Minding the Coach: Crowder's Affidavit: Point-by-Point

To assess how the Committee on Infractions might assess "Debbie" Crowder's affidavit and it's impact on the NCAA allegations, I think each sworn statement must pass affirmatively through the following "wickets:"

Does Crowder's statement contradict a finding in the Wainstein Report (WR)?

If so, is the issue relevant to NCAA allegations?

If so, does the contested issue rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

If each of these garners a "yes" answer, then it should matter to the Committee and carry weight to call the allegation into question. If "no," then how the Committee considers her testimony will depend on multiple things, such as whether she appears to answer questions at the hearing, how UNC responds to either refute or endorse her claim, and the nature of any non-Wainstein evidence countering her claim.

There are 126 Factual Items (FIs) supporting the 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations; 90 of which support Allegation 1. The Wainstein Report is but one of those 90. To render Wainstein suspect, it will take more than what Crowder has submitted to challenge it on the merits.

Here is my assessment of how each of the Crowder statements in her affidavit survive this relevancy test:

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: This is a pro forma statement, is not contradicting and has no impact on the NCAA case.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: This is a pro forma statement, is not contradicting and has no impact on the NCAA case.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

No; WR identified Crowder's compassion to help struggling students--athlete and non-athlete alike--as the primary rationale for courses. Wainstein based this on his interview with Crowder.
But it would be a contradiction of the WR if Crowder's statement is meant to imply that this was the sole purpose for the courses in question. Wainstein concluded from evidence other than his interview with her that Crowder's passion for Tar Heel sports was a contributing factor in the courses being offered. Wainstein deduced that Crowder had a particular desire to help struggling student-athletes navigate UNC's rigorous academic curriculum.

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

No; regardless of the purpose or whether or not Crowder contradicts the WR.
The NCAA allegations address behaviors of staff that exploited the courses in question and not the purpose of the courses themselves. The question of course purpose is an issue the NCAA left to the university to assess.

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

It's irrelevant to NCAA allegations, but Wainstein's concurrence of the direct interpretation of Crowder's statement is drawn from his interview of her.
It's irrelevant to NCAA allegations, but Wainstein's observation of a secondary motivation--that an implicit interpretation of Crowder's statement contradicts--is derived from documentary evidence and testimonies other than his interview with Crowder.

Comment: The NCAA case does not address or rely on Wainstein for Crowder's mindset or Nyang'oro's expressed purpose for the classes. The purpose of the classes is a matter for the UNC and not the NCAA. The allegations deal with the exploitation of the classes without regard to their express purpose. NCAA relies on UNC's assessment of classes being "irregular" or "anomalous."

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

No; WR acknowledged that Crowder worked with advisors to non-athlete students as well as the advisors for athletes, offering access to both in the same manner.

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

N/A; Non-contradictory.
NCAA is not alleging that all students didn't have access to these courses in the same manner. Rather, the allegation is that student-athletes were afforded greater access to these classes than their non-athlete counterparts. It might be assumed that Crowder would contradict this as well, but her sworn statement doesn't do so.

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

N/A since no WR finding is contradicted by this statement.

Comment: Were Crowder to testify that athletes had not been afforded "greater access," the affect on NCAA allegations would remain unchanged because the allegation is not dependent on statements attributed to Crowder by Wainstein to the contrary.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

No; the WR findings that are contradicted by Crowder do not derive from her interview with Wainstein during his investigation.

Comment: Point #5 of Crowder's affidavit does directly challenge allegations in the 2ANOA and findings of the WR. However, the "special arrangements" alleged by the NCAA which rely on WR evidence do not does not stem from "hearsay" evidence of Crowder's interview with Wainstein.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

N/A since not relevant.

Comment: The anecdotal claim of Crowder's sports passions may offend Crowder, and the claimed unsworn testimony of faculty may be "hearsay," but the issue is not pertinent to the NCAA's allegations.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Yes; in part.
This is in reference to statement in the WR on pg. 15, with similar words found on pg. 56 of the Martin Report (MR). Neither the MR nor the WR says it was her "desire;" rather, WR makes the observation that "Crowder used [Nyang'oro's delegation] "effectively to increase the scope of her personal authority. Over time, Crowder took on an outsize role in AFAM, which became recognized throughout the campus, as students started referring to her as "Professor Debby." The MR made a similar claim.

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

No; the allegations do not address Crowder's personal intent or motives.

