A couple of days ago, I posted this article about "LOIC" as it pertains to the NCAA's Case No. 00231 re. UNC. In that article, I argue that Lack of Institutional Control is tied to the NCAA member institution's compliance actions and processes and not some loss of control of some rogue faculty or staff. To be charged with LOIC means NCAA enforcement is alleging that an institution's compliance efforts were unsatisfactory.
Vince Ille, senior associate Athletics Director, has been UNC's lead compliance officer since July 2012, hired by Director of Athletics Bubba Cunningham in the wake of the previous football and tutor scandal. Amy Herman had been assistant director for compliance for 11 years, and had been promoted to associate director for compliance in early 2011 by Cunningham's predecessor, Dick Baddour.
In July 2012, Herman announced her resignation. There was no indication from UNC nor Herman that the decision was pressured by the NCAA troubles; and Herman would go on to be hired by Duke University to serve as its Assistant Director of Compliance a year later, in 2013.
Since Herman's departure in 2012, the University of North Carolina has undergone four additional inquiries:
- The independent review by former Governor Jim Martin and the Baker-Tilly team into the Irregularities found in the African and African-American Studies Department.
- The subsequent independent review by Kenneth Wainstein
- The review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools - Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) accreditation agency
- Re-opened investigation by the NCAA coincident with the Wainstein investigation
In May 2015, the NCAA delivered a Notice of Allegations (NOA) of infractions to UNC, the most noteworthy of which was Allegation #5: Lack of Institutional Control. The NOA covers the period from Fall 2002 to the Summer 2011: the period of time during Amy Herman's role as UNC's officer in charge of compliance. Remember, "LOIC" is a charge against an institution's compliance program.
Normally, I wouldn't blame someone in the position of Herman for the failure. I could see how someone in her position could be blindsided if certain faculty and counselors had engaged in activities that would lead to academic fraud; or in this case who could have predicted that the NCAA would pursue an impermissible benefits angle vice academic fraud? But the NCAA's decision to allege Lack of Institutional Control would seem to land at Herman's feet.
Kenneth Wainstein reported Herman's role in the scandal this way (pg 126):
Kenneth Wainstein reported Herman's role in the scandal this way (pg 126):
In the supplement document release to the Wainstein Report, there is an item illustrating the basis for Wainstein's conclusion and characterization of Herman's relationship to the scandal. In a 2008 email between Herman and one of the academic counselors to student-athletes, Brent Blanton:
My Commentary
I think it's fair to say that Herman -- nor anyone charged with monitoring NCAA rules compliance -- is responsible for assessing academic quality or rigor of curricula a school provides for student-athletes. Just as the NCAA seeks to distance itself from auditing its members academic self-determination, compliance staff are not in the business of questioning or critiquing how faculty run their classes.
Kenneth Wainstein concluded that though Herman, like many others, was aware of the "easy" status of the so-called "paper classes," she (also like many others claim) was not aware of the fraudulent aspects of the arrangement, particularly that administrative assistant Debbi Crowder was grading and administering classwork as proxy for Dr. Julius Nyang'oro.
She was -- obviously, if only from the communique above -- aware of the "infamous" reputation of the classes and clearly exposed to the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more" sentiment among staffers like Blanton (who the University would later fire). Additionally, it would be fully within her purview to audit whether or not these "infamous" classes were being arranged for or accessed by student-athletes or by counseling staff for student-athletes, or delivered by faculty, for the benefit of student-athletes either solely or disproportionately.
Given that the NCAA's decision to pursue violations for "impermissible benefits" violations vice academic fraud was not predicted by many prior to the delivery of Notice of Allegations to UNC in 2015, it might seem like 20/20 hindsight to say Herman failed in her diligence to identify and protect the university from the impact of what Wainstein called a "shadow curriculum." Wainstein did relate that Herman's focus when it came to the question of "paper classes" was whether they were available to all students; which they were.
This "available to all students" argument has been a staple defense, not simply of Herman, but of everyone who had some knowledge of paper classes. Not a single person, including those the University would subsequently discharge and/or penalize for their roles in the scandal, have accepted any responsibility. Herman, herself, was never charged nor criticized (except by some private individuals and commentators). Duke, when contacted by concerned alumni, has stood by its hiring of Amy Herman.
But much has been revealed since then and if (big "IF") UNC does wind up being sanctioned for Lack of Institutional Control, then that is a finding, specifically, of a failure in UNC's compliance.
How that wouldn't taint Amy Herman as a compliance official, particularly in light of her cavalier communication with one of those fired for participating in what UNC, itself, agreed was academic fraud, I can't answer. But it should concern Duke University.
Kenneth Wainstein concluded that though Herman, like many others, was aware of the "easy" status of the so-called "paper classes," she (also like many others claim) was not aware of the fraudulent aspects of the arrangement, particularly that administrative assistant Debbi Crowder was grading and administering classwork as proxy for Dr. Julius Nyang'oro.
She was -- obviously, if only from the communique above -- aware of the "infamous" reputation of the classes and clearly exposed to the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more" sentiment among staffers like Blanton (who the University would later fire). Additionally, it would be fully within her purview to audit whether or not these "infamous" classes were being arranged for or accessed by student-athletes or by counseling staff for student-athletes, or delivered by faculty, for the benefit of student-athletes either solely or disproportionately.
Given that the NCAA's decision to pursue violations for "impermissible benefits" violations vice academic fraud was not predicted by many prior to the delivery of Notice of Allegations to UNC in 2015, it might seem like 20/20 hindsight to say Herman failed in her diligence to identify and protect the university from the impact of what Wainstein called a "shadow curriculum." Wainstein did relate that Herman's focus when it came to the question of "paper classes" was whether they were available to all students; which they were.
This "available to all students" argument has been a staple defense, not simply of Herman, but of everyone who had some knowledge of paper classes. Not a single person, including those the University would subsequently discharge and/or penalize for their roles in the scandal, have accepted any responsibility. Herman, herself, was never charged nor criticized (except by some private individuals and commentators). Duke, when contacted by concerned alumni, has stood by its hiring of Amy Herman.
But much has been revealed since then and if (big "IF") UNC does wind up being sanctioned for Lack of Institutional Control, then that is a finding, specifically, of a failure in UNC's compliance.
How that wouldn't taint Amy Herman as a compliance official, particularly in light of her cavalier communication with one of those fired for participating in what UNC, itself, agreed was academic fraud, I can't answer. But it should concern Duke University.
