UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION
OCTOBER 13, 2017

I. INTRODUCTION
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of
the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and the public. The COI
decides infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. 1 This case centered on
allegations stemming from a lengthy 18-year academic saga at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill (UNC), which has received significant media and public attention. 2 From its
inception, the infractions case has been public in nature, including attacks on the membership's
infractions process and individual members of the panel. The allegations within the NCAA's
infractions process have taken multiple forms—but never academic fraud—and sparked
numerous procedural challenges by the parties. The case also involved two former staff
members' failure to cooperate, the only two individuals who knew the full extent of what
occurred at UNC.
At its core, this NCAA infractions case involved allegations that UNC provided student-athletes
with extra benefits via special access to and assistance in certain deficient courses. These
courses have been commonly referred to as "paper courses." Although general knowledge of the
courses existed widely, these courses have been the root of numerous reviews and investigations
commissioned by UNC or the university system. All the reviews attempted to uncover what
went wrong in one of UNC's academic departments. Significantly, all but one of these reviews
were hindered by the noncooperation of the two individuals at the heart of the courses. Within
the academic review of the classes outside the NCAA infractions process, UNC told its
accrediting body that the 18 years of academic conduct was "long-standing and egregious
academic wrongdoing." It also originally adopted its accreditor's characterization of the
wrongdoing as "academic fraud."
Despite these early admissions, UNC pivoted dramatically from its position roughly three years
later within the infractions process. UNC disavowed its earlier support of the findings and
conclusions of an independent report, distanced itself from earlier statements to its accreditor
and ultimately defended its courses as a matter of academic autonomy. UNC did so even as it
acknowledged that the courses did not meet, involved little, if any, faculty engagement and were
1

Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I COI members. Decisions issued by hearing
panels are made on behalf of the COI.
2

A member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, the institution has an undergraduate enrollment of about 16,000. It sponsors 15
women's and 13 men's programs. The institution had previous major infractions cases in 2012 (football) and 1961 (men's
basketball).

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 2
__________
frequently graded by a former curriculum secretary. Although UNC's current policies now
prohibit such courses, UNC stood firmly by the courses in question with respect to the
infractions process, indicating they did not violate policies existing at the time. UNC also
claimed students and student-athletes were treated alike, they completed meaningful academic
work and UNC did not remove course grades from students' transcripts or rescind degrees.
Given UNC's admissions, the panel had to consider whether either academic fraud or extra
benefit violations occurred. A singular principle allowed UNC room to make its claims and,
ultimately, limits the panel's ability to conclude that academic fraud occurred. Since 2014, the
NCAA membership has acknowledged the question whether academic fraud occurred is one
appropriately answered by institutions based on their own academic policies. 3 The membership
trusts academic entities to hold themselves accountable and report academic fraud to the NCAA
and has chosen to constrain who decides what constitutes academic fraud. Because of this
limitation, UNC's decision to support the courses as legitimate combined with a stale and
incomplete record that does not allow the panel to drill down to the course and assignment
level—even if the panel had wanted to second guess the courses—it cannot conclude academic
fraud occurred. Similarly, the panel cannot conclude that extra benefit violations occurred
surrounding the offering or managing of the courses as alleged. The courses were generally
available to the student body, and non-student-athletes took the courses. Further, the record does
not include specific and identifiable examples of benefits at the student-athlete level not
generally available to the student body. Based on the general availability and the lack of specific
examples, the panel cannot conclude a systemic effort to impermissibly benefit student-athletes.
Although UNC repeatedly stressed the paper courses did not violate NCAA legislation, UNC
agreed that a former academic counselor provided too much help to women's basketball studentathletes.4 She held multiple roles during her career at UNC, complicating the panel's ability to
analyze actions. Most pertinent to this case were her roles as a philosophy instructor and
counselor with the women's basketball team. In total, her allegations involved 18 instances of
assistance from 2003 to 2010. There are gaps in the nature of the assistance she provided where
the record includes partial email chains and lacked all the completed work. These gaps clouded
the context surrounding her actions and would have required the panel to assess edits,
suggestions and content down to the line-by-line and word basis. The panel was not in a
position to make those core academic determinations. Therefore, the panel cannot conclude that
impermissible academic assistance occurred.
The enforcement staff also alleged the circumstances surrounding the nearly two decades of
paper courses and the instructor/counselor's extra help demonstrated UNC's failure to monitor
and lack of control. At the hearing, UNC acknowledged that it lacked critical academic policies
with respect to monitoring and reviewing the department chair, his workload and the department.
It argued, however, that those failures did not fall within the NCAA's purview. With respect to
3

In 2014, the NCAA membership began using the phrase "academic misconduct." Although there are minor nuances between
the two, the panel utilizes "academic fraud," the phrase that applied at the time the conduct occurred.
4

UNC, however, contested the NCAA's ability to timely process the conduct under the statute of limitations. The panel did not
need to resolve the issue.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 3
__________
the instructor/academic counselor, UNC contested any control or monitoring violations because
it believed the underlying conduct was barred by the statute of limitations. In the alternative,
UNC admitted that, at most, it did not monitor her activities.
Even though the panel could not reach the academic conduct as academic fraud or extra benefit
violations, the panel thoroughly considered whether UNC's admitted failures still amounted to
free-standing NCAA constitutional violations. The panel's consideration focused on the
conduct's intersection with core principles for conducting intercollegiate athletics programs. The
panel recognizes that the deficient, and in some circumstances absent, policies may have had an
advantageous effect on UNC's athletics programs—mainly, student-athlete eligibility. But given
UNC's position that its courses were legitimate and not systemically created or abused to serve
solely athletics interests and the information presented did not squarely refute that point, the
panel cannot conclude that UNC lacked control of its athletics programs. Similarly, the panel
cannot conclude that the institution failed to control or monitor the instructor/counselor.
Based on the nature of the case and the posture of the record, the panel concludes that the only
violations in this case are the department chair's and the secretary's failure to cooperate. The
infractions process requires the cooperation of all individuals with pertinent information. Here,
both were key figures at the center of UNC's academic shortcomings. While others had
suspicions, or knew something was occurring in the department, only they knew the true nature
of the courses. Both initially refused to cooperate. The department chair never cooperated.
After approximately three years of silence, the secretary changed her mind. The panel concludes
that both violated ethical conduct and cooperation bylaws. The department chair's violation is
Level I and the secretary's violation is Level II.
The panel classifies the department chair's violation as Level I-Aggravated. Although the
secretary's participation was significantly late, she did ultimately participate and provide helpful
information. Therefore, the panel classifies the secretary's violation as Level II-Mitigated.
Because the only violations in this case occurred after implementation of the penalty structure,
the panel utilized current Bylaw 19 and the penalty guidelines to prescribe appropriate penalties.
In accordance with the penalty guidelines, the panel prescribes a five-year show-cause order for
the department chair.
Separate from the formal allegations, the enforcement staff identified, but did not allege, two
potential breaches of confidentiality occurring after it issued formal allegations. The first
involved the secretary's counsel releasing case information and the second involved the UNC
athletics director's participation in an interview related to the ongoing case. At the hearing, both
individuals apologized for and provided context relating to their actions. Although troubled by
these disclosures, the panel does not elevate the conduct to violations of NCAA legislation.

II. CASE HISTORY
Issues related to this case first came to light in August 2011. With UNC scheduled to appear
before the COI in October 2011 for conduct in its football program, the enforcement staff and a

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 4
__________
UNC internal working group conducted a series of interviews. Ultimately, the enforcement staff
decided not to amend any allegations existing at the time, and the COI conducted a hearing on
October 28, 2011.5
Over the next three years, UNC continued to conduct numerous internal and external reviews,
leading to a referral for a criminal investigation.6 Although previous reviews uncovered some of
the details relating to the courses, none had access to the department chair or the curriculum
secretary (secretary). That changed in late 2013, when they became available for questioning
stemming from the criminal investigation. In a continued effort to uncover facts and address
previously unanswered questions, the university system retained the law firm of Cadwalader,
Wickersham and Taft LLP (Cadwalader) in February 2014 to conduct an independent inquiry
into the matter. Cadwalader was charged with following the facts to resolve previously
unanswered questions. During those various inquiries, UNC had also been communicating with
its accrediting body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' Commission on Colleges
(SACS). On June 2, 2014, the enforcement staff notified UNC that it was opening an
investigation of the matter and provided a verbal notice of inquiry on June 30.
On October 21, 2014, Cadwalader issued its comprehensive report, prompting SACS to submit
additional inquires to UNC. UNC responded to those inquiries on January 12, 2015, and SACS
placed UNC on one year of probation. On May 20, 2015, the enforcement staff issued its first
notice of allegations (NOA). But on August 10, 2015, the parties notified the COI that they were
reopening the investigation. The enforcement staff issued an amended notice (ANOA) on April
25, 2016.7 The case then proceeded pursuant to the standard legislated procedural timeline. In
its response, UNC challenged the posture of the case and the NCAA's authority to hear it. UNC
claimed the case suffered from five primary deficiencies: (1) it fell outside the jurisdiction of the
NCAA; (2) the infractions process previously resolved the issues in the March 2012 infractions
decision and underlying investigation; (3) the allegations were barred by fundamental unfairness;
(4) many allegations were untimely under the statute of limitations; and (5) the inclusion of
portions of the Cadwalader Report as factual information were inappropriate.
The
instructor/counselor also raised generalized statute of limitations and fairness arguments. To
resolve the issues, the panel held a procedural hearing on October 28, 2016. One month later,
the panel issued a decision letter, resolving all but one challenge.8 The panel also indicated it
5

The COI released its infractions decision on March 12, 2012.

6

These reviews included the Hartlyn-Andrews Report (May 2, 2012), the Independent Study Task Force Report (May 2, 2012),
the Faculty Executive Committee Report (July 26, 2012), the Governor James G. Martin report (December 19, 2012, with an
addendum on January 24, 2013, and a clarification on February 5, 2013), the Baker Tilly report (December 19, 2012) and the
Board of Governors Review Board (February 7, 2013). Following the release of the Hartlyn-Andrews Report, UNC referred the
matters to the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). The SBI conducted a criminal investigation, resulting in a December 2013
indictment of the department chair for obtaining property by false pretenses (i.e., payment for a class that never met).
7

Among other adjustments, the ANOA removed Allegation No. 1 (impermissible academic assistance in multiple sport
programs) from the May 20, 2015, NOA, added 12 additional instances of conduct related to the instructor/counselor, removed
references to certain sport programs and reduced the number of years involved.
8

Cumulatively, the panel decided on the face of the limited procedural record that the matter was within the NCAA's jurisdiction
of the NCAA and that the allegations were not barred from the panel's consideration. The panel deferred consideration of the of
the statute of limitations arguments until a hearing on the merits.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 5
__________
would proceed to a hearing on the merits of the allegations or, if necessary, the enforcement staff
should issue a second ANOA to ensure the case was appropriately framed.
On December 13, 2016, the enforcement staff issued a second ANOA. On March 9, 2017, after
roughly three years of noncooperation, the secretary submitted a response to the second ANOA.
The parties interviewed the secretary on May 10, 2017. Six days later, UNC and the
instructor/counselor submitted their initial responses to the second ANOA, followed later by
supplemental responses. The enforcement staff submitted its written reply and statement of the
case on July 17, 2017. In framing its position, the enforcement staff took the firm stance that
this case was not about fake classes, easy courses or fraudulent activity. Instead, the
enforcement staff took the position that this case was about special access to and assistance in
certain courses that was not generally available to other students. The panel conducted an
infractions hearing on August 16 and 17, 2017.
Leading up to the hearing, the parties submitted countless letters and requests, totaling hundreds
of pages. These submissions strained a process predicated on cooperation. Moreover, they
added to an already voluminous record that spanned 18 years and totaled millions of pages. 9
Some of the letters also appear to have been written for the sole purpose of discrediting the
membership's infractions process and setting a public narrative through UNC's responses to
public records requests. Although the COI understands that institutions must comply with
appropriate requests, institutions should uphold their confidentiality requirements under NCAA
bylaws where consistent with legal obligations.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
Generally, the facts of this case are not in dispute. They involve courses offered and
administered in what was formerly known as the Department of African and Afro-American
(AFRI/AFAM) studies. The trouble with the courses centered around the department chair and
the secretary. In the background, but integrally involved in the conduct at issue, was UNC's
Academic Support Services for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) personnel. ASPSA received funding
from athletics and interacted with athletics staff, coaches and student-athletes on a daily basis.
ASPSA, however, was organized and housed under the College of Arts and Sciences. While
clear on paper, the mixed reporting lines perpetuated the continued and unchallenged use of the
courses. To a lesser extent, the facts also surround the academic conduct of a long-time UNC
staff member (instructor/counselor).
Various internal and external reviews have dubbed the courses different names. Most simply,
they have become known as "paper courses." In short, the courses involved no class attendance;
limited, if any, faculty oversight; and liberal grading. The paper courses included both
9

Although all the information UNC reviewed was not included in the final infractions record, UNC's chancellor indicated at the
infractions hearing that, if stacked, the total number of printed pages related to this case would be as tall as the Willis Tower in
Chicago. Nevertheless, those documents also lacked other key information related to the individual courses, the student-athletes
who took them and the type of assistance and educational experience they received.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 6
__________
independent studies and courses listed as standard lectures but taught as independent studies.
From 1989 to 2011, more than 6,000 students, including student-athletes, enrolled in courses that
may have been administered as paper courses.10 Although the exact number of paper courses is
unknown, the Cadwalader report conservatively estimated 3,100 students took a paper course
involving irregular instruction. The record in this case includes only estimates on the number of
courses and student-athletes involved. Although voluminous, the record is limited in specificity
related to individual courses and student-athletes.
Nature and Administration of the Paper Courses
With respect to paper courses, there is little dispute. The classes did not meet. They rarely, if at
all, directly involved a faculty member. They required the submission of a paper, occasionally
two shorter papers. The papers were often graded by the secretary, who admitted she did not
read every word and occasionally did not read every page. The papers consistently received
high grades. At the hearing, UNC stood by its paper courses. UNC indicated that the work was
assigned, completed, turned in and graded under the professor's guidelines. UNC also asserted
that the grades are recorded on the students' transcripts and continue to count.
Generally, the AFRI/AFAM department offered paper courses in one of two ways: (1)
independent studies; or (2) lecture courses structured as independent studies. Today, those
courses appear on students' and student-athletes' transcripts as valid independent studies or
lecture courses and were accepted to fulfill UNC's graduation requirements. UNC listed the
courses in that manner in course bulletins. 11 Neither the transcripts nor the course bulletins
identify how the courses were administered or taught.
While independent studies and lecture courses are regular experiences for students on college
campuses, the paper courses were, as UNC defined them, "irregular." UNC's chancellor
elaborated on that characterization at the infractions hearing, succinctly describing them as
having "inconsistent professorial involvement in teaching and grading." She and others further
explained that the courses failed to meet UNC's high standards and expectations. Although the
courses failed to meet UNC's own expectations, UNC repeatedly stressed at the infractions
hearing that nothing about the courses themselves, the way they were administered or the way
they were graded, violated then-existing policies. UNC admitted the courses would violate its
current policies.
Enrollment in the courses literally began, continued and ended with the secretary. Generally, she
controlled the administration of department offerings, administration of courses and, eventually,
grading of many of the submitted papers. In both her written response and at the infractions
hearing, she identified that the courses were meant to assist all UNC students who had difficult
circumstances. If any student had extenuating circumstances, the secretary would accommodate
10

