University of North Carolina Chancellor Carol Folt, Director of Athletics Bubba Cunningham, and Vice Chancellor and general counsel Mark Merritt to discuss the NCAA Committee on Infractions’ final word on its investigation into the classes in question in UNC’s Africa and Afro-American Studies Department.
Posted here is the Q&A beginning with Chancellor Folt’s opening statement:
“We believe this is the correct and a fair outcome. We want to thank the NCAA staff and Committee on Infractions for their work and the time taken during this entire process. We’re grateful for this resolution of a case about issues that ended more than six years ago. Our focus is to continue on delivering the best possible education to our students.
“We long ago accepted full responsibility for what happened in the past. One of my administration’s highest priorities has been to resolve this issue by following facts, understanding what occurred and taking every opportunity to make our university stronger and have been open and transparent in everything we’ve done.
“The resolution of the case is part of a comprehensive effort of administrators, faculty and staff across campus and with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to fully address these issues…”
*Folt said a result of UNC’s efforts to find out exactly what happened has been the development of “more than 70 groundbreaking reform and initiative, including areas of academic advising and academic oversight.”
*As a result of the reforms, Folt said, “We all believe that Carolina is in a better place.”
Q: Regarding UNC re-framing the classes for the NCAA, that UNC used the term “academic fraud” to SACS but told the NCAA that was a typo if it was a typo, “because that seems hard to believe?”
Merritt: “We’ve been consistent throughout this process in describing the facts about these classes and what their characteristics were, and I believe we were consistent within the facts process within the NCAA process. The NCAA staff did not charge us with academic fraud with respect to these classes. The committee looked into that issue and concluded that the record didn’t support it. And so I believe we properly characterized the classes for how they were, and you can look that up in terms of what we did in our response, and also how the Committee on Infractions itself characterized the classes.”
Q: Why UNC changed its position from the Wainstein Report at the infractions hearing in August and if that was because Greg Sankey and his committee lowered the standard of evidence?
Cunningham: “I believe that we have been consistent throughout this entire process relative to the Wainstein Report. We agreed that the actual document that were used to support his conclusions were appropriate but conclusions were not. It was a narrative, as he described it, which means he’s telling a story about the facts that he gathered. The facts are actually the attachments to his report. So we’ve agreed all along the documents were appropriate but conclusions were not.”
Q: On the perception that UNC got away with something and exposed some loopholes in the NCAA infractions rule book and got off on a technicality?
Cunningham: “It’s a good question and we’ve been wrestling with that as a university for six years. We had some things that occurred that we haven’t been proud of and we’ve been very open and transparent attempting to follow the various processes that we’ve been involved in, whether it was Jim Martin, the SBI, Wainstein, the NCAA, SACS, we’ve been through all of those. And unfortunately, sometimes the behavior that you’re not proud of just doesn’t quite fit unto a bylaw or rule or something, and that’s what we’ve been talking about for five years. We’re not proud of the behavior but we didn’t think it violated a bylaw, and today the Committee on Infractions revealed to us they came to that same conclusion.”
Q: How surprised are they that it turned out this way considering some of the contentious language between the sides over the past year?
Folt: “I actually tend to believe that when facts are out and records are fully read, people will do the right thing. In that way, that’s what I believed would happen. I appreciate the real scrutiny that the NCAA out forward, but I think this is what I expected to be the outcome.”
Cunningham: “I feel the process is collaborative, and we worked very closely with the enforcement staff, and there were times where it was contentious and we had significantly different opinions about how the bylaws apply, and I think that was reflected throughout this process at times, but again, I believe we got to the appropriate spot of the bylaw application to the behavior, and I could not be more pleased for our student-athletes and our coaches. Nor could I be more proud of how they’ve conducted themselves over the last few years given some of the trying times that they’ve had.”
Q: How will this serve as encouragement or a deterrent to other schools that might engage in this behavior?
Merritt: “We’ve argued all along that the appropriate body to deal with an academic issue is our accreditor, and we believe that was the place to deal with academic issues. We dealt with that, our body, our accreditors, SACS, appropriately and forthrightly, and so the notion that this kind of academic irregularity isn’t somehow addressed or taken care of just ignores the appropriate boundaries between the accreditor and the NCAA, we’ve made that argument throughout. And ultimately, that argument was sustained by the Committee on Infractions.”
Q: What is it about these classes that was legitimate?
Merritt: “What the record showed in this case, is that for every one of these classes there was a topic assigned by a professor, that the students who took the classes were assigned a paper on that topic, that the work was done by the students, and that the work was turned in and graded, and that the grades count. So we didn’t find instances where the assignment wasn’t done, work wasn’t done and the work wasn’t turned in for a grade. And when the work wasn’t turned in the grades weren’t given. The appropriate grades were given when the work wasn’t turned in. These classes had characteristics of independent study courses, and as we said publicly and numerous times, the issues with these courses related to inconsistent professorial involvement and teaching and grading. And we said that repeatedly that these classes didn’t meet UNC’s high standards and expectations. The fact that courses didn’t meet our expectations doesn’t make them fraudulent and it doesn’t make them bylaw violations.”
