The Question of Academic Fraud

"Is this academic fraud? Yes, it is by a normal person's standards. But by the NCAA definition [it is not]."

~ UNC Athletics Director, Bubba Cunningham [link]

What IS the NCAA's definition of "academic fraud?"

Is the NCAA even charging UNC with "academic fraud?" After all, the words don't appear in any of the allegations.

Until August 2016, the term "academic fraud" wasn't even found anywhere in the NCAA bylaws.

Member-legislated changes went into effect in 2016 that included several substantive bylaw changes, including this addition:

The new Bylaw 14.02 doesn't tell us what the NCAA thinks "academic fraud" is; only that it's one example of academic misconduct, and that either student-athlete or institutional staff members can commit it. One thing seems certain to me though: there is nothing in the Bylaws to suggest that the NCAA sees any distinction between "a normal person's standards" of what is "academic fraud" and how the NCAA defines it, as Cunningham claimed.

Index
1. How the NCAA Defines Academic Fraud
2. The NCAA Bylaw that Covers Academic Fraud
3. NCAA's "Prior Determination"
4. Academic Fraud Post-Wainstein
5. NCAA Allegations Post-Wainstein
6. UNC's Strategy

---

1. How the NCAA Defines Academic Fraud

In actuality, the NCAA intentionally avoids defining academic fraud. You could say, defining academic fraud is not in its "wheelhouse." The responsibility for determining if conduct is academic fraud belongs primarily to the institution and it accrediting agency. The NCAA reinforced this principle in 2014 when the NCAA's Division I Legislative Council clarified for NCAA members that:

 "academic standards and policies governing misconduct are the responsibility of individual schools and their accreditation body." [Link]

Not only does the NCAA defer determining what is or isn't academic fraud to the institution, but it also expects the institution "to make sure the case is handled according to policies applicable to all students."

So if UNC admits that what was discovered in its African and African-American (AFAM) Studies department was academic fraud, then the NCAA can accept that and apply that concession to its rules, and doesn't need to reinterpret it according to some non-specified, alternate, narrower definition to which Cunningham enigmatically refers.

---

 2. The NCAA Bylaw that Covers Academic Fraud

Prior to a 2016 rule change, the way the NCAA enforced breaches of its academic misconduct bylaws by institutional staff members (that affected student-athletes) was through the "arranging for fraudulent academic credit" part of Bylaw 10.1:

Bylaw 10.1-(b):

"Unethical conduct by…a current or former institutional staff member, may include, but is not limited to…knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit…for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete."

The NCAA used that rule to charge a UNC tutor and several football players with academic fraud in 2011. UNC didn't contest the academic fraud charge in that case and the school was sanctioned in March 2012.

The AFAM academic scandal was uncovered in August 2011 as the previous infractions case was in the later stages of investigation and approaching the hearing phase. A UNC internal working group (Jack Evans, Jonathan Hartlyn and Leslie Strohm), along with NCAA investigators (Mike Zonder and Chance Miller), looked into the issues, interviewed students and staff, including Dr. Julius Nyang'oro, examined documents, and ultimately determined that no additional allegations needed to be added to the existing charges at that time.

It was up to UNC to determine whether or not the conduct discovered in 2011 had constituted academic fraud. But since "no instance was found of a student receiving a grade who had not submitted written work" and UNC didn't, at that point, assess the issue as being academic fraud by institutional staff, the NCAA enforcement staff accepted that. There's no indication that UNC informed the NCAA that Crowder's grading of papers violated UNC policy. UNC certainly did not react with the same alarm then as it would when the details of Crowder and Nyang'oro's misconduct was reported by Kenneth Wainstein, three years later.

---

 3. NCAA's "Prior Determination"

UNC has been trying to leverage the fact that, several times from 2011 to 2013, the NCAA enforcement staff had determined that it found no Bylaw violations in what had transpired at UNC. The focus of these arguments has mainly been on the charging of Bylaw 16 "Extra Benefits" infractions, which is a separate issue from the subject of this article.

But one of the instances UNC has highlighted was the discovery of 2013 internal email communication between Enforcement and Academic & Membership Affairs (AMA)  staff that specifically addressed the application of Bylaw 10.1.

Neither the May 2012 Hartlyn-Andrews internal review nor the December 2012 Martin Report identified the breaches of UNC's academic policy that had been committed by Nyang'oro and Crowder. So when NCAA enforcement's Mike Zonder asked the NCAA's Academic & Membership Affairs (AMA) staff to weigh in on whether the Martin Report revealed any NCAA bylaw violations, the conclusion, according to AMA staffer Steve Mallonee, was he saw nothing in that report that would indicate a breach of Bylaw 10.1.

Mallonee responded as follows (highlights and annotation added by me):

Mallonee's reference reconfirms how it is the institution's responsibility to report a violation of 10.1-(b) if an "institutional staff member...is knowingly involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit...for a[n]...enrolled student-athlete..."

This is not the same as the institution reporting information and expecting the NCAA to decipher if a violation has occurred. The onus is not on the NCAA to make that determination for the school. The institution must apply its own standards and policies to determine if the misconduct was academic misconduct. If so, and if student-athletes were affected, it's incumbent upon the institution to report it to the NCAA; not for the institution to rely on an AMA/Enforcement staff judgment.