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

N/A since not revelant.
The foundation for Wainstein's finding is unknown, but is most likely based on the Martin Report and confirmed by evidence other than Wainstein's interview with Crowder.

Comment: The WR's characterization of Crowder may be prejudicial, but this is not the basis on which the admissibility of the WR is challenged, and the issue to which Crowder objects from the WR is irrelevant to the NCAA's 2ANOA.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: Crowder's affidavit Point #8 contests the WR and the university's assessment of her conduct and the academic merits of the classes in question. The NCAA allegations take no stand on the issue, accepting the institution's own assessment of Crowder's conduct and the quality of the "customized courses."

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Yes, in part. Wainstein does not claim Crowder graded "all of the papers."

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: One of the aspects of the classes that made them "anomalous" was Crowder's role in grading. This was material to the University's determination of the irregularity of the classes, but it has no bearing on the NCAA allegations, unless the university should now decide to reverse its previous assessment regarding the courses.

Crowder's admission that she eventually took on at least some grading responsibilities verifies a key aspect of the classes for which the University deemed them "irregular," particularly with regard to the later years such as those for which the NCAA allegations apply: 2002-2011.

NCAA allegations do not depend on the depth of Crowder's involvement in the irregularity or the rationale for why she took on the "additional burden."

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: The university assessed the academic merits of the papers and the classes. The NCAA relies on the university's assessment. Crowder's objection is for the institution to address; not the NCAA.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

No; this is a rephrasing of Statement #4 above

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

N/A; Statement #11 is does not refute any finding on which NCAA allegations rely.

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

N/A; Statement #11 does not refute any Wainstein findings.

Comment: The degree of Crowder's collaboration and cooperation with athletics counselors is evidenced by other exhibits. Though no claim is forwarded that she did not likewise work with advisors for non-athletes, the evidence record in the NCAA case is relatively devoid of such documentation compared to that showing a "cozy relationship" with counselors to student-athletes.

Does Crowder contradict a finding in the WR?

No. The WR offers no language to which this statement is contradictory.

Is the contradicted finding relevant to NCAA allegations?

Does the contradicted finding rely on Wainstein's interview of Crowder?

Comment: Crowder reiterates her primary motivation in sworn statement here that was made less in statement #3. This was reported by WR and factored into the findings. The additional motivation to which Crowder does not aver is derived from other evidence by Wainstein.

Comment: Crowder's affidavit was signed five days before the NCAA's due date (March 13th) for responses to the 2ANOA. Given the timing, her attestation in sworn statement #12 is intriguing. If her overarching concern is for students and defending the value of their work and degrees, it is exceedingly odd that she would wait five years, and, on the eve of an NCAA deadline, swear claim to such concern.

The University attributed academic failure to her and acknowledged the curricular deficiencies of such courses in 2012 with the Hartlyn-Andrews review and again in 2013 with the Martin Report. The Wainstein Report, itself, was made public in October 2014 and the university was subsequently subjected to scrutiny that resulted in a period of probation for the institution. Even the president of accrediting agency urged UNC to "make whole" the degrees of former students.

Yet throughout, Crowder did not come forward to defend the herself, the courses in questions or whatever possibly injury was befalling the students for who she now expresses concerns.

Crowder was already retired before the first inquiry ever began, but other employees were terminated or forced into retirement for their roles in the scandal on the basis of the Wainstein Report, which Crowder is now, belatedly, refuting.

Again in 2015 and 2016, she refused to cooperate with NCAA investigators with whom she could have set the record straight if she had truly objected to her former employer's characterization of the classes in question and to attribution of her responsibility for the "irregular" classes by the previous internal, external and independent reviews.

There were two prior notices of allegations, to neither of which she responded nor participated in the investigation or charging phases of the proceedings to protest.

Some former student-athletes have even filed class actions lawsuits over the alleged failure of the university to deliver sound academic services with regard to the classes in question. Has she come forward to defend the academic merits of those courses? No.

The lateness of the hour in voicing her objections and to defend the integrity of the students who took the classes, casts considerable doubt on the nobly stated reason why she is now willing to cooperate. The proximity to the NCAA proceedings deadline strongly suggests an orchestrated attempt to combat institutional risks of NCAA sanctions, masking them with 11th hour protests of the very report that the University chartered, endorsed and acted upon.

This affadavit should be entered into the record, but to have merit, Crowder must appear before the Committee on Infractions and answer some hard questions.