Posted here is the Q&A beginning with Chancellor Folt’s opening statement:
“We believe this is the correct and a fair outcome. We want to thank the NCAA staff and Committee on Infractions for their work and the time taken during this entire process. We’re grateful for this resolution of a case about issues that ended more than six years ago. Our focus is to continue on delivering the best possible education to our students.
“We long ago accepted full responsibility for what happened in the past. One of my administration’s highest priorities has been to resolve this issue by following facts, understanding what occurred and taking every opportunity to make our university stronger and have been open and transparent in everything we’ve done.
“The resolution of the case is part of a comprehensive effort of administrators, faculty and staff across campus and with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to fully address these issues…”
*Folt said a result of UNC’s efforts to find out exactly what happened has been the development of “more than 70 groundbreaking reform and initiative, including areas of academic advising and academic oversight.”
*As a result of the reforms, Folt said, “We all believe that Carolina is in a better place.”
Q: Regarding UNC re-framing the classes for the NCAA, that UNC used the term “academic fraud” to SACS but told the NCAA that was a typo if it was a typo, “because that seems hard to believe?”
Merritt: “We’ve been consistent throughout this process in describing the facts about these classes and what their characteristics were, and I believe we were consistent within the facts process within the NCAA process. The NCAA staff did not charge us with academic fraud with respect to these classes. The committee looked into that issue and concluded that the record didn’t support it. And so I believe we properly characterized the classes for how they were, and you can look that up in terms of what we did in our response, and also how the Committee on Infractions itself characterized the classes.”
Q: Why UNC changed its position from the Wainstein Report at the infractions hearing in August and if that was because Greg Sankey and his committee lowered the standard of evidence?
Cunningham: “I believe that we have been consistent throughout this entire process relative to the Wainstein Report. We agreed that the actual document that were used to support his conclusions were appropriate but conclusions were not. It was a narrative, as he described it, which means he’s telling a story about the facts that he gathered. The facts are actually the attachments to his report. So we’ve agreed all along the documents were appropriate but conclusions were not.”
Q: On the perception that UNC got away with something and exposed some loopholes in the NCAA infractions rule book and got off on a technicality?
Cunningham: “It’s a good question and we’ve been wrestling with that as a university for six years. We had some things that occurred that we haven’t been proud of and we’ve been very open and transparent attempting to follow the various processes that we’ve been involved in, whether it was Jim Martin, the SBI, Wainstein, the NCAA, SACS, we’ve been through all of those. And unfortunately, sometimes the behavior that you’re not proud of just doesn’t quite fit unto a bylaw or rule or something, and that’s what we’ve been talking about for five years. We’re not proud of the behavior but we didn’t think it violated a bylaw, and today the Committee on Infractions revealed to us they came to that same conclusion.”
Q: How surprised are they that it turned out this way considering some of the contentious language between the sides over the past year?
Folt: “I actually tend to believe that when facts are out and records are fully read, people will do the right thing. In that way, that’s what I believed would happen. I appreciate the real scrutiny that the NCAA out forward, but I think this is what I expected to be the outcome.”
Cunningham: “I feel the process is collaborative, and we worked very closely with the enforcement staff, and there were times where it was contentious and we had significantly different opinions about how the bylaws apply, and I think that was reflected throughout this process at times, but again, I believe we got to the appropriate spot of the bylaw application to the behavior, and I could not be more pleased for our student-athletes and our coaches. Nor could I be more proud of how they’ve conducted themselves over the last few years given some of the trying times that they’ve had.”
Q: How will this serve as encouragement or a deterrent to other schools that might engage in this behavior?
Merritt: “We’ve argued all along that the appropriate body to deal with an academic issue is our accreditor, and we believe that was the place to deal with academic issues. We dealt with that, our body, our accreditors, SACS, appropriately and forthrightly, and so the notion that this kind of academic irregularity isn’t somehow addressed or taken care of just ignores the appropriate boundaries between the accreditor and the NCAA, we’ve made that argument throughout. And ultimately, that argument was sustained by the Committee on Infractions.”
Q: What is it about these classes that was legitimate?
Merritt: “What the record showed in this case, is that for every one of these classes there was a topic assigned by a professor, that the students who took the classes were assigned a paper on that topic, that the work was done by the students, and that the work was turned in and graded, and that the grades count. So we didn’t find instances where the assignment wasn’t done, work wasn’t done and the work wasn’t turned in for a grade. And when the work wasn’t turned in the grades weren’t given. The appropriate grades were given when the work wasn’t turned in. These classes had characteristics of independent study courses, and as we said publicly and numerous times, the issues with these courses related to inconsistent professorial involvement and teaching and grading. And we said that repeatedly that these classes didn’t meet UNC’s high standards and expectations. The fact that courses didn’t meet our expectations doesn’t make them fraudulent and it doesn’t make them bylaw violations.”
