On March 9th, 2016 -- after five years of silence since her role in the academic scandal was first identified by UNC's internal review of the African and African-American (AFAM) studies department -- Deborah Crowder, the former AFAM department administrative assistant, finally made her voice heard when she unexpectedly submitted a response to the latest NCAA Notice of Allegations in the UNC case.
I posted my first reaction last Friday after reading her letter in response to NCAA allegations. I've since marveled at the affidavit that was attached to that letter response. In it, she has attested to twelve sworn statements, and the more I read it, the more amazed I am at her audacity.
Her response strikes well beyond the current NCAA case and raises counter-claims that challenge the University's almost six-year stance that the situation was, indeed, a serious academic failure. In the NCAA case, UNC is arguing with the NCAA that, while bad, the scandal was a university concern and not one for the NCAA, Crowder, by contrast, wants to deny it was ever scandalous. If anything was scandalous, according to Crowder, it was the University putting students into struggling circumstances because of "problems created by institutional bureaucracy." She sees no problems with her conduct or the courses she managed as a faux faculty member.
I've attempted an analysis of her March 8th, 2017 affidavit from an NCAA infractions case perspective, but here I'd like to expound on what Crowder seems to be saying and why it's most curious why she's saying it now.
Crowder's Pre-Wainstein/Pre-NCAA Allegations Notoriety
The first time the general public might have heard of Deborah Crowder was most likely May 2012, when UNC released the report of an internal review of "irregularities" uncovered in a subset of the African and African-American (AFAM) Studies department at Chapel Hill. The Hartlyn-Andrews Report wasn't definitive on the matter, but it was the first time that suspicion was publicly placed on the retired administrative assistant to former faculty and academic department chair Dr. Julius Nyang'oro for possibly having a role in the so-called academic "irregularities."
 |
| Hartlyn-Andrews Report, May 2nd, 2012, pg.6 |
 |
| Hartlyn-Andrews Report, May 2nd, 2012, pg.s 6-7 |
Dan Kane covered the news with a story in the News & Observer that ran May 4th, 2012. A couple of months later, the N&O published another article with tidbits of information on the reclusive Crowder that drew ire from those who thought Kane was fishing and trying to connect Crowder to athletics. UNC Associate Professor Reginald F. Hildebrand took the N&O to task in his Anatomy of a Scandal essay for what he felt was unnecessary digging into Crowder's personal life, but it may have been he who first applied the label of "shadow curriculum" to what had been "devised and orchestrated by the former department administrator and the former department chair."
Later in 2012, former governor James Martin's investigation affirmed most of the findings of the Hartlyn-Andrews report, including many of the claims to which Crowder now objects:
 |
| Martin Report, Dec 19th, 2012 |
Crowder During the Post-Wainstein Era
Submitted as an attachment to her response to NCAA allegations of infractions, the affidavit is a refutation of some claims and findings from the Wainstein Report that is a key evidentiary document in the NCAA case. Some of the claims she protests are also made in the 2012 Hartlyn-Andrews and Martin reports, though she doesn't mention those in her affidavit. All three reports from the University-chartered reviews/investigations have been Factual Items (FIs) in all three versions of Notices of Allegations (NOAs) that have been issued by the NCAA in the pending UNC infraction case.
The University, itself, has not contested any of the findings of these reports. In the case of the Wainstein Report, the University took personnel actions against some employees and did not dispute the findings when faced with a revived inspection from the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) that ultimately led to a probationary period while UNC demonstrated the effectiveness of its reforms. Many of those reforms were instituted in the wake of the Wainstein Report.
Through several investigations, including one by North Carolina Special Bureau of Investigations (SBI) from 2012 to 2014 and the NCAA in 2014 to present, Crowder has remained silent and out of the public eye. She had repeated refused to respond to calls for interviews from investigators until a deal was brokered by Orange County District Attorney Bob Woodall in which, like the arrangement afforded to Nyang'oro, any pursuit of criminal charges would be dismissed in exchange for Crowder's cooperation with UNC's independent investigation (Wainstein).
She agreed and was interviewed at least once by Wainstein's team. During this same period, NCAA investigators also sought an audience with Crowder, but she refused. She went silent again from 2014 until now, refusing to respond to two previous NCAA Notices of Allegations or to participate in NCAA infractions proceedings in which she was a named individual.
It's All About the Students
After all of this, she now explains her coming forward this way:
 |
| Deborah Crowder: Response to Second Amended Notice of Allegations March 9th, 2017 |
For five years, administrators, faculty, investigators, accreditors, academia commentators -- and even UNC's own response to the NCAA allegations -- have all agreed that what Crowder had done was flawed, "irregular," "anomalous," "fraudulent," "shadow curriculum, and something that required extensive correction.
The only entity for whom that assessment is not in its "wheelhouse" is the NCAA, and yet it is on the cusp of UNC's infractions case finally, after 18-months of delays and extensions, entering a hearing on the merits of the infractions, Crowder now lodges her protest over an evidentiary item in the case. And why? Because of:
"the harm that these untrue allegations have inflicted, and will continue to inflict, on former students…"
Surely it's not the NCAA allegations that have harmed any students. NCAA allegations rely on the University's own, most comprehensive, investigation; one that the University itself has accepted, and acted upon. It's only objection to the Wainstein Report has been on procedural grounds that the interviews of Nyang'oro and Crowder were not conducted in accordance with NCAA bylaw protocol. Crowder's new protest goes well beyond that, contradicting even UNC's own characterization of the scandal.