The allegations in this case span the 2002-03 through 2010-11 academic years and only involve lecture courses taught in
independent study format. The total enrollments and breadth of the course offerings, however, provides helpful context.
11

At the hearing, UNC claimed that all lecture courses "except one or two" appeared in course bulletins and were publicized.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 7
__________
them with a paper course. For students, those circumstances included schedule and work
conflicts, campus obligations and, on occasion, difficult personal circumstances. For studentathletes, those circumstances included athletic obligations (i.e., practice, meetings, games and
other athletically related activity). These arrangements started with a case-by-case approach, but
as word spread and popularity soared, the secretary had to adjust her approach to handle the
demand. To facilitate that demand, the secretary relied on academic counselors (both academic
counselors for students and ASPSA counselors) to identify extenuating circumstances.
Eventually the secretary began requesting that ASPSA counselors consolidate their studentathlete class requests into a list and submit it to her rather than individually sending over each of
the student-athletes. She did not request lists from other academic counselors. On occasion,
ASPSA personnel would email the secretary, asking what paper courses AFRI/AFAM (or the
secretary) would be offering and requesting that she offer others.
Once enrolled in the courses, student-athletes or ASPSA staff usually received the assigned topic
from the secretary. During her interview, she acknowledged that she would provide paper topics
but indicated that all paper topics were faculty approved. ASPSA records indicate that while
student-athletes may not have met with faculty members, they did work with ASPSA staff on
writing and structuring research papers. Further, sometimes ASPSA staff turned in studentathletes' completed papers. As it relates to the quality of the work, at least some interviewees
suggested that the courses required little academic work and substance.
Most ASPSA counselors knew that papers would likely receive an A or a B. Others knew, or
had suspicions, that the secretary actually graded the papers. In fact, when word circulated about
the secretary's retirement, an ASPSA learning specialist circulated a memo identifying an
upcoming due date with an urgent message:
Your paper is DUE FRIDAY, JULY 17th
[The secretary] IS RETIRING THE FOLLOWING WEEK SO IF YOU WOULD
PREFER THAT SHE READ AND GRADE YOUR PAPER RATHER THAN
[the department chair] YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE THE PAPER
COMPLETED BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF CLASSES, TUESDAY, JULY
21ST.
Grading was but one of many tasks delegated to the secretary by the department chair who
traveled frequently. As a result, he delegated much of the department's managerial
responsibilities to the secretary. Among other things, this included formatting syllabi,
proofreading correspondence and manuscripts and attending chair-only meetings in his place.
Over time, it grew to include signing grade sheets, providing ASPSA counselors with paper
assignments, receiving completed papers and ultimately grading them. In her interview, the
secretary indicated that she was not originally comfortable with those responsibilities, but like
other things, the department chair told her to "handle it." As far as her grading method, the
secretary admitted that she did not read every word of every paper submitted. But in following
the department chair's instructions, if the paper met his stated requirements, she gave it an A or a
B.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 8
__________
ASPSA personnel recognized the positive impact the paper courses had on student-athletes'
grade-point averages (GPAs). Around the time of the secretary's retirement, a former ASPSA
associate director met with the football staff regarding promoting academic responsibility among
its student-athletes. In that presentation, she included a slide that indicated the paper courses
were part of the "solution in the past" but no longer existed. The slide specifically indicated four
characteristics of the courses where student-athletes were not required to: (1) go to class; (2) take
notes or stay awake; (3) meet with professors; and (4) pay attention or necessarily engage with
the material. The presentation also included comparisons of student-athletes' GPAs with and
without paper courses. Of the eight examples, all had AFAM GPAs of 3.2 or higher and other
GPAs lower than 2.036, with six of the eight student-athletes' other GPAs falling below 2.0.
After the secretary's retirement, the classes all but stopped. However, after repeated requests
from ASPSA staff members, the department chair offered a limited number of courses from
2009 through 2011.
On-campus Knowledge and Concern Related to the Courses
The classes were not a secret on campus during their use. In fact, at different points from 1993
through 2011, academics and athletics staff and leadership were aware of the courses. The depth
of that knowledge varied, as did individuals' reactions to the courses.
Upon learning of the classes, some voiced concern. In fact, multiple ASPSA staff members
reported that upon learning of the paper courses, the former dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences (under which AFRI/AFAM fell) attempted to cut back on their volume. In another
example, a former ASPSA associate director acknowledged that she questioned student-athletes
receiving high grades with no faculty involvement, and although it was not "ideal," it was the
environment at UNC. She further elaborated that based on the approval of her superiors and her
assumption that the courses had been approved and structured by the faculty, she believed they
were appropriate. The premise—that faculty had the authority to structure and teach courses
under academic freedom—fostered an environment that did not welcome questioning the courses
and permitted the paper courses to continue.
Knowledge of the courses was not limited to the College of Arts and Sciences, the AFRI/AFAM
department and ASPSA personnel. Other faculty members and the athletics department also
were aware of the courses. This included coaches and staff, athletics leadership and compliance.
They, too, assumed the courses were approved.
At least two individuals were concerned enough to escalate the issue to athletics and academics
leadership. The former director of ASPSA (director of ASPSA) and a former senior associate
director of athletics (who had previously served as a director of ASPSA) (senior associate AD)
brought the issue to UNC's Faculty Athletics Committee (FAC) in early 2007. 12 The two were
alerted to potential issues after media reports surfaced related to another university's use of
12

The senior associate AD reported that he presented information to the FAC on two different occasions. The first, in the early
2000's, related to independent studies. The second occurred around late 2006 or early 2007. The former director of athletics also
attended the latter FAC meeting.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 9
__________
independent studies. Thereafter, they spoke with the former director of athletics about bringing
the topic to the FAC. The former director of athletics also attended the meeting.
Although there are varying recollections of what occurred, the senior associate AD recalled
informing the FAC members about the department chair teaching regular courses as independent
studies. He also vividly recalled FAC members making it clear to him that "faculty have
complete freedom in the classroom and that's protected."13 The director of ASPSA had a similar
recollection, adding that after the meeting, the senior associate AD looked at him, shook his head
and said, "[W]ell, they can't say we didn't say anything." Regardless of what was discussed at
the meeting, it is clear from the interviews that both athletics and academic staff believed the
courses had faculty approval and that they had no authority to second guess faculty judgment.
Stated simply, the notion of academic freedom colored characterizations and perceptions of the
courses. And so the classes continued.
While ASPSA and athletics staff hesitated to question faculty judgment, the classes also
continued because of policies in place that allowed the AFRI/AFAM department to go
unchecked. As UNC's chancellor explained at the hearing, the university had two large holes in
its internal review processes. First, it did not review department chairs. As a result, UNC did
not review the department chair's actions, course loads and administration of the department.
Similarly, UNC only reviewed departments with graduate programs. AFRI/AFAM did not have
a graduate program. Therefore, UNC never reviewed its course offerings and administration.
Formal Discovery and Investigation of the Paper Courses
Although many individuals, including athletics and academics leadership, knew about and
utilized the courses during their existence, formal knowledge did not emerge until summer 2011.
Shortly before UNC was scheduled to appear before the COI on allegations of academic fraud,
extra benefit and amateurism violations in its football program, potential issues came to light
from public media reports surrounding two football student-athletes who had taken AFRI/AFAM
courses. After first discussing the reports with the department chair, UNC informed the NCAA
of potential issues regarding the courses identified in the media. Considering the imminent
infractions hearing, the enforcement staff and UNC immediately conducted 16 interviews over
approximately two months. During this brief investigation, the enforcement staff and UNC
uncovered some basic elements of the paper courses. The full scope and breadth, however,
remained unknown. With a hearing weeks away, the enforcement staff opted to move forward
with the then existing football allegations. The COI held a hearing in October 2011. The parties
did not present any allegations or information focused on the courses at the hearing.
To its credit, UNC's inquiry into the matter did not end in summer 2011. In an effort to
understand what had occurred in its AFRI/AFAM department, the university or university
13

