2. SACS President's View
Belle Whelan's view of SACS probation decision re. UNC:
3. The Response
4. SACS Agency on Principle of Integrity
Provided for background and context of SACS agency ruling: from the November 13th, 2014 SACS letter to UNC, on pg. 2 under the heading of Principle of Integrity 1.1, describing SACS interpretation of the Wainstein Report.
5. UNC Affirming SACS' Observation of Wainstein Report
Provided for background and context of SACS agency ruling: from the January 12, 2015 UNC response to SACS, on pg. 27 under the UNC's response to SACS request for information related to the above referenced Principle of Integrity: 1.1
6. SACS Probation Ruling:
from July 1st, 2015 SACS letter to UNC, formally forwarding decision of June 11th 2015 SACS Board of Trustees, listing reasons for probation, including failure to comply with previously cited Principle 1.1 (Integrity).
7. The Refusal:
8. The Reality
- Contrary to this guy's view of reality, Wainstein never came out and called it "academic fraud"
- Contrary to this guy's view of reality, it was SACS (in November 2014) that applied the term "academic fraud" to reading of the Wainstein Report.
- Contrary to this guy's view of reality, UNC affirmed (in January 2015) SACS was correct in observing Wainstein Report as describing "academic fraud."
- Contrary to this guy's view of reality, not repeating the term "academic fraud" (in July 2015) when citing Principles of Integrity when communicating the reasons for probation doesn't mean "academic fraud" wasn't the basis for that failure finding. The notice letter cited no basis. The foregoing communication did, including statement from SACS president herself (in June 2015) on the reason for probation.
9. The Lesson:
