OT: UNC Academic Fraud Investigation | Page 7 | The Boneyard

OT: UNC Academic Fraud Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Icebear said:
Or else provided Williams with a fire wall for plausible deniability, so he could "honest" plead ignorance.
Expand ...

Should have put quotes around "honest". : )
 
UConnChapette said:
Why does it need to be asked? Her reasons for transferring is her business. Maybe it was no part of the reason, part of the reason, or the entire reason. Whatever the case, she does not owe an explanation to anyone. . .
Expand ...

Because it would be news.

Not saying that she owes an explanation to anyone (and I would be surprised if she
offered one), but if she did address that question I'm sure there would be plenty of
people who would be interested in hearing her answer.
 
On the DD question - this really blew up in late May this year and DD made her decision in April - I really doubt any athlete or anyone connected with the school really believed that their hired gun was going to produce such a damning report. I actually would find it hard to believe if she said it was part of her motivation at this time.

I am wondering when we will hear anything from the ACC on this subject? If I were another member of the ACC I think I would vote to vacate all conference records for UNC from 1992 - 2011 for at least football and men's and women's basketball and would exclude them from any post season ACC tournaments and any revenue sharing from those tournaments for a period of 3-5 years. And I would seriously think about trying to remove them from the conference if such a thing is allowed by the bylaws.

I agree with the linked article that the federal and regional accrediting should at a minimum be suspended and a significant probation be imposed.
 
It is a genuine dilemma, as in so many other cases; how to punish the guilty without also punishing the innocent. Furthermore, how do you determine exactly who IS guilty, and the extent of the guilt in each individual case? Pulling UNC's accreditation would be drastic, much more drastic than SMU's "death penalty". It would invalidate the degrees of every UNC grad, for whatever period of time was decided upon, and for sure the current students. The value of UNC degrees (undergraduate at least) have already been severely compromised. On the other hand, as the cited article, and the comments that follow it, point out, this began as an athletic cheat, but expanded to contaminate many other functions of the University, including, ironically, the Ethics section. Higher-ups MUST have known what was going on, at least in broad outline, but how do you prove it?

Frankly, I just don't know what should be done. Firing nine employees is not enough. As the article points out, it is the Southern Association, not the NCAA who has the power to suspend UNCs accreditation, or whatever. The NCAA does, however, have the power (though prolly not the guts) to levy very harsh penalties on the sports programs. There just do not seem to be any good answers as to what should be done, as far as I can see. Either a bunch of the guilty are going to go unpunished or a bunch of the innocent are going to be punished, or both.
 
UcMiami said:
On the DD question - this really blew up in late May this year and DD made her decision in April - I really doubt any athlete or anyone connected with the school really believed that their hired gun was going to produce such a damning report. I actually would find it hard to believe if she said it was part of her motivation at this time.

I am wondering when we will hear anything from the ACC on this subject? If I were another member of the ACC I think I would vote to vacate all conference records for UNC from 1992 - 2011 for at least football and men's and women's basketball and would exclude them from any post season ACC tournaments and any revenue sharing from those tournaments for a period of 3-5 years. And I would seriously think about trying to remove them from the conference if such a thing is allowed by the bylaws.

I agree with the linked article that the federal and regional accrediting should at a minimum be suspended and a significant probation be imposed.
Expand ...


Andy-Dwyer-Saying-Great-Idea.gif
 
.-.
UcMiami said:
On the DD question - this really blew up in late May this year and DD made her decision in April - I really doubt any athlete or anyone connected with the school really believed that their hired gun was going to produce such a damning report. I actually would find it hard to believe if she said it was part of her motivation at this time.

I am wondering when we will hear anything from the ACC on this subject? If I were another member of the ACC I think I would vote to vacate all conference records for UNC from 1992 - 2011 for at least football and men's and women's basketball and would exclude them from any post season ACC tournaments and any revenue sharing from those tournaments for a period of 3-5 years. And I would seriously think about trying to remove them from the conference if such a thing is allowed by the bylaws.

I agree with the linked article that the federal and regional accrediting should at a minimum be suspended and a significant probation be imposed.
Expand ...

In reference to your comment about other ACC member schools, there's interesting data on pro-NC State site in this entry: The rest of the ACC should be mad. Since 1992-1993 season, UNC teams have won 114 ACC titles -- that's 21 percent of all ACC titles since then and 31 more titles than the 2nd place team. The entire breakdown is at the link.

And there's this comment about UConn: "UConn should have a bone to pick too. They report their grades truthfully and don’t get to participate in the NCAA tourney because of their APR score. Carolina just inflates theirs with fake classes and changed grades, no problem with their APR score. Seems fair, right UConn?"

Also, to be published in the Raleigh News & Observer tomorrow is this op-ed piece by a local journalist, Lewis Beale: Whether quite or be fired by UNC, Williams must go
 
I am curious whether there has ever been a study of D1 schools academically ineligible athletes. I think would be interesting to see over time whether there is a distinct pattern for schools, conferences, and nationally. One would expect with UNCs system in place they would have a zero rate of academically ineligible athletes for the last 20 years. A comparison between number of athletes ineligible/on academic probation vs. non-athletes by school would be very interesting to me.

The other issue that has not been brought up is that with the introduction of the current system of academic progress and graduation rates the NCAA I believe did away with all the entry level requirements (beyond HS diploma or equivalency) for incoming athletes. While there were always some 'irregularities' for SAT scores, there was a presumption that athletes had at least nominal academic skills that would allow them to function in college. This was debated when the new system was initiated, but it has not been revisited since this fraud first surfaced and Willingham's claims of illiterate scholarship athletes. If you are recruiting athletes that cannot read or write at a junior HS level, having classes like those at UNC is a necessity.
 
Yeah good point on all the titles won while this sham was going on...... remember all that was stripped from Penn State and Joe Paterno...... they should absolutely do the same with UNC..... With Penn State we were talking about criminal negligence...... it can be argued that this happening at UNC is no better or worse
 
Bayareahusky said:
Yeah good point on all the titles won while this sham was going on. remember all that was stripped from Penn State and Joe Paterno. they should absolutely do the same with UNC..... With Penn State we were talking about criminal negligence. it can be argued that this happening at UNC is no better or worse
Expand ...
My only issue with nailing a school for real crimes as opposed to violations of compliance rules of a private club like the NCAA is 1) it's outside of the scope of the organization and its rules and 2) it's a slippery slope and drawing the red line is impossible which ultimately leads to unfair application of the rules. I would hate for the NCAA to go outside of its rules and regs manual to punish a member institution just to satiate the blood lust of the public whose mental capacity is exactly 140 characters. PSU was hammered because they covered up child rape for the sake of football, or at least that was the NCAA's reasoning for punishment. The year prior, PSU had been deemed a model institution by the NCAA for its compliance to the rules and its academic standards for athletes. At the end of the day, no child rapes occurred at PSU, and to date no one has been convicted of conspiracy or cover up in relation to Sandusky's crimes. This was the NCAA caving to public outrage that was fueled by a lack of facts at the time, and with the repealing of most of the sanctions the NCAA has tacitly admitted their mistake and described the PSU punishment as an experiment. The reason it is important to make the distinction is let's say next time Geno is accused of harassing or assaulting a woman and having her job taken away the NCAA decides to punish Geno and the team by citing some vague morals clause. Like I said, slippery slope.
 
UcMiami said:
I am curious whether there has ever been a study of D1 schools academically ineligible athletes. I think would be interesting to see over time whether there is a distinct pattern for schools, conferences, and nationally. One would expect with UNCs system in place they would have a zero rate of academically ineligible athletes for the last 20 years. A comparison between number of athletes ineligible/on academic probation vs. non-athletes by school would be very interesting to me.

The other issue that has not been brought up is that with the introduction of the current system of academic progress and graduation rates the NCAA I believe did away with all the entry level requirements (beyond HS diploma or equivalency) for incoming athletes. While there were always some 'irregularities' for SAT scores, there was a presumption that athletes had at least nominal academic skills that would allow them to function in college. This was debated when the new system was initiated, but it has not been revisited since this fraud first surfaced and Willingham's claims of illiterate scholarship athletes. If you are recruiting athletes that cannot read or write at a junior HS level, having classes like those at UNC is a necessity.
Expand ...