There is some dispute over the degree to which the attendees discussed the paper classes at the early 2007 FAC meeting. Both
the director of ASPSA and the senior associate AD have a consistent recollection of what occurred. To a large extent, the former
director of athletics also corroborates the events. However, the minutes from the meeting do not specifically address the topic in
detail. Similarly, when interviewed by UNC and the enforcement staff, the former faculty athletics representative could not
recall the specifics of the meeting.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 10
__________
system conducted six total reviews through early 2013. All the while, UNC continued to update
SACS, its accreditor. It also communicated with the NCAA. In its review process, SACS
reviewed information limited to what the internal and external investigations uncovered. In June
2013, SACS decided not to sanction UNC. That, however, was not the end of the story.
Approximately two years later, SACS altered its original decision.
While completed reviews were informative, they merely peeled back additional layers
surrounding the paper classes. Each review revealed more information related to inconsistent
educational experiences in the AFRI/AFAM department and faculty's and staff's knowledge of
the courses. Each, however, was hamstrung by the lack of participation of the two central
actors—the department chair and secretary. Their absences prevented the inquiries from
uncovering the true nature of the courses. That all changed in late 2013 when they became
available for questioning after events connected to a criminal investigation. In early 2014, the
university system retained the Cadwalader firm to conduct yet another inquiry into the matter.
Distinct from past inquiries, this review included the secretary's and the department chair's
participation.14 After an extensive inquiry, the Cadwalader firm released its report. Among
other observations, the report identified a new depth of understanding of the paper courses that
occurred for approximately 18 years. Further, based on the firm's review of data and interviews
with current and former staff members, the Cadwalader report found that the classes
disproportionately favored student-athlete enrollments, the courses had a recognizable positive
impact on GPAs and ASPSA personnel colluded with the AFRI/AFRAM department to benefit
student-athletes.
This development prompted SACS to submit additional inquires to UNC, roughly 17 months
after initially determining not to sanction UNC. In its response to SACS, UNC embraced the
Cadwalader investigation, describing it as "monumental." UNC further explained the report
provided "significant new information" related to the origin, breadth and scope of the conduct
surrounding the courses. And UNC was "confident that not only was the investigation thorough
and complete but that it covered a great deal of ground not possible previously." In its January
12, 2015, written response to SACS' additional inquiries, UNC also embraced SACS'
characterization of the conduct as academic fraud. Specifically, UNC admitted that the
Cadwalader report demonstrated that, "the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to
the misconduct of just [the department chair] and [secretary]." Based on the new information
and UNC's January 2015 response to SACS' additional inquiry, SACS sanctioned UNC with one
year of probation.
UNC's strong support of the Cadwalader report to its accreditor drastically shifted roughly three
years later when UNC appeared before the COI. The institution disavowed the report, including
its conclusion that ASPSA and AFRI/AFAM personnel colluded to benefit student-athletes.

14

Similarly and albeit tardy, the panel also benefitted from the participation of the secretary in the infractions process. At the
infractions hearing, she credibly answered the panels questions and provided insightful context regarding the origin, intent and
administration of the paper courses.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 11
__________
UNC also disavowed its previous use of the phrase academic fraud to SACS, telling the panel
that it was merely a "typo" or oversight. UNC wholly reframed its position on the report.15
Notwithstanding UNC's ultimate position on the Cadwalader report before the COI, UNC
informed SACS that its students deserved better. Further, UNC relied in part on the report's
findings and conclusions to implement more than 70 corrective measures that were absent when
the paper courses existed. Contemporaneous with the release of the Cadwalader report, UNC
also initiated employment action with respect to involved employees.
The Instructor/Counselor's Interaction with the Women's Basketball Program
Both prior to and during the time UNC offered the paper courses, the instructor/counselor served
UNC in various positions. She worked at UNC for over 25 years. Among other capacities, she
taught philosophy, served two terms as chair of the faculty, was the director of the ethics center
and also the director of undergraduate studies in the philosophy department and advised
women's basketball student-athletes as an ASPSA counselor.
Over her tenure at UNC, the instructor/counselor encountered, taught and advised many
students. Some were student-athletes. At the hearing, the instructor/counselor estimated that her
ASPSA counselor responsibilities took up approximately 10 percent of her time. She further
indicated that while she met individually, often for many hours, with women's basketball
student-athletes, she provided the same type of support to non-athletes. For example, she
explained that as director of undergraduate studies in the philosophy department she had 125
advisees and met with them all. 16 In the end, the record does not establish that she provided
different assistance to women's basketball student-athletes versus regular students.
In her written responses and during the hearing, the instructor/counselor elaborated on her
approach to educating and helping her students. Among other examples, she indicated that she
provided her students and student-athletes with reference materials, outlines, model papers and
other resources. In addition to the model papers, the instructor/counselor stated that she would
require students to "reconstruct" arguments. She explained that if any students would send her
their argument, she would reconstruct it to help them and show them how to do it. Although she
did not specifically distinguish between the type of assistance she provided students in her
courses versus those that she advised, she consistently articulated that she provided the same
assistance to students and student-athletes alike. She provided her assistance both through inperson meetings and email communication.

15

The first time UNC challenged the statistics in the Cadwalader report was in its response to the second ANOA. Originally,
UNC only challenged the panel's reliance on statements attributed to and conclusions derived from interviews with the
department chair and the secretary. At the procedural hearing, UNC stated it had no objection to the reliance on emails and/or
statistical information, only conclusory or witness statements. Then, in its response to the second ANOA and at the August 2017
infractions hearing, UNC challenged the data and underlying statistics contained in the report, essentially disavowing the report
altogether.
16

In her response, the instructor/counselor inconsistently identified the year she became the director of undergraduate studies for
the philosophy department. On one occasion, she identified 1996. Another occasion indicated 1994. Her role as director of
undergraduate studies ended in 2006.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 12
__________
Confidentiality of Infractions-Related Information
Beginning in 2011, the circumstances surrounding the paper courses in the AFRI/AFAM
department (and later, the instructor/counselor's conduct) have received extensive media
attention. UNC acknowledged at the hearing that it has been transparent about what occurred in
the AFRI/AFAM department. UNC made over one million documents available for the public,
including internal and external reviews, emails and other information.
Regardless of UNC's openness about what occurred in the AFRI/AFAM department, the NCAA
membership requires that all participants maintain strict confidentiality about infractions matters
from the beginning of the enforcement staff's investigation through the release of the public
infractions decision. In its written reply, the enforcement staff identified two instances in which
participants in the infractions process may have violated confidentiality requirements. First,
after years of noncooperation, the secretary filed a response to the second ANOA in March 2017.
Approximately one month later, the secretary's counsel provided the media with infractionsrelated information, including letters dated April 4 and 11, 2017. Similarly, the enforcement
staff also noted UNC's athletics director's participation in a media interview where he discussed
matters related to the ongoing infractions case. Among other things, UNC's athletics director
spoke about underlying substantive issues and UNC's positions, clearly indicating the conduct at
issue was academic fraud under normal, but not NCAA, standards. At the infractions hearing,
the panel questioned both individuals about the enforcement staff's identification of potential
confidentiality issues. Each apologized for and explained the context surrounding their actions.

