Article today in Forbes by David Ridpath applies pressure on and calls out the NCAA for its historical biases in punishing schools that have cheated. Big name institutions have received minimal punishment whereas lesser names get harsh penalties. Time to correct this, per the author.
See below or online at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidr...rolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/
Will The NCAA Punish The University of North Carolina? Past Situational Ethics say Otherwise
While big-time intercollegiate athletics has its fair share of scandal virtually on a daily basis-see Steve Sarkisian and Baylor University for the topics du jour-the breadth and depth of the long-running athletic academic fraud scandal at one of our most prestigious Public Ivies, The University of North Carolina, even shocks those of us that follow and research these types of things regularly.
To briefly recap, the athletic academic fraud at UNC consisted of a “paper class” scheme that was developed in the African American Studies (AFAM) major by finding a soft spot in the curriculum, a few friendly faculty and staff, and an athletic department hell bent on keeping athletes eligible by any means necessary. Those means included many classes, some fully or mostly populated by UNC athletes, which required little or no work.
This is the 10 cent version, but it gets better considering that UNC was a school that held itself out as a paragon of virtue against intercollegiate athletic corruption by espousing the brand friendly “Carolina Way”. It was discovered, only through the efforts of whistleblower and former athletic adviser, Mary Willingham, that athletic department advisers were actively involved in soliciting and even requesting that these classes be created to aid in athletic eligibility for several sports most notably Football, women’s basketball, women’s soccer and of course the storied Tar Heel men’s basketball program. Some of these papers were plagiarized and even graded by a department secretary whose love for the Tar Heel men’s basketball team was unparalled. The height of the hypocrisy was when a professor in the ethics department got involved by interceding in grades for athletes and altering an initial report to the NCAA to cast UNC in the most positive light possible to prevent any further inquiry. I could go on–but you get the picture. I recommend checking into the Raleigh News & Observer website and articles written by the outstanding writer Dan Kane to get an in-depth overview.
This scandal was and is ugly. It will forever be a stain on one of our most notable public institutions and college sports overall. It has been called by many, including by my colleagues in The Drake Group,a consortium of faculty, staff, and others who are working toward academic integrity in athletics, the “worst academic fraud scandal in the history of college sports.” Despite all of this evidence, UNC initially tried to paint this as an academic only scandal and not one the NCAA should get involved in because other students, although at a lower rate, received the same illicit benefits through the paper class system.
To me, it was sad to see the entire institution thrown under the bus to protect the athletic brand and it smacked of desperation. Amazingly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the NCAA did not want any part of the UNC case initially-which is no surprise as they will often try to dodge any problems at major athletic institutions because of the financial benefit to the organizations bottom line. In 2012, the NCAA declined to take action by accepting the academic only stance of the university and stated it was a “university matter.” To say that this did not raise the ire and suspicion of people like me who follow and critique this system is an understatement and the protest grew louder from the public and mainstream media.
Even though it is a truism that the NCAA attempts to leave curricular decisions to the institution, there is a two-step NCAA test that determines if there is academic fraud that would rise to an NCAA violation irrespective of institutional policy.
The test is
1) Did the fraud affect an athlete’s eligibility and
2) Did members of the staff (this means anyone-athletic or non-athletic) participate in it?
There is no caveat if other students received the same benefit specifically in a case like this one where it is highly unlikely that this extent of fraudulent classes would have been allowed to happen over an 18 year period but for the benefit to athletic eligibility. In the UNC case, it is non-debatable that the fraud rises to the level of serious NCAA violations, but the NCAA still tried to stay out of it even in the face of extreme public pressure. It was not until the university itself decided to commission another investigation led by Kenneth Wainstein, a former general counsel for the FBI to ostensibly get to the bottom of what really happened, or to confirm what North Carolina claimed all along-that it was exclusively an academic scandal that some athletes just happened to be involved in. In October 2015 with the release of the Wainstein Report, the details of the fraud and direct nexus to athletics became too clear and direct to ignore any longer. Simply put, the NCAA had to take action or get out of the enforcement business altogether. Better late than never, the NCAA announced it would return to UNC only days after the release of the Wainstein report.
I am often asked why I have been so active in making sure that the NCAA at least investigates North Carolina and not give them a pass for this egregious breach of conduct. I am not a graduate of a rival school. I have many friends that work for and attended UNC along with being passionate Tar Heels. My issue is simple. It is about fairness. I have personally lived through and researched this process for over the past decade. I know the inner workings and many of the personalities involved. I was even invited to testify in front of the House sub-committee on the Constitution in 2004 (Congressional testimony More Congressional Testimony) to discuss the inequities and unfairness of NCAA investigations and sanctions.
