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?