IV. ANALYSIS
The majority of the panel's substantive analysis is contained in Section V. Violations Not
Demonstrated. That section addresses the paper courses and the instructor/counselor's conduct
and how the applicable bylaws apply to the facts surrounding those circumstances.
Prior to that analysis, the panel addresses two instances of unethical conduct and failure to
cooperate by the two key individuals at the center of the conduct—the department chair and
secretary. While the department chair never cooperated or participated in this process, the
secretary eventually participated after approximately three years of noncooperation. The panel
concludes that Level I and Level II violations occurred.
UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE [NCAA Division I Manual
Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3 (2014-15)]
Two former institutional staff members failed to cooperate in the investigation. The department
chair and the secretary were the two individuals with the most intimate knowledge of what
occurred in this case. Their failures to cooperate in the investigation violated ethical conduct
expectations of current and former institutional staff members and their obligations under the
membership's infractions process. Although the secretary eventually participated, her belated
participation does not absolve her nearly three years of refusals. UNC agreed that both

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 13
__________
individuals failed to cooperate. Although the secretary requested that the panel conclude a
violation had not occurred, she acknowledged that she did not participate until March 2017. The
panel concludes that both institutional staff members committed violations. The department
chair committed a Level I violation and the secretary committed a Level II violation.
1. NCAA legislation relating to unethical conduct and cooperation.
10.1 Unethical Conduct. Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a
current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work
for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for
such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of
an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's
institution.
19.2.3 Responsibility to Cooperate. Current and former institutional staff members or
prospective or enrolled student-athletes of member institutions have an affirmative obligation to
cooperate fully with and assist the NCAA enforcement staff, the Committee on Infractions and
the Infractions Appeals Committee to further the objectives of the Association and its infractions
program. The responsibility to cooperate requires institutions and individuals to protect the
integrity of investigations and to make a full and complete disclosure of any relevant
information, including any information requested by the enforcement staff or relevant
committees. Current and former institutional staff members or prospective or enrolled studentathletes of member institutions have an affirmative obligation to report instances of
noncompliance to the Association in a timely manner and assist in developing full information to
determine whether a possible violation has occurred and the details thereof.
2. During the investigation, the department chair and the secretary failed to
cooperate with the investigation.
The department chair and the secretary were central actors in this case. Each had pertinent
information. Neither met their obligation to cooperate with the NCAA investigation. As the
administrators of the paper courses, each had intimate knowledge of what occurred in the
AFRI/AFAM department for 18 years. Although the secretary ultimately participated, it was late
in the process. Neither met their obligations under Bylaws 10 or 19.
A foundational principle of the infractions process is the cooperation of individuals with
information related to the case. Among other individuals, current and former institutional
employees have an obligation to provide information relevant to an investigation of possible
NCAA rules violations when requested to do so by the enforcement staff or the individual's
institution. Failure to do so may amount to unethical conduct under Bylaw 10.1-(a). Bylaw
19.2.3 also requires individuals to make full and complete disclosures of any relevant
information when requested by the enforcement staff.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 14
__________
Neither the department chair nor the secretary met their obligations to cooperate. Although
neither remained employed by the institution, each still had an obligation to cooperate as former
institutional staff members. Both failed to meet that obligation. In July 2014, the enforcement
staff contacted both individuals' separate attorneys to schedule an interview related to their
knowledge of potential violations. Both replied that they would not participate in the NCAA's
investigation. After nearly three years of refusing to cooperate, however, the secretary decided
to participate in the process. She filed a limited response to the second ANOA, sat for an
interview and later participated in the infractions hearing. The department chair never
participated.
Both the department chair's and the secretary's participation was essential. As the two
individuals at the center of this case, their participation was vital to the investigative and
allegation phases of the case. The infractions process is rooted in the participation of individuals
with knowledge of potential violations. It is through active participation that the COI is best
positioned to find facts and conclude whether violations occurred. The best information derives
from, but is not exclusively limited to, the participation of those knowledgeable of the core
issues. The membership has specifically identified a failure to cooperate as unethical conduct.
Likewise, the COI has consistently concluded that failing to participate in the infractions process
violates ethical conduct and cooperation bylaws. See University of Louisville (2017) (concluding
that a former director of basketball operations' refusal to participate in an interview, file a
response or attend the infractions hearing violated Bylaws 10 and 19) and Georgia Southern
University (2016) (concluding that a former compliance officer's refusal to participate in
interviews, respond to the allegations and participate in the infractions hearing violated Bylaws
10 and 19).17 Therefore, the panel concludes that both the department chair and the secretary
violated Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3 when they refused to participate in the investigation.
Bylaw 19.1.1-(c) identifies a failure to cooperate as a Level I violation. Failing to cooperate
with an investigation seriously undermines and threatens the integrity of the membership's
infractions process. This is particularly true when key individuals at the center of the issues
refuse to cooperate. Consistent with Bylaw 19.1.1-(c), the panel concludes that the department
chair committed a Level I violation when he refused to cooperate with the investigation. The
secretary eventually cooperated. While her tardy participation does not overcome her failure to
meet her initial obligation, it is an appropriate factor to consider when assigning an appropriate
level to the violation. Further, as one of the two key individuals at the center of the paper
courses, her participation at the infractions hearing greatly benefitted the panel and its ability to
decide this case. Previously, the COI has considered untimely participation to constitute Level II
unethical conduct. See Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that an academic coordinator's
tardy participation in an interview and in the infractions hearing constituted a Level II unethical
conduct violation). Therefore, pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2 and consistent with Syracuse
University, the panel concludes that the secretary committed a Level II violation.

17

Portions of University of Louisville are under appeal for different reasons. The former director of basketball operations did
not appeal the COI's conclusion that he failed to cooperate.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 15
__________
V. VIOLATIONS NOT DEMONSTRATED
The case involved three other allegations: (1) unethical conduct and extra benefits related to
student-athletes' access to and assistance in the paper courses; (2) unethical conduct by the
instructor/counselor for providing impermissible academic assistance to student-athletes; and (3)
a failure to monitor and lack of institutional control. 18 In addition to the formal allegations, the
case involved conduct after the second ANOA that the enforcement staff noted violated
confidentiality bylaws. The panel also addresses that conduct in this section.
The Paper Courses and Academic Legislation
Formal Allegations—Unethical Conduct and Extra Benefits
The enforcement staff alleged that the secretary and department chair committed unethical
conduct and provided extra benefits to student-athletes in connection with offering and
administering the paper courses. Additionally, the enforcement staff alleged that athletics
personnel leveraged their relationship with the secretary to provide special arrangement courses
for student-athletes, which ASPSA staff members managed. In short, the enforcement staff
alleged that student-athletes received access to and assistance in paper courses not generally
available to the student population. Based on the nature of the courses and the lack of
identifiable examples in the record supporting individual or systemic efforts to impermissibly
benefit student-athletes, the panel cannot conclude that violations of Bylaw 10 and 16 occurred.
The panel also considered whether other Bylaw 10 violations occurred—mainly, academic fraud.
But principles of academic autonomy and UNC's recent positions surrounding the validity of the
courses do not permit the panel to conclude academic fraud occurred. The panel's inability to
conclude that academic fraud occurred is also restricted by the lack of identifiable examples of
fraudulent activity in specific courses or assignments or by specific individuals in the record.
The allegations involved Bylaw 10.01.1, which requires individuals employed by or associated
with a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics to act with
honesty and sportsmanship. They also involved general Bylaw 10.1, which defines unethical
conduct through a nonexhaustive list of behaviors. Likewise, the parties also addressed the
application of Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.3.1.1 to the facts of the case. Generally, Bylaw
16.11.2.1 prohibits extra benefits and Bylaw 16.3.1.1 requires member institutions to make
general academic counseling and tutoring available to student-athletes. Bylaw 16.3.1.1 also
provides institutions discretion to finance additional academic and support services. The panel
also determined that Bylaw 10.1-(b), addressing the knowing involvement in arranging for
fraudulent academic credit and the related recent April 2014 official interpretation are also
pertinent to the analysis of whether violations occurred in this case.
In alleging violations in this case, the enforcement staff took a narrow approach. At the most
basic level, the allegations involved too much help in student-athletes' access to and assistance in
the paper courses. The enforcement staff argued that the creation and administration of the
18