The University held no one accountable for academic misconduct in the wake of Hartlyn-Andrews or Martin investigations. UNC's accrediting agency, the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), completed a review in 2013 and did not admonish UNC for academic policy failures. Nyang'oro had been forced to resign, but that was ostensibly for his negligence and possible criminal fraud for having collected payment for courses he hadn't actually taught. Crowder had already retired in 2009, but UNC stopped short of deeming her conduct academic fraud. Instead, her actions were, like the courses themselves, euphemistically called "irregular" and "aberrant."

Mallonee stated that "there is nothing definitive in the [Martin] report" to substantiate a 10.1-(b) infraction; which is true. The Martin Report didn't address Deborah Crowder having graded work that resulted in academic credit being awarded, despite her not having the authority to do so. So, since UNC hadn't policy violation facts and never deemed the behavior to have been academic fraud, the NCAA affirmed that violation of 10.1-(b) hadn't been substantiated.

Note, however, that Mallonee did provide the 2000 interpretation of 10.1-(b) that explained how a finding of academic fraud could be substantiated, even if there had been no "systematic effort to benefit student-athletes in general." In other words, it wouldn't matter what Crowder or Nyang'oro's motives were or whether or not non-athletes benefited as much as athletes. In terms of 10.1-(b), if institutional academic misconduct had an impact on a single, unwitting student-athlete, 10.1-(b) would be applicable.

---

 4. Academic Fraud Post-Wainstein

The Wainstein Report was different from the previous UNC-chartered reviews in at least one key way. One of the findings was that students had received grades and credit for courses in which Deborah Crowder had performed functions reserved for faculty, in violation of University policy. Her motives don't matter. Crowder had "arranged for fraudulent academic credit."

Now, some UNC defenders have said that, because UNC has never altered any student transcripts or discredited any prior courses, those courses, while deficient, remain "legitimate." This is specious, because the rationale for academic fraud isn't based on whether or not the university de-legitimizes past courses or previously awarded credit. A school policy of "sealing" transcripts after year doesn't inoculate against prior academic fraud simply by the fact the course credits can't be overturned for administrative reasons. Academic fraud still happened, and UNC, in a rare example of true contrition, agreed:

For the first time, on January 12th, 2015 -- three years and five months after the discovery of the AFAM academic misconduct -- UNC finally admitted what happened was academic fraud. It's probably the only time UNC has explicitly said so; although by its actions it has implicitly conceded the fact. If you believe Bubba Cunningham, this "academic fraud" is the "normal person's standard" of academic fraud, and that the NCAA has some other definition, distinct from this University admission.

But as shown, the NCAA doesn't have its own definition. Academic fraud is defined by the university, and in the wake of the Wainstein Report -- unlike after the Martin Report or the Hartlyn-Andrews Report or the very early on join UNC internal working group/NCAA investigation -- UNC had agreed it was academic fraud.

UNC acted on the findings of the Wainstein Report as if they were were shocking revelations. It agreed with SACSCOC that "the Wainstein investigation uncovered important and new information about the scope and extent of the irregularities in Carolina's AFAM Department."

UNC fired personnel on the basis of Wainstein:

More clearly than any prior review or investigation, Wainstein's investigation revealed just how Crowder had "knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit…[for] enrolled student-athlete[s]."

Recall AMA's Mallonee's comment from earlier:

"The current 2000 official interpretation…does remain applicable to each individual student-athlete's situation and obviously could result in a finding of academic fraud, notwithstanding the lack of any systematic effort to benefit student-athletes in general."

For NCAA bylaw 10.1-(b), it doesn't matter if non-students "benefited" as well. It doesn't even matter if the Crowder's intentions were honorable or if there was no "systematic effort to benefit student-athletes." If the institution considered her actions to be academic fraud, even if by no other means than awarding grades in violation of UNC policy, 10.1-(b) is violated.

Not only that, but UNC agreed with SACSCOC that the academic fraud was "not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang'oro and Crowder." Counselors on the ASPSA staff were fired for knowing that Crowder had been grading the papers and having exploited her fraud.

(This was a main point and objection brought forth in Bradley Bethel's film "Unverified," which took the University of North Carolina school system to task for firing "low-level" employees for something they had believed was condoned by senior faculty and leadership.)

Among the Exhibits supporting this finding was counseling staff Amy Kleissler's notice to athletes in 2009 that had been attached to email from Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) counselor Beth Bridger to colleagues Cynthia Reynolds and Jaimie Lee:

The Wainstein Report forced a change in UNC's perspective, understanding and stance on the AFAM academic scandal. This, in turn, affected the NCAA case as well, though UNC has since sought to segregate NCAA issues from how it responded to Wainstein in answering its own institutional concerns; but in terms of Bylaw 10.1-(b), the issue of "academic fraud" is inextricably linked.

---

5. NCAA Allegations Post-Wainstein

In seeming contradiction to the foregoing argument, none of the alleged infractions in any of the three iterations of Notice of Allegations issued in the pending UNC case have used the phrase "academic fraud."

1. Notice of Allegations (NOA) May 2015
2. 1st Amended Notice of Allegations (ANOA) April 2016
3. 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations (2ANOA) December 2016

The only place in each of those Notices where the term is found is in reference to the previous 2012 Infractions case. That earlier case involved a tutor providing impermissible assistance on course work for student-athletes. The NOA in that case cited "impermissible academic assistance…which constituted academic fraud."