The necessity for those athletics is the three Rs, reading , writing, and arithmetic.
 
Bayareahusky said:
Yeah good point on all the titles won while this sham was going on. remember all that was stripped from Penn State and Joe Paterno. they should absolutely do the same with UNC..... With Penn State we were talking about criminal negligence. it can be argued that this happening at UNC is no better or worse
Expand ...
That is not clear yet since all we have is charges but no trial.
 
.-.
Another example of a PSU like issue would be things like sexual assault on campus or the issues that initially hit Duke lacrosse, or even 'white collar' crime like finding that the AD had misappropriated funds - all criminal activity or alleged criminal activity that have nothing to do with NCAA rules or the eligibility of student athletes or improper benefits. The NCAA really does not have jurisdiction and should leave them to the legal system.
Bayarea - While the criminal actions of Sandusky were terrible, and the alleged actions of various people at PSU were both criminal and allowed Sandusky's crimes to continue long after they should have been stopped, the activity at UNC is actually a much greater 'crime' in terms of the NCAA's area of responsibility. For 18 years 'student' athletes remained eligible and were allowed to compete in their sports through academic fraud - 1500+/- athletes to be precise. That is a staggering number and provided UNC teams with a huge advantage.
The only argument the NCAA can make in the PSU case is that had the Sandusky crimes been made public earlier, it might have had a negative public relations effect on recruiting - there was never any allegation that a single recruit or student athlete had received any benefit from the crimes or alleged crimes or even knew crimes were being committed which is what the NCAA is supposed to enforce.
 
UcMiami said:
Another example of a PSU like issue would be things like s e xual assault on campus or the issues that initially hit Duke lacrosse.
Expand ...

Except for the fact there was no rape or sexual assault, and there was never any rape or sexual assault by the lacrosse players. There was a prosecutor (who graduated from UNC undergrad and UNC law school, incidentally) who was so zealous to convict the Duke players and vilify the entire lacrosse team and university that he was actually convicted on over 25 charges and had had his law license permanently disbarred. The State of North Carolina Attorney General came forward to state not just that the players were not guilty, but they were "innocent." Not only was there no DNA evidence from any lacrosse player, the DNA that was found belonged to three other men...none of whom was a Duke student or Duke employee. In fact, the accuser later admitted nothing happened that night (incidentally, she is now in prison, having subsequently murdered her boyfriend).

Truth be told, here is why the NCAA did not need to get involved. After the allegations surfaced, Duke immediately canceled the entire lacrosse season, fired the lacrosse coach, kicked the accused players out of school (and a number of other lacrosse players), and had its own university professor ("The Gang of 88") publish a manifesto vilifying the lacrosse players and program.

And this was all for Duke lacrosse players who were completely innocent.
 
elzorrogris said:
It is a genuine dilemma, as in so many other cases; how to punish the guilty without also punishing the innocent. Furthermore, how do you determine exactly who IS guilty, and the extent of the guilt in each individual case? Pulling UNC's accreditation would be drastic, much more drastic than SMU's "death penalty". It would invalidate the degrees of every UNC grad, for whatever period of time was decided upon, and for sure the current students. The value of UNC degrees (undergraduate at least) have already been severely compromised. On the other hand, as the cited article, and the comments that follow it, point out, this began as an athletic cheat, but expanded to contaminate many other functions of the University, including, ironically, the Ethics section. Higher-ups MUST have known what was going on, at least in broad outline, but how do you prove it?

Frankly, I just don't know what should be done. Firing nine employees is not enough. As the article points out, it is the Southern Association, not the NCAA who has the power to suspend UNCs accreditation, or whatever. The NCAA does, however, have the power (though prolly not the guts) to levy very harsh penalties on the sports programs. There just do not seem to be any good answers as to what should be done, as far as I can see. Either a bunch of the guilty are going to go unpunished or a bunch of the innocent are going to be punished, or both.
Expand ...