In its response to the second ANOA and at the hearing, the institution (and, where applicable, the instructor/counselor) claimed
that the violations were barred by Bylaw 19.5.11 Statute of Limitations. Because the panel did not conclude violations occurred,
it did not need to resolve the statute of limitations issue.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 16
__________
paper classes violated extra benefit and ethical conduct legislation. In grappling with that
question, the panel benefitted from the secretary's in-person participation at the hearing. She
credibly explained that she provided the same degree of assistance to UNC students in need,
regardless of their student-athlete status. Likewise, the record does not establish that the courses
were created, offered and maintained as an orchestrated effort to solely benefit student-athletes.
While the record demonstrates popularity in the use of admittedly deficient courses, the panel
would be required to discredit the secretary's answers and assume a motivation behind the
courses. Given the secretary's statements at the hearing and gaps in the record, the panel cannot
conclude that the secretary acted unethically with respect to the creation or administration of the
courses. Similarly, the panel cannot conclude that the department chair acted unethically or
provided extra benefits simply because he delegated authority to the secretary. Nor does Bylaw
10.01.1 apply to them, because they were not involved in administering, conducting or coaching
intercollegiate athletics.
The enforcement staff also alleged that ASPSA personnel leveraged relationships with the
secretary to gain special arrangements for student-athletes in paper courses that ASPSA
personnel managed. Based on the nature of the assistance provided and the general availability
of the academic counseling on campus, the panel cannot conclude that ASPSA personnel
managed student-athletes' courses in violation of Bylaw 16.
The enforcement staff identified six actions that taken alone or in combination purportedly
constituted active management of the courses and extra benefit violations. 19 In part, UNC
claimed that there were no extra benefit violations because its actions were required and/or
permitted under Bylaw 16.3.1.1. UNC mischaracterized the bylaw and its obligations. Bylaw
16.3.1.1 is not without limits. And it is not intended to be used as a shield for an academic
program gone awry. It is intended to support, not replace, student-athletes' academic efforts.
Supplanting student-athletes' academic efforts, responsibilities and educational experiences can
violate NCAA legislation. Regardless, the panel cannot conclude that ASPSA's or athletics
personnel's actions taken alone, in combination or in totality resulted in extra benefits. The
record covers nearly two decades of information. It touches broad concepts but fails to establish
specific or systemic activities limited to student-athletes. While student-athletes certainly
benefited from the courses and ASPSA assistance, the record indicates that similar assistance
was generally available to all students. Therefore, the panel cannot conclude that violations
occurred.
The Panel's Further Consideration—Academic Fraud
Although not formally charged by the enforcement staff, the academic nature of this case
combined with UNC's initial admissions to SACS led the panel to review whether academic
fraud violations occurred. While UNC did not have policies that prohibited the paper courses, it
undertook a nearly three-year process to understand what occurred in its AFRI/AFAM
department. That process involved numerous thorough reviews. At the conclusion of those
19

The six factors identified by the enforcement staff included: (1) ASPSA personnel contacting the AFRI/AFAM department to
register student-athletes for courses, even after the deadline to enroll had passed; (2) obtaining assignments on behalf of studentathletes; (3) suggesting assignments; (4) submitting papers completed by student-athletes; (5) requesting certain course offerings;
and (6) recommending course grades for student-athletes.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 17
__________
reviews, UNC reported to its accreditor that what occurred for nearly 18 years on its campus was
academic fraud. The panel identified and explored with the parties whether academic fraud
occurred under the member-adopted bylaws and interpretations. Given the legislation and the
absence of specific examples of fraudulent activity, the panel cannot second guess UNC's altered
position and conclude that academic fraud occurred within the infractions process.
Stated directly, the NCAA defers to academies on matters of academic fraud. As institutions of
higher education, the NCAA membership trusts fellow members to hold themselves accountable
in matters of academic integrity. If an institution concludes under its policies that academic
fraud has occurred involving a student-athlete, the NCAA membership requires institutions to
report those instances to the enforcement staff. 20
At the hearing, UNC acknowledged that the courses failed to meet its standards and
expectations. Previously, it characterized the conduct as long-standing and egregious academic
wrongdoing to SACS. More significantly, UNC previously described the conduct as academic
fraud. In doing so, UNC used what it had learned from the internal and external reviews,
including the Cadwalader report—a report it now vehemently disavows. Following Cadwalader
and the other reviews, however, UNC developed and implemented more than 70 corrective
actions. These included permitting affected students to take a course or resubmit work if they
believed the quality of their education was compromised. It also developed policies and
procedures that now prohibit the structure and administration of the paper courses. UNC also
acknowledged the courses would violate its new policies.
The panel is skeptical of UNC's modified positions—particularly that the use of "academic
fraud" was merely a typographical error in the report submitted to SACS. It is also skeptical of
UNC's recent complete repudiation of the Cadwalader report. After all, less than three years
ago, UNC described the report as "monumental," and "critical" to its accreditor, summing up its
position that UNC was "confident that not only was the investigation thorough and complete but
that it uncovered a great deal of ground not possible previously." The panel is troubled by
UNC's shifting positions, including its positions related to the Cadwalader report, depending on
the audience. The Cadwalader report included damning facts and conclusions of what had
occurred in the AFRI/AFAM department for nearly two decades. After boasting of the report's
importance to its accreditor and using it, at least in part, to take disciplinary action against
personnel and to implement significant corrective measures, UNC attacked the same report in
the infractions process. As the panel indicated after the October 2016 procedural hearing, the
panel finds the Cadwalader report credible. However, the panel acknowledges that the
Cadwalader firm conducted interviews without the participation of UNC or the enforcement staff
and, in later interviews conducted by UNC and the enforcement staff, some interviewees
acknowledged that they felt intimidated or questioned how the information they provided was
characterized in the report. Further, at the hearing, the parties identified potential factual
inaccuracies. In light of these considerations, the panel balanced the weight of the report against
the record and other information presented at the hearing. In assessing the full record, the panel
discounted some of the report's findings and conclusions for purposes of this infractions hearing.
20

Generally, reporting academic fraud falls into two categories: (1) arranging for fraudulent academic credit; or (2) the fraud
results in an erroneous declaration of eligibility and competition. Both could have potentially applied here.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 18
__________
But given UNC's early admissions, its implementation of corrective measures and its recent
distancing of itself from the Cadwalader report, the panel concludes that it is more likely than
not that student-athletes received fraudulent credit by the common understanding of what that
term means. It is also more likely than not that UNC personnel used the courses to purposely
obtain and maintain student-athletes' eligibility. These strong possibilities, however, are not the
operative or controlling starting points to the membership's academic fraud analysis. What
ultimately matters is what UNC says about the courses. In addition to rejecting its early
admissions and distancing itself from the Cadwalader report in the infractions process, UNC
took the firm position that the courses were permissible and UNC will continue to honor the
grades. Despite the fact that the courses failed to meet, involved little, if any, faculty
engagement, and were often graded by the secretary, UNC argued the courses violated no UNC
policy. UNC further claimed that work was assigned, completed and graded, and the grades
counted towards a UNC degree.
Despite the conflicting record on whether UNC had acknowledged the fraud and the
enforcement staff's position that the case did not involve fraudulent activity, the panel still
strongly considered conforming the allegations or issuing its own notice pursuant to Bylaw
19.7.7.4. See California State University, Northridge (2016) (conforming unethical conduct
extra benefit and impermissible academic assistance allegations to unethical conduct academic
fraud violations based on the nature of the violations and the institution's president's admission
that the conduct violated institutional policies). 21 The COI, however, has not conformed
allegations on such a broad and convoluted set of facts or on academic allegations where the
institution repeatedly affirms during the infractions process that the conduct did not violate its
policies in place at the relevant time.
UNC has offered two diametrically opposed characterizations of the courses, seemingly
dependent on the venue. Even if the panel were to assign more credibility to UNC's initial
admissions to SACS, the case record does not support overriding UNC's recent positions. The
record was voluminous. It also included information spanning nearly two decades and
interviews where subjects had difficulty recalling circumstances and events. This lack of
specificity inhibited the panel's ability to test and probe certain theories. Therefore, the panel
cannot conform the allegations and conclude that academic fraud occurred. Further, the record's
limitations did not establish a firm basis for the panel issuing new allegations.
Unethical Conduct, Impermissible Academic Assistance and Extra Benefits by the
Instructor/Counselor
The enforcement staff also alleged that the instructor/counselor provided impermissible
academic assistance and extra benefits to women's basketball student-athletes over
approximately seven years. The enforcement staff specifically identified 18 instances of
potential impermissible academic assistance. UNC agreed that impermissible academic
assistance and extra benefits violations occurred for 15 of the 18 allegations but claimed they
were untimely and therefore barred by the statute of limitations. The instructor/counselor
21

