- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 14,593
- Reaction Score
- 30,535
Looks like Mizzou is taking it on the nose for academic fraud
NCAA penalizes Missouri in academic fraud case
But I remember from the UNC case that UNC got off all because of one reason: the NCAA does not take liberty to define academic fraud, and essentially relies on schools to operate in good faith to report fraud and accept the NCAA’s ruling. Yet here we have
“The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions found that Kumar violated NCAA ethical conduct, academic misconduct and academic extra benefits rules when she completed academic work for 12 student-athletes.”
So the unethical misconduct is to be policed in some cases and not others when it comes to the NCAA. Water is wet and all, I know, but am I missing something here? There was a similarly involved whistle blower in the UNC case who reported fraud, but that was ignored. In fact, later in the article, the NCAA specifically tried to differentiate the two cases.
Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes," the report said. "In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes' work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."
Just incredible
NCAA penalizes Missouri in academic fraud case
But I remember from the UNC case that UNC got off all because of one reason: the NCAA does not take liberty to define academic fraud, and essentially relies on schools to operate in good faith to report fraud and accept the NCAA’s ruling. Yet here we have
“The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions found that Kumar violated NCAA ethical conduct, academic misconduct and academic extra benefits rules when she completed academic work for 12 student-athletes.”
So the unethical misconduct is to be policed in some cases and not others when it comes to the NCAA. Water is wet and all, I know, but am I missing something here? There was a similarly involved whistle blower in the UNC case who reported fraud, but that was ignored. In fact, later in the article, the NCAA specifically tried to differentiate the two cases.
Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes," the report said. "In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes' work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."
Just incredible