I found your argument very persuasive and hit the like button
But a little birdie got in my ear and tweeted…
General inaction by whomever is equally damning;
Seemingly the best actions could be done internally if the U had the courage.
  • Fire all coaches whose hand-picked advisors steered students into these programs (including Silvia)
  • Rehire Mary Willingham and put her in charge of minimum standards for admissions (and giving her veto power over athletic candidates).
  • Invalidate all credits received under these programs and compel the students who require the degree to return and earn their diploma legitimately (that would surely cause a disruption in people's lives and careers, but would have to be tolerated). It has already been determined that that cost must be borne by the U. And I would not be surprised if some of the returnees sued. (Set aside a couple of million for settlements).
If the University took those steps, then all the NCAA would have to do is invalidate trophy's won by ineligible students, the info being handed to them by the U.
And take some other actions: scholly's, bowl, post-season…whatever…the tough work would have been done for them.
 
Last edited:
Cam - sorry, I did not write that first sentence very well ... sexual assaults on campus as one type of crime, the allegations against Duke Lacrosse as another type, and the idea of a hypothetical white collar crime as a third. I should not have specified the Duke situation which I know proved baseless. I was not thinking of the alleged rape as much as the underage drinking and rowdiness, but should have just left it out. It is interesting to me however that the NCAA acted on allegations at PSU long before Sandusky was convicted of crimes and before anyone else was even indicted - based on that fact, the NCAA could have acted against Duke based on the allegations of crimes as well.
Thanks for correcting the impressions I gave above.
 
A pretty interesting take - especially at the end regarding the limitations of the Weinstein report.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesma...h-high-level-culprits-in-unc-grade-scandal/2/

On accreditation of UNC - the SACS faces the same sort of issues that the NCAA faces. In effect UNC has self reported that over an 18 year history a minimum of 3100 students received college credit for courses that did not meet any minimum standard of accreditation - and that number is just students and not student/classes. The assumption is that many of the students took multiple classes - the number of student classes has to be above 10,000 - we know that five athletes averaged eight of these classes each during their time at UNC. The whole accreditation system depends on institutions' administrations guaranteeing that all credits given students meet a high standard of academic integrity, and that systems are in place to insure that these standards are met, that cheating and plagiarism is punished. UNC clearly failed in this, and not only that, the administration for a period of 3 years obstructed and obfuscated when the irregularities were uncovered.
The SASC is faced with a challenge to their whole reason for existence - if they do nothing 'because it would hurt students that had nothing to do with the fraud' when confronted with the worst and most extensive academic fraud ever exposed, what does accreditation actually mean, and how can they ever confront another college/university who is caught doing something unethical. And it opens the door for administrations intentionally flaunting standards rather than through incompetence and lax enforcement enabling academic fraud.
I understand the desire not to destroy a generally very good university, but if the SASC does not impose burdensome penalties on UNC it no longer stands for anything. Some form of probation of long duration with yearly in depth revue and reporting seems to me to be a minimum acceptable penalty.

The same is true for the NCAA - the 'death penalty' absolutely should be on the table. Making UNC rebuild its athletic department from the ground up after a year or two without scholarships for effected sports. If the NCAA fails to impose draconian penalties (whether they reach death penalty or not) their whole existence is meaningless and their publicity campaign and touting of GSR/APR is a bad joke. (It is anyway, but ...)
 
I just realized why the ACC is curiously silent on the UNC scandal - John Swofford (the ACC commissioner) was the UNC athletic director when the fraud was initiated and during its first five years.
I am surprised that he has not been hounded by reporters asking awkward questions - and I would think the ACC member schools should start looking for someone new.
 
.-.
I just realized that Boxill, the professor and director of the Ethics Center who in an email string is clearly complicit in fraud is still employed as a professor at UNC - her directorship has been removed but she is still a member of the faculty. What sort of bad joke is this. It does not matter if she has tenure - her actions are such that she can be fired anyway.
And this crap about ethical dilemma - if you are a professor and a student is unable to perform work to the standards of your course, there is no dilemma, you cannot pass them. Academic integrity is not a sliding scale.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...broiled-in-the-unc-fake-class-scandal-2014-10
 
Last edited:
No Roy, it is not your job to intimately infiltrate and interfere with academics...... that is not what we are talking about...... you sat on the sidelines and did nothing while most of your players are taking the same major, and an easy one at that..... at least monitor what classes they are taking, check their progress, and get under the hood just a bit...... you have failed as a leader of young men with your hands off attitude....... and frankly, your appearances lately proclaiming you are doing everything right is disgusting.
 