I, and others, have found that the NCAA enforcement and infractions process is one of the most flawed and unfair quasi-judicial processes in existence. My personal experience includes experiencing two major NCAA investigations at Weber State and Marshall respectively-both including academic fraud issues. It is difficult to stomach other schools getting a pass for something that you were punished for. At Marshall we were raked over the coals by the NCAA Committee on Infractions for academic fraud violations that benefitted athlete’s and non-students similar to UNC, but also on a much smaller scale since it included one class in one semester, yet Marshall suffered sanctions due to what the NCAA called academic fraud. I am a researcher and critic who desires answers to these simple questions. Why does one school get punished for similar violations, while others get sanctioned less, worse or many times not at all? The NCAA will claim that each case is unique and they don’t typically use precedent-of course until they do.
The only consistent thing about the NCAA enforcement and infractions process is its inconsistency. More incredulous is that it took tremendous public pressure just to get the NCAA to reinvestigate UNC. Now the question is will UNC actually be punished and sanctioned as they should, or will the NCAA try to give one of their very important institutions a free pass or a much less tougher road? This is a tough question to answer given past inconsistencies and I certainly have my doubts that UNC will get sanctioned as they should in the form of lost titles, scholarships, post-season opportunities etc. Many will argue that the NCAA is fair and consistent, but the evidence says otherwise.
To empirically demonstrate that the critiques of the NCAA enforcement and infractions process are real with regard to selective enforcement and situational ethics, despite emphatic NCAA denials, I along with outstanding faculty members from the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Gerry Gurney and Dr. Eric Snyder performed an empirically based content analysis of past like NCAA infractions cases involving academic fraud. The article entitled NCAA Academic Fraud Cases and Historical Consistency: A Comparative Content Analysisappears in the August 2015 issue of the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport. You can access the article for the next two weeks at this link.
We found that NCAA is very inconsistent in its rulings and certainly does often err on the side of caution when it has a case that involves a major Big 5 institution. In other words, we found selective enforcement and an appearance of favoritism toward certain schools. In cases where punishment was actually carried out on a Big 5 member, it was typically due to the media doing the work of exposing issues for the NCAA and the organization had no other choice but to implement sanctions.
It appears we have reached that point in the North Carolina case. It is still an open question however if the Committee on Infractions will actually enforce and sanction UNC using prior case precedent and standards, or if they will soft-pedal any punishment to continue to protect schools that significantly contribute to their bottom line. Only time will tell. We won’t hear what the NCAA decides until Spring 2016 at the earliest. Until then we are left the speculate what punishment might happen from an organization and process that has no clear direction or precedent that it operates from.
See below or online at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidr...rolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/
Will The NCAA Punish The University of North Carolina? Past Situational Ethics say Otherwise
While big-time intercollegiate athletics has its fair share of scandal virtually on a daily basis-see Steve Sarkisian and Baylor University for the topics du jour-the breadth and depth of the long-running athletic academic fraud scandal at one of our most prestigious Public Ivies, The University of North Carolina, even shocks those of us that follow and research these types of things regularly.
To briefly recap, the athletic academic fraud at UNC consisted of a “paper class” scheme that was developed in the African American Studies (AFAM) major by finding a soft spot in the curriculum, a few friendly faculty and staff, and an athletic department hell bent on keeping athletes eligible by any means necessary. Those means included many classes, some fully or mostly populated by UNC athletes, which required little or no work.
This is the 10 cent version, but it gets better considering that UNC was a school that held itself out as a paragon of virtue against intercollegiate athletic corruption by espousing the brand friendly “Carolina Way”. It was discovered, only through the efforts of whistleblower and former athletic adviser, Mary Willingham, that athletic department advisers were actively involved in soliciting and even requesting that these classes be created to aid in athletic eligibility for several sports most notably Football, women’s basketball, women’s soccer and of course the storied Tar Heel men’s basketball program. Some of these papers were plagiarized and even graded by a department secretary whose love for the Tar Heel men’s basketball team was unparalled. The height of the hypocrisy was when a professor in the ethics department got involved by interceding in grades for athletes and altering an initial report to the NCAA to cast UNC in the most positive light possible to prevent any further inquiry. I could go on–but you get the picture. I recommend checking into the Raleigh News & Observer website and articles written by the outstanding writer Dan Kane to get an in-depth overview.
This scandal was and is ugly. It will forever be a stain on one of our most notable public institutions and college sports overall. It has been called by many, including by my colleagues in The Drake Group,a consortium of faculty, staff, and others who are working toward academic integrity in athletics, the “worst academic fraud scandal in the history of college sports.” Despite all of this evidence, UNC initially tried to paint this as an academic only scandal and not one the NCAA should get involved in because other students, although at a lower rate, received the same illicit benefits through the paper class system.
