On June 24th, 2009, former UNC Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) counselor Beth Bridger forwarded this notice to other then-ASPSA staffers Jaimie Lee, and Cynthia Reynolds. It was drafted by Amy Kleissler who was also an advisor on the ASPSA staff.
In 2009, Kleissler, Bridger, Lee and Reynolds all knew Deborah Crowder graded papers for Dr. Nyang'oro. Who knows if they understood the implication of that? Some, like Kleissler, would later say she had no idea Crowder wasn't faculty. Bridger and Lee would say that everyone around them, including superiors, seemed to know and treat it like there was nothing wrong with that. The more senior Reynolds has never consented to interviews. What about ASPSA director Robert Mercer? Former Faculty Athletics Representative John Blanchard? Or Faculty chair and senior ASPSA counselor Jan Boxill? Did they all know "Professor Debby" was grading papers too? Did Alice Dawson who sent non-athletes to Crowder for some academic relief?
When questions about Nyang'oro's classes arose in August 2011 -- questions that had been prompted by media inquiries about aberrations noted in classes that were attended by athletes -- UNC was already in the midst of an NCAA investigation that had identified misconduct by a tutor. UNC took the lead on an expanded investigation into Nyang'oro's classes, and NCAA investigators participated as well.
The subsequent product of that investigation was the Hartlyn-Andrews report, which did not mention any discovery of the fact that a department secretary had been grading papers. The University did not consider the "anomalous" activity to be academic fraud, and the NCAA accepted the University's assessment. The NCAA moved on, bringing the prior case to closure without charging anything related to the new 2011 discoveries.
Later, when former-governor James Martin and the accounting firm of Baker-Tilly were tasked with conducted an external review, the December 2012 report affirmed what the Hartlyn-Andrews report had concluded. Still no revelation of such a key piece of information that Deborah Crowder, had been grading papers.
It was Kenneth Wainstein and the Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 2014 independent investigation that exposed this detail, and the results were explosive. Everyone was shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Deborah Crowder had been grading papers for years, and faculty "lack of oversight" was blamed for it. Those questioned by Wainstein claimed they didn't know Crowder was grading or, if they knew, said they were led to believe that it was okay.
But it wasn't okay. For this and other reasons, UNC's accrediting agency, the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), reopened its review, challenged UNC to answer tough questions, to which UNC officially agreed that what had transpired was "academic fraud."
People were fired. UNC was placed on probation by SACSCOC. UNC officials acted contrite and sought to highlight all of the reforms it had put in place to prevent a recurrence. Wainstein had to have been a revelation of some magnitude since the previous investigations in 2011 and 2012 hadn't resulted in such consequences.
Of course, when the NCAA came looking again in 2014 when the Wainstein investigation was in progress, UNC had already laid the groundwork for questioning why, since NCAA Enforcement had thrice affirmed in 2011, 2012 and 2013 that it saw no NCAA bylaws infractions from the academic scandal.
This has been a key defense against NCAA allegations. Despite all the conniptions over the Wainstein findings in academics and administration, somehow the NCAA can't have learned anything it didn't already know prior to Wainstein.
According to an October 17th, 2016 letter from UNC's lead attorney in NCAA matters, Rick Evrard, to NCAA directory of Enforcement Tom Hosty, the NCAA investigators knew about that 2009 Amy Kleissler memo:
That's interesting; because if NCAA investigators knew, then so did UNC's investigators Deans Jonathan Hartlyn and William Andrews. Yet the fact of Crowder taking on a faculty role of grading papers never made it into their report or Governor Martin's.
Why not?
The NCAA is not an agency that determines whether or not an institution's academic curriculum is satisfactory. As has been famously said, that's "not in it's lane." The NCAA relies on those responsible for such assessments to make that determination.
But in 2011, despite learning of the same facts it says the NCAA learned, UNC did not judge Crowder's grading to be a discrediting issue. It wasn't even worthy of a mention in the pre-Wainstein internal and external reviews. So the NCAA moved along. And it continued to affirm to UNC the same thing in 2012 and 2013, basing those decisions on UNC's investigations, reports and assessments.
In 2014, that changed for UNC; and by changing for UNC, so it also changed for the NCAA. If UNC was now admitting that such behavior was academic misconduct, now the NCAA was concerned with how that misconduct had been exploited for the "benefit" of athletics. It's not the NCAA judging that Crowder grading papers is wrong. That's UNC's job. And that's what UNC did, apparently 3-years after "learning" of that fact.
How can UNC complain to the NCAA that its investigators "knew" all the pertinent information in 2011 when UNC did as well, but didn't identify that information as significant or put it in its reports? That's the member institution's responsibility.
The NCAA is not now, nor has it ever in any of the three Notices of Allegations in the current case against UNC, made its own assessment of UNC's academic practices. It has always relied on UNC for that. All the NCAA cares about is if the misconduct was for the "benefit" of athletes. And it is UNC's own chartered independent investigation that says, "yes" there was that aspect to the motivation, not so much in the genesis, but in how it evolved and how it was exploited.
It's no wonder why UNC's defense in the NCAA case is chomping at the bit to discredit the Wainstein Report or have it ruled inadmissible.