Bayareahusky said:
No Roy, it is not your job to intimately infiltrate and interfere with academics. that is not what we are talking about. you sat on the sidelines and did nothing while most of your players are taking the same major, and an easy one at that..... at least monitor what classes they are taking, check their progress, and get under the hood just a bit. you have failed as a leader of young men with your hands off attitude.. and frankly, your appearances lately proclaiming you are doing everything right is disgusting.
Expand ...

Only slightly analogous, I worked at a respected, expensive private college for over 11 years (non-academic position). I learned through the years that it was often convenient for the "higher-ups" (deans, VP's, college Pres.) to "not know" about problems. They not only didn't dig into situations, but, they actively avoided doing so - because, if they DID know about a problem, in their position, they had a responsibility to try and solve it.

One of the weird things about a college or university that most folks don't understand is, it's a managerial nightmare. Even my little protected enclave of a school was, at the time, a 60-million dollar-a-year business. But, rather than a business producing a product or two, it was a multi-million dollar property management business (dorms, grounds, academic buildings, power plant, HVAC, plumbing, etc.), a multi-million dollar food service business, athletic business, lodging business, security business, library, recruiting, accounting. All of these functions are subservient to the golden idol of academia (professors are not, generally speaking, modest about their work), the influence of alumni and donors, the complaints of students and parents ("I'm paying $$$ to this place!"), and public perception. And, you don't get to turn off the office lights at 5 pm on Friday.

Trying to manage all these different disciplines, egos, and interests is very, very tough. The learning curve for university/college leaders is long and mistake-filled. So terribly often, the most expedient thing for them to do is to not acknowledge a problem until they absolutely have to.
 
UcMiami said:
I just realized why the ACC is curiously silent on the UNC scandal - John Swofford (the ACC commissioner) was the UNC athletic director when the fraud was initiated and during its first five years.
I am surprised that he has not been hounded by reporters asking awkward questions - and I would think the ACC member schools should start looking for someone new.
Expand ...

Sports reporters did ask him about the scandal, including his time as AD, during his press conference yesterday as part of the ACC MBB Media Day. Here's one write-up that appeared in the News & Observer --> ACC Commissioner Swofford: Saw no warning signs as UNC's AD

A full transcript of his comments, including the Q&A with reporters, is here --> http://northcarolinastate.scout.com/story/1474544-acc-media-day-john-swofford?s=178
 
.-.
UcMiami said:
I just realized that Boxill, the professor and director of the Ethics Center who in an email string is clearly complicit in fraud is still employed as a professor at UNC - her directorship has been removed but she is still a member of the faculty. What sort of bad joke is this. It does not matter if she has tenure - her actions are such that she can be fired anyway.
And this crap about ethical dilemma - if you are a professor and a student is unable to perform work to the standards of your course, there is no dilemma, you cannot pass them. Academic integrity is not a sliding scale.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...broiled-in-the-unc-fake-class-scandal-2014-10
Expand ...

Boxill actually isn't tenured. She was the first non-tenured faculty member to be elected chair of the faculty.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/20/3044746_unc-faculty-leader-pushed-rewrite.html?rh=1
 
loneycafe said:
Sports reporters did ask him about the scandal, including his time as AD, during his press conference yesterday as part of the ACC MBB Media Day. Here's one write-up that appeared in the News & Observer --> ACC Commissioner Swofford: Saw no warning signs as UNC's AD

A full transcript of his comments, including the Q&A with reporters, is here --> http://northcarolinastate.scout.com/story/1474544-acc-media-day-john-swofford?s=178
Expand ...