UNC agreed back then that Wiley's actions violated Bylaw 10.1-(b) and constituted "academic fraud." UNC has not been so conciliatory this time.

But though the allegations don't explicitly specify "academic fraud," the fact that Allegation 1 in the 2ANOA cites Bylaw 10.1 means that "academic fraud" is, indeed, in play.

Allegation 1 has two parts:

• The second part -- allegation 1b -- doesn't address academic misconduct. Its focus is on violations of Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (Extra Benefits), and the subjects of that allegation are the institution as a whole and the athletics department. Even though UNC admitted the academic fraud was "not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang'oro and Crowder," UNC has not self-reported nor has Enforcement alleged Bylaw 10.1 violations as it pertains to the counseling staff or other institution members.
• Allegation 1a is where Bylaw 10 (Ethical Misconduct) is cited.  UNC did not self-report this infraction, but the Enforcement staff added it in the third version of the allegations. Its focus is on the misconduct of Dr. Nyang'oro and Ms. Crowder.

It'll be the Committee on Infractions (COI) hearing panel's task to determine if any violations of Bylaw 10.1 are substantiated by the facts. Though not directly applicable in UNC's case, the rational for the 2016 Bylaw changes may illustrate the NCAA membership's thinking as to when it considers "academic misconduct involving student-athletes [to fall] within the purview of the NCAA and when academic misconduct should be an institutional matter." [link]

Side Note: Often lost on people is the fact that this pending UNC infractions case doesn't allege any misconduct by student-athletes. In many NCAA academic misconduct cases, the phrase "involving student-athletes" suggests a student-athlete must be a party to the misconduct. That's not true. The alleged academic misconduct in this case is limited to institutional staff members. As we've been continually reminded by UNC, the students "did the work" that was assigned to them. It's the conduct of faculty and staff that is subject to Bylaw 10.1 scrutiny in the allegations.

If either Nyang'oro or Crowder (or anyone else) is deemed to have knowingly been involved in "arranging fraudulent academic credit" for student-athletes, Bylaw 10.1-(b) applies. It doesn't matter whether or not the conduct impacted non-athletes too. If institutional staff members engage in "academic fraud" and any student-athletes were impacted by that misconduct, then it falls within NCAA jurisdiction of Bylaw 10.1-(b).

Even though it is not alleged, the hearing panel could also find that allegation 1a (ASPSA staff) and allegation 2 (Crowder's improper assistance) substantiate violation of Bylaw 10.1 as well.

---

6. UNC's Strategy

UNC never self-reported a 10.1 violation in this case. To the contrary, UNC has resisted connecting its concession to SACS with the NCAA case. Even the firing of counselors Bridger, Lee and Blanton has been ambiguously suggested as having been for reasons other than "the conduct asserted" in NCAA's allegations:

UNC's NCAA defense team has tried to counter the NCAA Enforcement staffs allegations by claiming that the investigators who were party to the 2011 initial investigation were privy to all the material aspects of the scandal way back in 2011, and that the Wainstein Report shed no new light on the situation as far as NCAA issues were concerned. That's fascinating, given the administration's expressions of shock over learning just how beyond her authority Crowder had gone, and considering the actions UNC took with regard to what Wainstein found about the extent to which others were aware of Crowder's misconduct.

For example, one piece of evidence that surfaced in the Wainstein Report was the July 2009 Bridger email with the Kleissler attachment previously mentioned. (see above)

Two years after the release of the Wainstein Report, UNC's lawyer in NCAA matters, Rick Evrard, wrote a letter to the NCAA director of Enforcement, reminding him that Kleissler's note had been discovered by UNC in 2011 and had been disclosed to the NCAA in Aug/Sep 2011. This was one of several items Evrard points out in an attempt to convince NCAA enforcement that Wainstein's information wasn't "new":

But if it wasn't new to NCAA investigators, then the fact that Crowder had been grading papers and acting like faculty, in violation of UNC's policy, wasn't new to UNC either, and UNC had known that since 2011 yet didn't self-report it. Not only did it not self-report it to the NCAA, but it didn't report it to the SACSCOC special committee reviewing UNC in 2013.

Who's "wheelhouse" is it to assess if such conduct is a violation of institution policy? If UNC wasn't alarmed by the fact that Crowder was doing the grading in 2011, then why should UNC expect the NCAA enforcement staff to figure out that Crowder was non-faculty and that that would render her actions as violation of 10.1-(b)? This wasn't a self-evident situation like a tutor providing too much assistance on a paper. (Even that is not for the NCAA to decide if the institution wants to claim that the level of tutor "help" is appropriate.) Neither the NCAA enforcement staff, nor the AMA, would have understood the ramifications of the situation until UNC and SACSCOC reacted to the Wainstein Report.



It was, and is, the institution's responsibility to define, identify and report academic fraud. If that academic fraud impacts student-athletes, then it is reportable to the NCAA. UNC failed to do so.

Even worse, UNC has sought to obfuscate the matter and characterize it as Enforcement's failure.

Not only that, but incredibly, UNC STILL seems to insist that the Enforcement and AMA staff's previous determination prior to Wainstein was correct and that there was no academic fraud per "NCAA's definition."