To me, it was sad to see the entire institution thrown under the bus to protect the athletic brand and it smacked of desperation. Amazingly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the NCAA did not want any part of the UNC case initially-which is no surprise as they will often try to dodge any problems at major athletic institutions because of the financial benefit to the organizations bottom line. In 2012, the NCAA declined to take action by accepting the academic only stance of the university and stated it was a “university matter.” To say that this did not raise the ire and suspicion of people like me who follow and critique this system is an understatement and the protest grew louder from the public and mainstream media.
Even though it is a truism that the NCAA attempts to leave curricular decisions to the institution, there is a two-step NCAA test that determines if there is academic fraud that would rise to an NCAA violation irrespective of institutional policy.
The test is
1) Did the fraud affect an athlete’s eligibility and
2) Did members of the staff (this means anyone-athletic or non-athletic) participate in it?
There is no caveat if other students received the same benefit specifically in a case like this one where it is highly unlikely that this extent of fraudulent classes would have been allowed to happen over an 18 year period but for the benefit to athletic eligibility. In the UNC case, it is non-debatable that the fraud rises to the level of serious NCAA violations, but the NCAA still tried to stay out of it even in the face of extreme public pressure. It was not until the university itself decided to commission another investigation led by Kenneth Wainstein, a former general counsel for the FBI to ostensibly get to the bottom of what really happened, or to confirm what North Carolina claimed all along-that it was exclusively an academic scandal that some athletes just happened to be involved in. In October 2015 with the release of the Wainstein Report, the details of the fraud and direct nexus to athletics became too clear and direct to ignore any longer. Simply put, the NCAA had to take action or get out of the enforcement business altogether. Better late than never, the NCAA announced it would return to UNC only days after the release of the Wainstein report.
I am often asked why I have been so active in making sure that the NCAA at least investigates North Carolina and not give them a pass for this egregious breach of conduct. I am not a graduate of a rival school. I have many friends that work for and attended UNC along with being passionate Tar Heels. My issue is simple. It is about fairness. I have personally lived through and researched this process for over the past decade. I know the inner workings and many of the personalities involved. I was even invited to testify in front of the House sub-committee on the Constitution in 2004 (Congressional testimony More Congressional Testimony) to discuss the inequities and unfairness of NCAA investigations and sanctions.
I, and others, have found that the NCAA enforcement and infractions process is one of the most flawed and unfair quasi-judicial processes in existence. My personal experience includes experiencing two major NCAA investigations at Weber State and Marshall respectively-both including academic fraud issues. It is difficult to stomach other schools getting a pass for something that you were punished for. At Marshall we were raked over the coals by the NCAA Committee on Infractions for academic fraud violations that benefitted athlete’s and non-students similar to UNC, but also on a much smaller scale since it included one class in one semester, yet Marshall suffered sanctions due to what the NCAA called academic fraud. I am a researcher and critic who desires answers to these simple questions. Why does one school get punished for similar violations, while others get sanctioned less, worse or many times not at all? The NCAA will claim that each case is unique and they don’t typically use precedent-of course until they do.
The only consistent thing about the NCAA enforcement and infractions process is its inconsistency. More incredulous is that it took tremendous public pressure just to get the NCAA to reinvestigate UNC. Now the question is will UNC actually be punished and sanctioned as they should, or will the NCAA try to give one of their very important institutions a free pass or a much less tougher road? This is a tough question to answer given past inconsistencies and I certainly have my doubts that UNC will get sanctioned as they should in the form of lost titles, scholarships, post-season opportunities etc. Many will argue that the NCAA is fair and consistent, but the evidence says otherwise.
To empirically demonstrate that the critiques of the NCAA enforcement and infractions process are real with regard to selective enforcement and situational ethics, despite emphatic NCAA denials, I along with outstanding faculty members from the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Gerry Gurney and Dr. Eric Snyder performed an empirically based content analysis of past like NCAA infractions cases involving academic fraud. The article entitled NCAA Academic Fraud Cases and Historical Consistency: A Comparative Content Analysisappears in the August 2015 issue of the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport. You can access the article for the next two weeks at this link.
We found that NCAA is very inconsistent in its rulings and certainly does often err on the side of caution when it has a case that involves a major Big 5 institution. In other words, we found selective enforcement and an appearance of favoritism toward certain schools. In cases where punishment was actually carried out on a Big 5 member, it was typically due to the media doing the work of exposing issues for the NCAA and the organization had no other choice but to implement sanctions.
It appears we have reached that point in the North Carolina case. It is still an open question however if the Committee on Infractions will actually enforce and sanction UNC using prior case precedent and standards, or if they will soft-pedal any punishment to continue to protect schools that significantly contribute to their bottom line. Only time will tell. We won’t hear what the NCAA decides until Spring 2016 at the earliest. Until then we are left the speculate what punishment might happen from an organization and process that has no clear direction or precedent that it operates from.