If harm stems from that, then Crowder's issue is with the University, not the NCAA. Where was she when the University was "harming" former students with the Hartlyn-Andrews and Martin Reports? Or when agreeing with SACS about the Wainstein Report?
Though she's calling out the Wainstein Report specifically, and doing so in the context of NCAA case proceedings, her affidavit is actually objecting to claims and findings made, endorsed and repeated by many more, before and after Kenneth Wainstein ever stepped on the Chapel Hill campus. Why now, and in this setting, makes no sense and belies her claim of, in essence, doing it for the kids.
Her claim that the "irregular courses" [UNC's term] were merely "customized courses" ought to cast suspicion on the rest of her sworn statements about her collaboration with advisors. It's almost tragically comical for anyone to believe that such a late entry claim should be of consequence on its face. If it is to have merit, then UNC needs to weigh in since it is their reports and assessments, not the NCAA's, that is under assault by Crowder's testimony.
What could be the impact of Crowder's affidavit on the NCAA case?
The University has objected to NCAA allegations relying on the 2014 interviews of Crowder and Nyang'oro by Wainstein and the Cadwalader investigating team. Though NCAA Enforcement staff said the that allegations do not rely on those interviews, UNC nevertheless lobbied to have the Wainstein Report excluded from Committee on Infractions (COI) hearing panel consideration, or, barring exclusion, to have any statements attributed to Crowder or Nyang'oro redacted prior to panel review. The COI hearing panel rejected UNC's protest and the Wainstein Report was ruled admissible in full for panel consideration.
Facing a hearing on the merits with Wainstein Report having been ruled admissible, Crowder's convenient timing of introducing a sworn statement that rebut core premises to which NCAA enforcement and UNC had long ago agreed, presents a new angle of attack on the NCAA case's reliance on the Wainstein Report that advocates for UNC seem to feel will succeed where the argument in its ANOA response and the October hearing panel failed in restricting Wainstein Report for consideration on procedural grounds.
UNC critics and advocates alike have theorized that the Crowder affidavit was orchestrated by those with UNC's interests at heart. Advocates considered this a brilliant stroke, feeling it takes advantage of COI chair and chief hearing officer Greg Sankey's "lowering the standards of evidence." Critics see this as a leveraging of a 3rd party to undermine an exhibit on the record that the university can't directly attack.
I'm, of course, in the latter camp. I see this ploy as likely being certain agents affiliated with, but not officials of, the University encouraging and possibly even supporting Crowder as a named, third party to attest to deficiencies in Wainstein's findings, where she can serve as proxy to contest Wainstein's assertions without the university having to endorse them.
It's no secret that the Wainstein Report has been a thorn in the side of many boosters and fans who feel that:
- Wainstein had a predetermined agenda, and was set upon UNC-CH by then NC Board of Governors
- several who were interviewed were not fairly represented in the final Report
- the University was too quick to accept and act on the findings
- hiring Wainstein was a strategic mistake from the start and UNC shouldn't have struck a deal for Nyang'oro's cooperation.
UNC's defense against NCAA allegations has been procedural, which hasn't worked to restrict the Wainstein Report findings from being available for consideration to the Infractions committee. Now, opportunistically, it may seek to leverage the possible impact of Crowder's sworn refutation on the proceedings, which (they might hope) cast doubt on Wainstein's report when it's considered on its merits. Without endorsing Crowder, they might say Crowder's challenge is enough to call it into question. Would Wainstein be willing to be called before the panel to defend his findings, even if his client, UNC, is not challenging the findings?
Of note, some like to point out that it was the UNC system president, Tom Ross, that ordered the independent investigation and hired Wainstein, not the flagship school of Chapel Hill. But that's disingenuous since UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor has always included UNC-CH as a partner in the decision to hire Wainstein. Those who wish to suggest it was forced onto Chapel Hill by the BOG and Ross have athletics ties and didn't want the University to go that route. For them, yes, the Wainstein Report was forced upon Chapel Hill.
UNC's strategists could be anticipating that the COI panel will not sufficiently value Crowder's affidavit, continue to place weight on the Wainstein Report, resulting in inevitable sanctions. There has already been a social media campaign to paint the COI as a "kangaroo court." UNC's NCAA defense team may be conceding that the COI hearing as a likely lost cause and focusing its strategy on building a case for the Infractions Appeal Committee (IAC) and then possible litigation against the NCAA for failure to adhere to membership bylaws and principles of fairness. How the COI and NCAA Enforcement handle Crowder's new involvement may be what UNC strategists are hoping will cause a procedural stumble or bolster a case for litigation.
Crowder's response may not be the trump card UNC defenders are applauding, but it was most certainly a bombshell. How much will it ultimately matter to the NCAA? That we can only guess.