Quite to the contrary: it was always academic fraud and the previous determinations were flawed and incorrect. Now, belatedly, the NCAA staff has gotten it right.

---

Note:
The June 24th, 2009 email from Bridger to Reynolds and Lee with Kleissler's notice to student-athletes was not included among the Factual Items (FIs) of either of the first two NOAs. It was cited by NCAA Enforcement in its August 19th, 2016 reply to UNC's August 1st, 2016 Response to the NOA. UNC sought to leverage Enforcement's citation of that document as additional proof that the NCAA knew all the material aspects of the "academic fraud" in 2011 when it chose not add the allegation to the 2012 case.

Kleissler's note affirming knowledge that Crowder was grading papers has now been added to the 2ANOA (which now alleges bylaw 10.1 violation) as FI No.126,  in support of Allegation 1 (Unethical Conduct) and Allegation 5 (Lack of Institutional Control).

If NCAA Knew in 2011, So Did UNC

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.

Refuting Wainstein by Proxy

Ever since the release of the Wainstein Report, UNC athletics advocates have chafed at the administration's unequivocal acceptance of it. [Example 1][Example 2]

In the 3+ years since, UNC hasn't once discredited any of Wainstein's findings. In the NCAA case, UNC's objections to Report have (so far) been procedural, not substantive. [ANOA Response]

In her response to the NCAA allegations, Deb Crowder IS refuting material aspects of Wainstein Report [Crowder Letter][Affidavit]; but in doing so is, in part, also contradicting UNC's own official acceptance of the Wainstein Report.

UNC athletics advocates have cheered Crowder's attack of the Wainstein Report [Example 1][Example 2], but can UNC leverage Crowder's response in its defense against NCAA allegations without countermanding prior endorsement and actions it has taken on the basis of Wainstein?

The academic malfeasance that Crowder refutes in her statement is not in NCAA's "wheelhouse" to assess. NCAA relies on UNC's report for that assessment. [2nd Amended NOA]

Figure 1

Crowder is refuting UNC's own internal assessment of the academic situation, made even before Wainstein, that the NCAA is articulating in Allegation 1a against Crowder. (See light-blue underlined sections in Figure 1 above.)

However; it does occur to me that UNC has never acknowledged (neither endorsed nor rejected) Wainstein's assessment of Nyang'oro's or Crowder's motives.

UNC could disagree with Crowder when she says that her actions were proper, but agree with her that Wainstein was wrong about her athletics-favoring motive.

I don't believe that would contradict any previous official stance or action UNC has taken on the basis of the Wainstein Report to date.

But is Crowder's motive relevant to NCAA's allegation 1a? Does NCAA rely on Wainstein's characterization of Crowder's intent for any of its allegations against UNC?

UNC could disagree with Crowder over her refuting of the light-blue underlined statements from the NCAA allegation in figure 1 (above), but endorse Crowder on the red underlined statements in figure 2 (below) without contradicting any previous official stance on Wainstein.

Figure 2

By directing her rebuttal to the NCAA and aiming criticism at the Wainstein Report as a key piece of evidence in the NCAA's case, is Crowder's response on target?

Is the NCAA, in fact, relying on Wainstein's assessment of her motives and actions to substantiate the two statements red-highlighted statements from Allegation 1a to which Crowder objects? And can UNC align with her in these limited instances without contradicting itself?


Allegation 1a Contested Statement #1
Crowder "…delegated to athletics personnel the authority to manage material aspects of these course for student-athletes…"

Crowder doesn't directly address this allegation of delegating management of material aspects of the course to counselors in her affidavit. She does, however, refute it through her attorney:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B24WwCUVnfYtWFRDcm1aWllDTXc/view

Since Crowder had retired in 2009 -- over 5 years prior to issuance of the Wainstein Report -- she was not subject to any disciplinary action as a consequence of the Report. So, though UNC has placed culpability on Crowder for the existence of the course themselves (going back to Hartlyn-Andrews Report in 2012), UNC has never addressed the boundaries of Crowder's misconduct.

UNC must dispute Crowder's claims that the courses themselves were appropriate and didn't violate any UNC policy, but can UNC agree with her that she "did not delegate the authority to manage the courses to athletics personnel" without contradicting it's acceptance of the Wainstein Report and the rationale for personnel actions it did take on the basis of the Report?

The Wainstein Report doesn't specifically articulate the statement as the NCAA has alleged. The language appears to be that of NCAA Enforcement and not Wainstein.  The NCAA cites 90 Factual Items (FIs) supporting Allegation 1, of which the Wainstein Report is but one. If Crowder is protesting this element of the allegation, Wainstein's assessment is not the keystone on which this element of Allegation 1a hinges. The the Committee on Infractions hearing panel's will have to review the aggregation of documentary evidence, with or without Wainstein's assessment to determine if the allegation stands up to scrutiny on its merits.

The 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations (December 2016) is the first time this particular issue of delegating certain aspects of course management to counselors has been alleged, so UNC didn't address it in the 1st Amended NOA. Will it side with Crowder?


Allegation 1a Contested Statement #2
"…Crowder and Nyang'oro worked closely and directly with athletics. As a result, student-athletes were afforded greater access to the anomalous courses…"

Crowder addresses the issue of "access" in her affidavit, but it is not in the response to specific allegations, made through her attorney.