This case is currently under appeal for different reasons. The institution did not appeal the COI's decision to conform
allegations.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 19
__________
contested the allegations and also claimed that they were untimely. Because the record only
establishes sporadic examples that would require the panel to make after-the-fact individualized
academic judgments on whether the instructor/counselor provided impermissible academic
assistance, the panel cannot conclude the instructor/counselor violated Bylaws 10 and 16.
As the panel previously noted, the NCAA's role in academic violations is limited. While the
NCAA defers academic fraud determinations to member institutions, there is no such deference
requirement for impermissible academic assistance.22 But there are circumstances where the
question whether impermissible academic assistance occurred itself requires academic
judgments. In those circumstances, the COI must tread carefully. A violation must be clear on
its face. Here, there are gaps in the record in the nature of the assistance the instructor/counselor
provided. The record includes partial email chains, iterations of draft papers and lacks complete
and final work. The record required the panel to assess the edits and suggestions down to the
line-by-line and word basis. The panel was not in a position to make these academic
judgements.
The facts are further complicated by the many roles in which the
instructor/counselor served during her tenure at the institution. At the hearing, she maintained
that whether she was the director of the ethics center, an instructor, ASPSA counselor for
women's basketball student-athletes or an advisor for non-athletes, she approached each student
in the same manner and provided each with the same amount of assistance. Mainly, that
included providing her students and student-athletes with reference materials, outlines, model
papers and exercises involving reconstructing arguments.
Considering the record and the instructor/counselor's credible statements at the hearing, the
panel cannot conclude that she committed unethical conduct. Similarly, because she thoroughly
explained her approach to all students and student-athletes she encountered, which is not refuted
by the record material, the panel cannot conclude that she provided women's basketball studentathletes with extra benefits. It is not clear on the face of the record that the conduct supported
impermissible academic assistance. The dual role as instructor and academic counselor is a
significant issue, one that member institutions must approach with caution. Proper policies and
procedures regarding appropriate behaviors are essential to ensure individuals have a clear
understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.
Failure to Monitor and Lack of Institutional Control
The enforcement staff also alleged that UNC failed to monitor and demonstrate appropriate
controls with respect to the paper courses and the instructor/counselor. As it relates to the paper
courses, the enforcement staff alleged that individuals' knowledge of the courses and failure to
act, along with inadequate education, guidance and supervision of ASPSA personnel,
demonstrated a lack of control. Regarding the instructor/counselor, the enforcement staff
alleged that the institution failed to heed concerns regarding her relationship with women's
22

While impermissible academic assistance legislation applicable to this case fell under the April 2014 official interpretation and
Bylaw 16, current impermissible academic assistance falls under Bylaw 14.02.10 (2017-18 Division I Manual). Under the
current legislation, impermissible academic assistance occurs, among other limited circumstances, when a current or former
institutional staff member or representative of the institution's athletics interest provides substantial assistance not generally
available or otherwise authorized by Bylaw 16.3, which results in the certification of a student-athlete's eligibility to participate
in intercollegiate athletics, receive financial aid or earn an Academic Progress Rate point. See Bylaw 14.02.10.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 20
__________
basketball student-athletes and that those failures permitted her to provide extra benefits and
impermissible academic assistance to women's basketball student-athletes. UNC contested the
allegations. However, in the event that the panel concluded that impermissible academic
assistance occurred, UNC admitted in the alternative that it failed to monitor the
instructor/counselor. Because UNC firmly backed its courses and the record lacked information
demonstrating the courses were systemically created or maintained to benefit athletics, the panel
cannot conclude that UNC violated Constitution Articles 2 or 6.
As a starting point, the panel could not conclude that underlying violations occurred. However,
that did not end the panel's analysis. The panel carefully considered whether the admitted
conduct, failures and shortcomings, standing alone, demonstrated that the institution lacked
control and failed to monitor. Constitution 6.01.1 places the control and responsibility for the
conduct of intercollegiate athletics on the institution and conference. The bylaw further defines
institutional control as administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two.
UNC repeatedly stressed that the conduct and courses failed to meet its standards and
expectations. UNC also admitted that it permitted the conduct and courses to occur for 18 years
because of institutional shortcomings. UNC acknowledged that those shortcomings included its
failure to review the AFRI/AFAM department and its chair, based on policies existing at the
time. By its own admissions, UNC appears to neither have had administrative control of the
paper courses nor faculty control of the department chair. Considering these admitted failures,
the panel explored whether UNC's shortcomings demonstrated a free-standing lack of control or
failure to monitor.
Similarly, it is undisputed that the classes were not a secret. Individuals in both academics and
athletics knew about the courses. Many questioned them. Generally, all assumed they were
acceptable under the principle of academic freedom. Both academic and athletic administrators
did not believe they had the authority to question how a faculty member structured and taught a
course. The panel respects the importance of academic freedom in higher education. But it is
not boundless, and it cannot be utilized as a shield from responsibility in circumstances that
involve student-athletes. For example, if a faculty member arranged for a student-athlete to
receive credit in a course in which they did not enroll or attend or created a fake course that had
no requirements but resulted in a grade, the NCAA Constitution would require anyone who
became aware of that arrangement to report it.
The record, however, does not establish specific, intentional or systemic efforts tied to athletics
motives. The record was full of email chains, missing academic work and interviews conducted,
in some circumstances, more than five years after the classes ceased. Those materials, required
the panel to, at best, infer motives based on the large number of student-athletes who took the
courses and received high marks. While student-athletes and athletics programs likely benefitted
from utilizing the courses for eligibility purposes, regular students likely benefitted from them as
well. Without the proper athletics touchpoints, however, the COI cannot conclude free-standing
failure to monitor or lack of institutional control violations occurred based solely on deficient
administrative structures. Here, absent the attenuated fact that potentially around two thousand
student-athletes took these courses, the record does not demonstrate that those failures had an
athletics motive. Based on the posture of the record and in light of the secretary's statements at

