any) should be made and what (if any) penalties should be assessed upon a member institution". [ cite ]

The Committee on Infractions is made up of members from different institutions, roles, and conferences. (The entire roster can be found here.) It looks like the current composition of the committee has the following representation:

• SEC (3; president, commissioner, faculty)
• ACC (1; AD)
• Conference USA (1; commissioner)
• PAC-12 (1; faculty)
• Big 12 (1; VP for student affairs)
• Big Ten (1; former AD, now special assist. to the president)
• Ivy League (1; university counsel)
• AAC (1; faculty)
• Big East (1; AD)

Also on the committee are members from the general public, not associated with any NCAA institution. It looks like they're attorneys/partners/etc, but I also see Bobby Cremins' name on the list, so I'm not certain of the qualifications.

It's interesting to note that there are no voting members that are currently on NCAA staff. A common misconception is that the NCAA levies sanctions, when, in reality, it's the Committee on Infractions (made up of their peers) that is responsible for the findings and sanctions, if applicable.

I've also linked to the entire Committee on Infractions hearing procedures guide, for reading at your leisure. There's more information in that document than you'll ever need.

To understand the way the committee works, I've also linked to the public report issued after UNC-CH's last major infraction (2012).

Ok. That's it. I'm done for a while. Hope that helps to inform you on the NCAA legislation and procedures. At the very least, I hope it provided a distraction from work :-P

Resources

• Educational Column on Academic Misconduct
• Committee on Infractions Hearing Procedures
• 2012 UNC-CH Major Infractions Case

[gumbomoop]

NOTICE: This post could get rather lengthy...

Worth every word. Superb research and post. Big thanks to grad_devil (who obviously needed a break from grading all those papers).

Obviously the stuff about "erroneous declaration of eligibility" stands out, but there's lots more.

[MarkD83]

What is most intriguing to me is that the current ACC representative is from Notre Dame, the school who suspended a star basketball player right before the Duke game last year.

This would make me think Swofford would have no influence on the ACC representative to the infractions committee.

[tux]

Worth every word. Superb research and post. Big thanks to grad_devil (who obviously needed a break from grading all those papers).

Obviously the stuff about "erroneous declaration of eligibility" stands out, but there's lots more.

Agree. Thanks for all the information grad_devil.

This stuck out to me on my first reading:

Q6: What is the meaning of the phrase "arranging to receive fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts?"

A: This phrase refers to conduct such as altering or "doctoring" transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete did not enroll or he or she did not complete.

Technically, Crowder (and others involved) didn't do this, right? The athletes were enrolled in the classes. They "completed" the classes. It's just that the classes involved almost zero work. (I guess a 10-20 page paper is something, although I understand that most were plagiarized and the grading was a joke.)

I think some at UNC are hanging their hat on this idea of an "easy class". All universities have easy classes, after all...

Not that I'm buying that, but even Bubba made noises about the classes being certified. If the classes were certified, and the students were enrolled, and the students completed the class (as defined), then magically there's "nothing to see here."

[Kedsy]

Technically, Crowder (and others involved) didn't do this, right? The athletes were enrolled in the classes. They "completed" the classes. It's just that the classes involved almost zero work. (I guess a 10-20 page paper is something, although I understand that most were plagiarized and the grading was a joke.)

I think a big part of what makes the classes fraudulent is there was no professor. The kids never met with a professor and the papers were graded by an administrator. Under those circumstances, it would seem there was no class in which to enroll or complete.

[Mal]

Q6: What is the meaning of the phrase "arranging to receive fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts?"

A: This phrase refers to conduct such as altering or "doctoring" transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete did not enroll or he or she did not complete.

I think there are at least two responses to the weasely interpretations you note that UNC could give w/r/t the above language. First would be to note that under any reasonable definition of the word, what was happening here was not a "course," whether accreditation was received (fraudulently) or not. The second, and probably more persuasive, is the use of the words "such as" in the answer given. Or, in proper legal terminology, "including but not limited to." If you go back to the question, the phrase "arranging to receive fraudulent academic credit" clearly encompasses a systematic scheme of no attendance classes (there's your "arranging") in which athletes were given arbitrary but always high grades for little or no work (this is clearly "fraudulent academic credit").

[sagegrouse]

Agree. Thanks for all the information grad_devil.

This stuck out to me on my first reading:



Technically, Crowder (and others involved) didn't do this, right? The athletes were enrolled in the classes. They "completed" the classes. It's just that the classes involved almost zero work. (I guess a 10-20 page paper is something, although I understand that most were plagiarized and the grading was a joke.)

I think some at UNC are hanging their hat on this idea of an "easy class". All universities have easy classes, after all...

Not that I'm buying that, but even Bubba made noises about the classes being certified. If the classes were certified, and the students were enrolled, and the students completed the class (as defined), then magically there's "nothing to see here."