The issue of "greater access" by student-athletes isn't one that UNC has had to address yet. UNC avoided addressing it in the original Notice of Allegations (May 2015) and it was not alleged in the 1st Amended NOA (April 2016) so it was not a part of UNC's August 2016 response.

The Wainstein Report does provide an assessment on "access" on which the NCAA has may have relied when crafting the allegation:

Wainstein Report, Pg 3

The Wainstein Report doesn't otherwise assess whether or not Crowder afforded greater access to athletes than to non-athletes. The exhibits and documentary record supplemental to the Wainstein Report are rife with examples of Crowder working closely and directly with counselors to athletes. Comparatively, there is a paucity of such examples with counselors for non-athletes. There are some, such as emails with Alice Dawson from Steele Bldg academic support, but none arguably embody the sort of requests, coordination, negotiation and collaboration like those involving Beth Bridger, Jaimie Lee, Brent Blanton, Jan Boxill, Amy Kleissler, Cynthia Reynolds and others.

If UNC should choose to align itself with Crowder on this point, it won't be directly contradicting the Wainstein Report, but it will have to rely on more than just Crowder's sworn statement as rebuttal to the documentary evidence. UNC would be wise to produce additional email documentation to the record showing comparable "access" afforded to non-athletes through Steele Bldg. counselors that is evident of the "cozy" relationship with Loudermilk, athlete counselors.

I don't believe Crowder's sworn statement is sufficient on its own for UNC to ride coattail, particularly since she's swearing to other points (i.e. the propriety of the classes) that UNC must dispute.


Allegation 1a Statement #3
There is a 3rd statement in Allegation 1a that was not previously highlighted, either in light-blue or red. Crowder's response doesn't address this element of the allegation:

"Many at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football and men's basketball, used these course for purposes of ensuring their continuing NCAA academic eligibility."

Allegation 1a mainly addresses Crowder's (& Nyang'oro's) actions. This last statement in Allegation 1a tethers their actions to institutional responsibility with regard to NCAA concerns about academic eligibility of student-athletes. This statement is a bridge to Allegation 1b, which focuses on the conduct of athletics department staff and academic counselors to athletes.

Since Crowder doesn't (and can't, really) attest to how counselors or students may have exploited her "customized" class offerings, this one is left to UNC to rebut without relying on Crowder as a proxy.

The NCAA does have this determination from Wainstein's findings on which to base its allegation:

I've seen fans and partisans take issue with this particular element of the Wainstein Report, but to date, I am unaware of UNC ever having officially disputed it. Of course, over the past three years, UNC hasn't been required to directly confront the issue of whether or not the "customized" or "irregular" classes were exploited for the purposes of athlete eligibility maintenance.

The original Notice of Allegations alleged an eligibility aspect to the exploitation of Crowder's "paper classes," but UNC never had to respond when the case track was stalled. The 1st Amended Notice of Allegations (ANO) had that eligibility aspect removed, so UNC did not address the issue in it's response to that ANOA.

But now, it is restored in the 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations (December 2016), and so UNC is going to have to decide whether or not, for the first time, to rebut a finding from its own, chartered independent review.

Should be interesting.

Questions for Professor Debby

Crowder Disputes UNC's AFAM Reviews
(L-R) Holden Thorp, James Martin,
Wade Hargrove

Deborah Crowder's late entry into the NCAA case involving the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill raises skeptical eyebrows with regard to her agenda and the reliability of her sworn testimony. As I previously wrote, much (if not all) of what she is now attesting to is irrelevant to the NCAA allegations. Though she has addressed her objections to the NCAA, it is really UNC (whether Crowder is aware of it or not) with whom she is being contrary. If the target of her objection is the Wainstein Report, for it to be relevant to UNC's case, UNC will have to either corroborate Crowder or refute her.  If corroborating, I'd have many more questions for UNC than I would for Crowder.

Ken Wainstein & UNC Leaders
(L-R) Kenneth Wainstein, Tom Ross,
Carol Folt, Bubba Cunningham

Apparently UNC has been granted an extension to respond, though it's mere speculation if that might at all be related to Crowder's response. (Reportedly, UNC had requested an extension before Crowder's response was submitted.)

Until we hear from UNC though, I can think of a several dozen questions I'd have for Crowder if I were a member of the panel, though I realize that not all of these would truly be relevant to the NCAA case.

Questions Committee on Infractions hearing panel may have for "Professor Debby"

• Why did you not cooperate with either the Hartlyn-Andrews or Martin/Baker-Tilly reviews? Both reported their inability to reach you for your input. 

• If you felt your actions were proper, and that the classes were academically sound, didn't violate any school policies, and that the students were being harmed by the denigration of these courses, why didn't you speak up after the Hartlyn-Andrews review in 2011/12? After all, the university's internal review had particularly concluded that classes in question were "aberrant or taught irregularly" and that you were at the center of that. Given your stated reason for rebuttal now, why did you not object then?

• When former governor Martin affirmed the previous Hartlyn-Andrews assessment, called the classes 'anomalous' and, like Hartlyn-Andrews, laid responsibility at yours and Dr. Nyang'oros's feet, why didn't you protest then with what you're saying now in your affidavit?

• Why did you agree to the district attorney's offer to cooperate with the Cadwalader investigation despite having previously refused Hartlyn-Andrews and Martin's requests for interviews?