After reading the transcript, it seems a few people were able to help over 3,100 "students" without any people in senior positions at UNC knowing about it over an 18 year period. That's a better job than our FBI or CIA can do. It is a disgusting situation and as usual the cover up creates the second problem. this is a great example of a problem in our country, i.e. lack of personal accountability.
 
HoopsFan21 said:
The NCAA nailed Penn State because they covered up child rape on their campus. The only problem with that premise is that no child was ever raped on their campus, at least according to the verdict handed down in Sandusky's trial.
Expand ...

May get banned again for this question, but so be it. Sandusky was found guilty of indecent assault or worse for 6 of 10 of the many victims whose cases were actually part of the trial, but I guess you're saying that the campus incidents were ones he only got the "unlawful contact," "corruption of minors," and "endangering welfare of children" convictions on. Even if that is so, then PSU was covering up these very serious offenses on campus by someone who was convicted of being a child rapist. So what's your big beef with the "premise" that in this case for once the NCAA might have actually done the right thing in assigning penalties for reprehensible actions?

But yes, back to a UNC morass discussion that likely had more victims than even Sandusky could tally up.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
May get banned again for this question, but so be it. Sandusky was found guilty of indecent assault or worse for 6 of 10 of the many victims whose cases were actually part of the trial, but I guess you're saying that the campus incidents were ones he only got the "unlawful contact," "corruption of minors," and "endangering welfare of children" convictions on. Even if that is so, then PSU was covering up these very serious offenses on campus by someone who was convicted of being a child rapist. So what's your big beef with the "premise" that in this case for once the NCAA might have actually done the right thing in assigning penalties for reprehensible actions?

But yes, back to a UNC morass discussion that likely had more victims than even Sandusky could tally up.
Expand ...

So was PSU punished because something bad occurred on their campus or were they punished because something bad happened on their campus and they supposedly covered it up? If it's the latter, no such cover up has been proven. If it's the former, every college is screwed based on the amount of reprehensible things occurring every single day on campuses across America. The NCAA's enforcement should be limited to what is stated in the rules - no more and no less. If you don't do that where do you draw the line? How do you ensure rules are being applied fairly?

The NCAA did the wrong thing in this case. They should have never gotten involved in what was a purely criminal matter. I said it at the time without having even looked into the facts that this was a very dangerous precedent that the NCAA was setting. I assure you all other P5 schools were taking notes, and the NCAA's inconsistent application of rules and punishments is one more reason to jettison the NCAA as it presents a tremendous risk to the schools. Effectively the NCAA has declared that it can punish a member institution for any reason it finds immoral where there are no explicit rules violations. Imagine if the legal system worked that way? It would be absolute chaos. I really can't paint a better picture for you as to how this precedent could result in abuses of power by an organization that is known for its corruption and ineptitude.

Now the NCAA has repealed most of the sanctions and have called the whole thing "an experiment." Call me crazy, but I would never want to be part of some experimental new punishment, especially when after a couple of years of it the NCAA basically says, OK we were wrong, sorry and have a nice day. Oh yeah one more stupid thing about this is that the football team was hit because Paterno didn't do enough, which I guess equates to attempting to cover up what Sandusky did, but the NCAA's new guidelines for dealing with such crimes involving athletic department employees is exactly what Paterno did. To quote these new guidelines, staff are to "report the crime to the appropriate campus offices" and "do not manage, direct, control, or interfere in the investigation." I guess the old man did the right thing after all in the eyes of the NCAA's own newly published guidelines.
 
Yes it is incredible how the NCAA has backtracked on the Penn State issue. They really took the independent investigation results and came to quick judgment on it.

One thing on Paterno..... that i always have thought ..... Paterno was never one to alert authorities and call it a day when something affected his program. I know of a case in 2005 I believe, when he used his power to push the VP of Student Affairs (i think) out the door because she attempted to discipline players on the team, and he wanted to be solely responsible for matters connected to his team. I fault Paterno for blocking others from getting involved in matters like these over his tenure..... on everything else in the Sandusky affair, he got the short end of the stick
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,035
Messages
4,550,422
Members
10,430
Latest member
Books&Ball


Top Bottom