It's actually worse. The classes were fraudulent, and against the rules of UNC, and surely not passing muster before an accrediting agency. Moreover, the athletes were being deprived of an education. Crowder acted as the prof, even though she was a department administrator who was not in any sense a member of the faculty. She also forged the chairman's signature. All this stuff occurred to make athletes eligible to play -- and with what I would call the "connivance" of the academic support program.

Boxill's transgressions are a tougher case for the NCAA. Even though she apparently had 20 independent-study courses one semester, at least she's a member of the faculty, although the amount of work done and the grading standards may not be up to snuff. And the academic bosses told her to cut it out after they were aware of the number of such courses.

Anyway, my $0.02.

[Kfanarmy]

It's actually worse. The classes were fraudulent, and against the rules of UNC, and surely not passing muster before an accrediting agency. Moreover, the athletes were being deprived of an education. Crowder acted as the prof, even though she was a department administrator who was not in any sense a member of the faculty. She also forged the chairman's signature. All this stuff occurred to make athletes eligible to play -- and with what I would call the "connivance" of the academic support program.

Boxill's transgressions are a tougher case for the NCAA. Even though she apparently had 20 independent-study courses one semester, at least she's a member of the faculty, although the amount of work done and the grading standards may not be up to snuff. And the academic bosses told her to cut it out after they were aware of the number of such courses.

Anyway, my $0.02.

I think there are quotes from athletes saying they didn't do any of the work. That pretty much ends the discussion for me.

What I find disturbing about BOXILL, and would be very concerned if I were an academic at UNC, is that she doesn't appear to have had anyone overseeing what she offered ( I almost put taught there, but I'm not convinced she is qualified to teach ethics). What does that say about the principles and standards that UNC applies to its course offerings; and by extension, how seriously do they take acceditation on the whole? I'm guessing there are more departments wrapped in this whole "grades for athletes" business.

[JasonEvans]

So, the whole Jerry Tarkanian/Cleveland State joke just came true.

The NCAA just punished Weber St for an academic scandal.

A math instructor at Weber State admitted that she used personal login information for five athletes to complete coursework under their names. The instructors actions were discovered when another instructor saw that an athlete had "completed six quizzes and a final exam in less than one hour.

Weber St is losing 9 football scholarships and going on 3 years probation.

If we extrapolate these punishments for UNC, the Heels would lose something like 2000 scholarships and would be on probation until about the year 2200, right?

-Jason "I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NCAA or UNC to investigate Tydreke Powell's claim that a woman took tests on behalf of multiple athletes" Evans

[alteran]

So, the whole Jerry Tarkanian/Cleveland State joke just came true.

The NCAA just punished Weber St for an academic scandal.



Weber St is losing 9 football scholarships and going on 3 years probation.

If we extrapolate these punishments for UNC, the Heels would lose something like 2000 scholarships and would be on probation until about the year 2200, right?

-Jason "I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NCAA or UNC to investigate Tydreke Powell's claim that a woman took tests on behalf of multiple athletes" Evans

Unbelievable.

[MChambers]

So, the whole Jerry Tarkanian/Cleveland State joke just came true.

The NCAA just punished Weber St for an academic scandal.



Weber St is losing 9 football scholarships and going on 3 years probation.

If we extrapolate these punishments for UNC, the Heels would lose something like 2000 scholarships and would be on probation until about the year 2200, right?

-Jason "I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NCAA or UNC to investigate Tydreke Powell's claim that a woman took tests on behalf of multiple athletes" Evans

Did Daniel Ewing get a technical, too?

Just amazing.

[OldPhiKap]

Not sure who changed the title to "waiting for the NCAA to do something," but this will not be resolved before Spring at the earliest. My guess is sometime in the summer.

[Tom B.]

So, the whole Jerry Tarkanian/Cleveland State joke just came true.

The NCAA just punished Weber St for an academic scandal.



Weber St is losing 9 football scholarships and going on 3 years probation.

If we extrapolate these punishments for UNC, the Heels would lose something like 2000 scholarships and would be on probation until about the year 2200, right?

[Facepalm.]

I think your extrapolation is off by a bit. If academic fraud involving five athletes in one class is worth nine scholarships and three years of probation, then academic fraud involving, what, 1400 or 1500 athletes in who-knows-how-many classes should be worth a minimum (by my calculations) of 2520 scholarships and 840 years of probation.

[Duvall]

So, the whole Jerry Tarkanian/Cleveland State joke just came true.

The NCAA just punished Weber St for an academic scandal.



Weber St is losing 9 football scholarships and going on 3 years probation.

If we extrapolate these punishments for UNC, the Heels would lose something like 2000 scholarships and would be on probation until about the year 2200, right?

-Jason "I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NCAA or UNC to investigate Tydreke Powell's claim that a woman took tests on behalf of multiple athletes" Evans

It's almost like it takes longer to conclude an action involving thousands of students than one that involves five students. Crazy, I know.