• Given your stated reasons for defending yourself and the courses in question, why did you meet with Wainstein but refuse to agree to any interviews with NCAA investigators?
• Did anyone ever advise you not to speak or meet with NCAA investigators in 2014 or later? If so, who and were you told why it was not advised? Will you swear your answer under oath?

• When you heard or read about Wainstein's findings in October 2014, particularly regarding the findings expressed about you, which you refute now, why did you not come forward then to rebut them?

• Even as UNC was accepting the findings and terminating Beth Bridger, Jaimie Lee, Brent Blanton, Travis Gore, and compelling the retirements of Jan Boxill and Dr. Tim McMillan, you didn't speak up? Why?

• When former UNC student-athletes Rashanda McCants, Devon Ramsay, Michael McAdoo, Leah Metcalf, James Arnold and Kenya McBee filed suits against UNC and the NCAA for UNC's failure to provide a sound education, why didn't you defend the classes then that ran at the core of their complaint?

• The SACS review was spawned by the Wainstein report, and its assessment threatened the integrity of previously granted degrees which SACS president Belle Whelan urged UNC to "make whole." Surely that should have been your breaking point to come forward and set the record straight if your concern was for the students. But you didn't and UNC, in contrition, acknowledged the assessment of the courses in question as an academic failure. As a result, UNC was placed on probation while it demonstrated the effectiveness of its reforms. Why didn't you speak up then and refute Wainstein or any of the University's accepted findings that held you accountable for academic 'irregularities' you now say were 'customized educational opportunities?'

• Throughout this NCAA case you've ignored requests for interviews, failed to respond to previous notices of allegations, ignored hearings and conferences to which you, as a named individual, were notified and invited. Why should the panel now, at this late hour, give your testimony credence?

• Has anyone affiliated with UNC, UNC athletics, donors, trustees, boosters, whether in an official capacity or not, communicated with you to to encourage or coordinate your response? If not, would you be willing to submit another affidavit to that effect?

• Are you being compensated by anyone to testify before this panel, and are you willing to say so under oath? Is anyone sponsoring you or paying your legal fees for Cheshire, Parker, Schneider & Bryan, PLLC or any other counsel/attorney services?

• Do you realize that the most significant statements you are making with your belated testimony not only contradict Wainstein, but also refute the characterization of your conduct and the courses in question that UNC has made in its submissions to this Panel, and which are corroborated by other reviews beyond the Wainstein/Cadwalader Report?

• Are you aware that some of the testimony you are now offering contradicts the University's own claims in its response to the NCAA allegations? The institution's objections to the Wainstein Report have been jurisdictional/procedural but not material. You are lodging material objections to Wainstein's report. Is your primary concern here in your response the allegations against you or against UNC? Or is your objection to UNC's own acceptance and reliance on Wainstein which now serves as a key piece of evidence in the NCAA case?

• What are your education credentials and do they lend credence to your assessment of the academic and educational merits of these courses such that we should consider your assertions over UNC's and that of SACS?

• Do you not consider it deficient that a collegiate-level course be satisfied merely by a satisfactory page-count length paper with but a cursory look at content with primary attention given to a properly formatted bibliography/citations and with an Honor code statement that may not even be enforced? Though a student may, of his or her own initiative learn something, is this truly educational in your honest view?

• Are you in disagreement with those certified and trained with assessing collegiate level education that this form/technique of educational course delivery is deficient?

• Is the 'first customized course' you described in your response the same AFAM 190 independent studies course listed in the table in the Exhibits to the Wainstein Report that was conducted in Fall 1989 with an enrollment of one non-athlete undergraduate?

• The motive for that, you say, was to remedy an institutional mistake. For the many subsequent such 'customized opportunities' you and Dr. Nyang'oro offered (independent studies, lecture classes held in independent studies format, bifurcated classes), how many were so motivated by student situations such as that first case in which you felt the institution bureaucracy threatened the student and you took it upon yourself to correct it in this fashion?

• You say it was Dr. Nyang'oro who set the criteria for successful completion of the classes. The criteria being a term paper of (1) a prescribed length that was (2) on topic, (3) had appropriate citations, (4) had a properly formatted bibliography and (5) appended with a signed Honor Pledge. And as long as these minimum criteria were satisfied, a grade and credit was awarded without regard to the quality of the content?

• And you adopted this criteria when Dr. Nyang'oro delegated course management responsibility to you? And you considered this criteria to be adequate for awarding of course credit and to be within university policy as well? 

• You concede that "a few students may have cheated." Do you then dispute the Wainstein analysis of student papers that were available for review that revealed a high percentage of unoriginal content between the introductions and conclusions. If so, do you have metrics or evidence on which to base your assessment, or is it an opinion based on your experience review of papers?

• Throughout the history of these 'customized educational opportunities,' did either you or Dr. Nyang'oro ever identify any honor code violations and report them? If so, is there any evidence of this in UNC's records.

• Throughout the history of these 'customized educational opportunities' were any students awarded a grade of D or less? How many Cs?

• What criteria did you use to assign grades? 

• We recognize that though a course itself may be challenged for its merits, this does not mean that student effort and quality of individual work are indicted simply if the course is without merit. We also recognize that a student can take the initiative and gain academic benefit from such a course even if the management of the course is deficient. Wainstein acknowledged this as well. Would you agree?

• If so, do you understand that citing the value some students may have gained from courses the university deemed 'irregular' does not salvage the merits of the course itself? 

• Was any mid-course instruction or guidance afforded or even required, as is standard for any course taught as independent study? If so, did you provide that instruction?

• You acknowledge you awarded grades. Are you stating affirmatively that that is appropriate and not a violation of any university policy?

• Did you sign grade rolls with the name of faculty? Did you do this for athletes and non-athletes alike?

• There is an email in the Exhibits in which you admonished some student-athletes for turning in near-duplicate work. You gave them the opportunity to resubmit. Why were they not awarded Fs and reported for breaking their Honor Code statements? 

• Not all course topics were assigned by Dr. Nyang'oro as you claim in your response, were they? There is email evidence of you, Cynthia Reynolds, Jan Boxill and other ASPSA counselors suggesting topics which you approved but which Dr. Nyang'oro never saw. Is this incorrect or is there a reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy between your testimony and the digital record?

• You attest that all students had equal access to these 'customized educational opportunities.' In you estimation, did student-athletes have more frequent need of such remedies than did non-athletes, either in relative or absolute terms? In your estimation, did student-athletes experience or demonstrate greater or more frequent need for such customized opportunities and might this explain the disproportionate enrollment?

• When advisors of both athletes and non-athletes contacted you for availability of such opportunities, did you require an explanation of the extenuating circumstances to justify the course creation or enrollment?

• Can you explain your concern with the exploitation of these customized classes, as you call them, by the 'frat circuit?' If enrollment was controlled by you (or Dr. Nyang'oro) how were any undeserving students able to exploit it?

• Can you say, generally, how many of the non-athlete students who attended these courses had an affiliation with the athletics department: student-managers, staff volunteers, student tutors, trainers, etc.?

• Did advisors for non-athletes communicate to you the grade needs for their students as is evident in the record in your communications with ASPSA counselors? Did the non-athlete advisors and counselors (1) recommend topics, (2) ask for course availability, (3) submit late adds, or (4) did they submit work on behalf of their students in the way that is exhibited in the record with ASPSA?

• Can you or the university provide this documentation evidence of communications with Steele Bldg advisors that is similar in content and degree to what we see with ASPSA?

• You had, at one point, expressed concern about raising 'red flags' if these courses had no non-athletes enrolled. Can you explain why that concerned you, or why there were, in fact, several instances of courses enrolled with no non-athletes?

• Did the potential for exploitation of these so-called 'customized opportunities' for reasons of athlete eligibility ever concern you or enter into your consideration? Did you consider that some students, including athletes, weren't suffering hardship but were simply looking for easements to academic course load for the benefit of other time management demand? Did you check for that to guard against abuse?

• How often did you turn down requests to enroll a student due to the lack of the requested student's true need? 

• As you neared your retirement date in 2009, you expressed some frustration and fatigue with some of your colleagues over pressures either from counseling staffers and/or from superiors. Can you describe what sort of pressures these were or what was frustrating you?

Crowder's Last Minute Affidavit

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. 

Sympathy for Deb Crowder?

Before seeing Bradley Bethel's documentary "Unverified," I felt some smidgen of sympathy for academic counselors Beth Bridger and Jaimie Lee. Unlike Bethel, I didn't consider them "scapegoats" because a scapegoat is an innocent who bears the sins of the guilty. I didn't think Bridger and Lee were innocent. I agreed with Bethel that they low-level employees who'd been left holding the bag. The buck had unjustly stopped with them. But I felt they'd simply been pawns, cultivated by a system that had conditioned them to believe what they were doing was okay. Unlike Bethel, I didn't fault "media sensationalism" for that. Rather, I saw it as a University conducting damage control and trying to limit the risk to other, more valuable, assets; like its athletics program.

"Unverified" was billed as putting a human face on the "untold story" behind the scandal, and I thought I'd at least agree with the expected message that Bridger and Lee didn't deserve to bear all of the blame. However, my mind turned when I watched the film and listened as Bridger and Lee whined about their mistreatment and avoided accepting any culpability for their part in the scandal. There was no remorse, no mea culpa nor any indication of ownership of their actions. In their minds they'd done nothing wrong, had just been "trying to help" and complained about how they'd been unjustly fired for it. I guess being featured in a film where they could air their grievances was their way of moving on.

This has been a common theme in the UNC scandal. No one -- NOT ONE PERSON -- feels he or she did anything wrong. (Well, no one except for, maybe, the vilified Mary Willingham who expressed regret for having been a part of the system for years.)

In the days after the Wainstein Report, Thad Williamson wrote an introspective commentary about UNC's "Honest Shame." I thought it expressed the right sentiment about contrition that I'd hoped would be majority reaction, allowing a true "moving on" from the scandal. But shame is an internal emotion. It's not shame when blame is assigned to someone else and you don't accept responsibility for your part in the play.

In the wake of Wainstein, there was no evidence of anyone owning that shame. Fingers were pointed. Blame shifted. Or, worst of all, the entire ordeal was recast as being overblown, sensationalized and exaggerated. Though the University officially accepted Wainstein's findings, those left standing on the carpet complained about Wainstein's methods and conclusions. Those wearing their Tar Heel logo'ed gear called Wainstein corrupt, said the NCAA was corrupt and UNC athletics was being victimized. It was all "the media's" fault, the North Carolina Board of Governors fault and a weak administration's fault. Any "honest shame" was in short supply.


Just as I had, at one point, felt Bridger and Lee deserved a little sympathy, I had pondered whether or not Crowder had unfairly shouldered so much blame. I contemplated writing an article of sympathy for Crowder, believing that maybe she'd been left to twist in the wind, maybe cowed into silence as her name became synonymous with the academic scandal. Like I had with Bridger/Lee, I didn't think she was innocent; but perhaps harshly cast out by the university after years of doing what she must have thought was condoned and even encouraged. I'd been told that Crowder had felt abandoned, misrepresented and demonized for her role in bringing these troubles down on UNC. No one was doing documentaries on her untold story. No one was defending her beyond maybe the ameliorating defense that she's just been "misguided."

I had a hard time composing such an opinion piece, though, because there had been so little known about her side of the story. Wainstein, in fact, provided the most sympathetic detail. By hunkering down for six years, Crowder had made it hard to defend her.

Yesterday, Deborah Crowder finally lent her long-silent voice to the tragic comedy. Now that she's finally spoken out, I find I'm having the same reaction toward any sympathies for Crowder as I had toward Bridger and Lee after watching "Unverified."


Fans of UNC athletics have long chafed at the findings of Wainstein. They've supported Bethel's efforts because it challenged Wainstein's findings that there was an athletics component to the scandal. But the University has never officially questioned or refuted its 3 million dollar investigation. To the contrary, the University has based significant actions on the findings.

But with regard to the NCAA allegations, the University's endorsement of Wainstein has presented a sticky wicket. How does one call the Wainstein Report into question if the University, itself, has staked its actions on its credibility? The solution, to date, had been to object to the NCAA's reliance on the Wainstein Report on procedural grounds. That didn't work, or at least it hasn't so far.

But now, out of the blue, comes Crowder. She can challenge Wainstein and the University can keep its hands clean of having to contradict Wainstein's findings or question his agenda.

Though naming Wainstein specifically, what Crowder is claiming contradicts the UNC's other, earlier reviews as well, like the Martin Report and the Hartlyn-Andrews Report and the Aug/Sep 2011 Internal Working Group inquiry with which NCAA investigators participated. Crowder's claim doesn't just refute the NCAA allegations of an athletics component to the scandal. It refutes the academic element as well. All those who have long countered that the classes were just "easy courses" that violated no policies and remained legitimate are cheering Crowder's belated boldness to speak out.

Where has Crowder been all these years? Why is she choosing to speak out now? It's true that the NCAA's latest Notice of Allegations addressed her and alleged her misconduct, and the time to respond was running out. But she had let that clock run out twice previously. What was different this time?

• When deans Hartlyn Andrews were conducting their investigation in 2011, Crowder refused to cooperate. When their report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• When governor Martin was investigating in 2012, Crowder refused to cooperate. When his report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• She agreed to interview with Wainstein in 2014, but only in exchange for having the North Carolina SBI and Orange County DA drop their 18-month investigation of her. 

• Though agreeing to cooperate with Wainstein, she refused to cooperate with the simultaneous NCAA investigation in 2014-15.

• When Wainstein report laid culpability at her feet, she said nothing.

• When UNC accepted Wainstein's findings and had to answer to SACS, she remained silent.

• When UNC fired and censured employees on the basis of Wainstein's findings, she was silent.

• When NCAA issued the first Notice of Allegations in May 2015, charging her with failure to cooperate and alleging infractions based on her academic misconduct, she refused to respond.

• When she was charged again in the amended NOA in April 2016, she again chose not to respond.

• As the NCAA went to a hearing in Sep-October 2016, she refused to participate.

• Six years of internal, external, independent, SBI, SACS and NCAA investigations, and the only one with which she cooperated she now disputes?

She says she's speaking out now because of the damage being done to students and the value of their degrees. What damage? Though SACS president Belle Wheelan urged UNC to "make whole" the degrees affected by the "irregularities," university policy had already sealed transcripts and, as UNC advocates love to point out, no courses or degrees were discredited. So, who's degrees suffered?

Former athletes Devon Ramsey and Rashanda McCants have filled class actions suits, but based on what Crowder is saying, they should have no complaint about their education. Instead, their complaint should be about the University unjustifiably casting doubt on the integrity of their degrees.

And if that truly is her concern, where was she these last six years? If Wainstein had misrepresented her testimony to him, why didn't she speak up when his report brought SACS back and really called into the question of the integrity of those degrees?


NOW, in the eleventh hour, after nearly three years of refusing to cooperate with the NCAA she says she MIGHT be willing to cooperate? NOW, she not only refutes Wainstein, but the conclusions of  the Martin Report, Hartlyn-Andrews and the IWG. What tipped the balance for her, to respond to THIS latest NOA after snubbing her nose at the previous two?

It's funny how my initial pangs of sympathy came about from seeing her name in a document lacking any legal counsel while every other named party on the list had high-powered attorneys representing them. Now somehow she's managed to find her own muscle in Cheshire, Parker, Schneider & Bryan, PLLC and she's yet another one who's playing the victim card,showing not an ounce of contrition or "honest shame."