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 21
__________
the hearing related to the nature of the courses, the conduct did not involve those athletics
touchpoints.
In a more limited inquiry, the enforcement staff also alleged UNC failed to monitor and lacked
control with respect to the instructor/counselor's conduct. The panel acknowledges that her
multiple positions complicated her reporting lines and roles within UNC. The panel recognizes
UNC employed questionable oversight with regard to her various activities. However, based on
the record that required the panel to parse isolated sentences and potential suggested changes to
draft papers within partial email chains, the instructor/counselor's testimony that she treated all
students equally and the panel's not substituting its judgment on pure academic matters, the
panel could not conclude the instructor/counselor committed violations. As such, the panel
cannot conclude UNC failed monitor the instructor/counselor or that it lacked control.
Although the panel could not conclude academic, failure to monitor or lack of institutional
control violations occurred, UNC originally adopted SACS' characterization of the conduct as
academic fraud. UNC also admitted that the courses did not meet its standards and it let its
students down. Bylaw 19.9.10 permits panels to recommend that the NCAA president forward a
copy of the public infractions decision to accrediting bodies when the panel determines academic
violations or questionable academic conduct occurred. Those circumstances are present here.
Therefore, the panel will recommend that the NCAA president forward a copy of the public
infractions decision to SACS.
Breaches of Confidentiality
In its written reply, the enforcement staff identified two individuals associated in the case may
have breached confidentiality requirements. The first involved counsel for the secretary who, on
two occasions, released infractions-related information to the media. The second involved the
institution's athletics director and comments he made to a reporter from a well-known media
outlet. The enforcement staff noted the occurrences as potential confidentiality violations.
Bylaw 19.01.3 requires individuals subject to the NCAA constitution and bylaws, including any
representative or counsel, to not make any public disclosures until a final decision has been
released. The bylaw is intended to protect the membership's infractions process in three main
areas: (1) the integrity of the investigation; (2) individuals associated with or subject to the
investigation; and (3) those involved in the process, including the COI. Bylaw 19.5.2 permits a
minor exception for individuals to confirm, correct or deny information that has been made
public.
This case was public in nature. After all, the substance of the case originated from a media story
that identified potential issues involving AFRI/AFAM courses. It also involved public attacks
on the membership's infractions process that, at times, appeared to only further the public
interest in the infractions case. The public narrative of a case, however, does not supersede the
membership's strict confidentiality rules. To the contrary, the enhanced public nature of a case
only reinforces the need for participants' commitment to confidentiality.
The panel directly addressed the identified disclosures with the individuals at the infractions
hearing. Both apologized and provided context surrounding their actions. Although it is within

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 22
__________
the panel's authority to conclude a violation occurred and prescribe an appropriate penalty, the
panel concludes neither is appropriate here given the posture of this case.
The COI remains deeply concerned about breaches of confidentiality occurring at any point
during the infractions process. Moreover, the COI is troubled by the attacks on the
membership's infractions process and individual COI members who volunteer to serve its
important mission. The panel appreciates the enforcement staff for bringing the conduct to the
panel's attention. The enforcement staff remains in the best position to identify potential
breaches of confidentiality. The COI retains the authority to consider confidentiality breaches
identified by the enforcement staff after the issuance of an NOA. Based on that information, the
panel may conclude violations occurred and that such conduct constitutes an aggravating factor
and may thereby penalize conduct in future cases.

VI. PENALTIES
For the reasons set forth in Sections III, IV, and V of this decision, the panel concludes this case
involved Level I and Level II violations of NCAA legislation. Level I violations are severe
breaches of conduct that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate
Model. Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that may compromise the
integrity of the Collegiate Model.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.1, the panel prescribes penalties under the current penalty structure
because the only concluded violations in this case occurred after October 30, 2012. In
considering penalties, the panel first reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant
Bylaws 19.9.2, 19.9.3 and 19.9.4 to determine the appropriate classifications for the parties. The
panel then used the current penalty guidelines (Figure 19-1) and Bylaw 19.9.7 to prescribe
penalties.23
The panel determined the below listed factors applied and assessed the factors by weight and
number. Based on its assessment, the panel classifies the department chair's violation as Level IAggravated and the secretary's violation as Level II-Mitigated.
Aggravating Factors for the Department Chair
19.9.3-(e) unethical conduct and failing to cooperate.
Mitigating Factors for the Department Chair
None.
23

The membership recently expanded the ranges in the penalty guidelines related to scholarship reductions and the duration of
postseason bans, probation and show-cause orders. The adjusted guidelines became effective on August 1, 2017. Because the
panel considered this case after the effective date of the adjusted guidelines, the panel used the adjusted guidelines to prescribe
penalties.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 23
__________
Aggravating Factors for the Secretary
19.9.3-(e) unethical conduct and failing to cooperate during an investigation. 24
Mitigating Factors for the Secretary
19.9.4-(h) The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations.
All of the penalties prescribed in this case are independent of and supplemental to any action the
NCAA Division I Committee on Academics has taken or may take through its assessment of
postseason ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. The institution's corrective
actions are contained in Appendix One. After considering all information relevant to the case,
the panel prescribes the following:
Core Penalties for Level I-Aggravated Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)
1. Show-cause order: The department chair acted unethically and violated his responsibility to
cooperate when he refused to cooperate with the institution and the enforcement staff's
investigation. The department chair was one of two individuals at the center the conduct at
issue in the case. As UNC identified to its accreditor, access to both he and the secretary was
"monumental" to answer lingering questions about the scope and extent of the conduct.
While he participated in the Cadwalader independent inquiry, he refused to participate in the
institution's and the enforcement staff's investigation. Therefore, the department chair shall
be subject to a five-year show-cause order from October 13, 2017, to October 12, 2022. The
department chair shall be informed in writing by the NCAA that if he seeks employment or
affiliation with an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the
five-year show-cause period, any employing institution shall be required to contact the
Office of the Committees on Infractions (OCOI) to make arrangements to show cause why
restrictions on athletically related activity should not apply.
Penalties for Level II-Mitigated Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7)
2. The secretary violated ethical conduct and cooperation bylaws when she refused to cooperate
with UNC and the enforcement staff's investigation. She was a principle actor in the
academic saga that occurred and had first-hand pertinent knowledge regarding the creation,
growth, administration, access and grading of the courses at issue in this case. Her refusal to
initially cooperate hindered both the institution's and the enforcement's staff ability to
understand the full breadth and scope of what occurred at UNC. Although untimely, she
eventually submitted a response to the second ANOA, participated in an interview with the
parties and physically attended the in-person infractions hearing. Consistent with the ranges
identified in the penalty guidelines for Level II-Mitigated conduct, the panel does not
24

Originally, the secretary failed to cooperate in the investigation. Although untimely, she ultimate participated and personally
attended the infractions hearing despite personal circumstances. The panel factors this information into the weight of the
aggravating factor.

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
October 13, 2017
Page No. 24
__________
prescribe a show-cause order. However, a record of the secretary's failure to cooperate will
be maintained in the OCOI. The administrative record will be available to member
institutions who inquire into the secretary's infractions history. See COI Internal Operating
Procedures 6-4-1 and 6-4-2.
_____________________________________________________
The COI advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that it observes the
terms of the penalties. The COI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any
action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations
shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, prescribing more
severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL
Carol Cartwright
Alberto Gonzales
Eleanor Myers
Joe Novak
Jill Pilgrim
Greg Sankey, Chief Hearing Officer

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX
October 13, 2017
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN UNC's APRIL 22, 2016, RESPONSE
TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS
[UNC identified general items included in its January 15, 2015, annual report to the COI from its
March 12, 2012, infractions decision.]
Specific examples of the University's corrective actions and its efforts to monitor, educate and
enhance the ASPSA program include:
•

The appointment of a new Director of ASPSA and the removal of individuals who formerly
oversaw the program. The new director has appropriate credentials and background related
to higher education and advising.

•

In conjunction with the appointment of the new director, ASPSA began reporting directly to
[the] University Provost, UNC's chief academic officer, instead of the College of Arts and
Sciences.

•

Centralizing all ASPSA operations and counselors to a single facility.

•

Replacing a dotted-line relationship by designating a senior associate athletics director as a
liaison with the ASPSA and the Office of Undergraduate Admissions to provide contextual
information related to compliance with the clear understanding that academic functions are
independent of athletics.

•

Eliminating the ASPSA student mentoring program.

•

Beginning in 2014, the University began offering reimbursement for ASPSA personnel and
counselors to attend national meetings concerning industry standards, best practices, NCAA
rules, etc. to encourage education and participation in those opportunities. Participation has
increased each academic year since the commitment to funding professional development
opportunities was made.

•

The Provost's Office and Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) began hosting regular
meetings including the Department of Athletics, Registrar and ASPSA to improve
communication and coordination. The "CARE" meeting (Compliance, Academics, Registrar
for Excellence) facilitates discussion between key parties regarding current national topics,
NCAA rule interpretations, educational scenarios, and processes that cross over several
divisions. The meeting is chaired by the FAR. [UNC included Meeting agendas and sample
educational materials shared during those meetings as an exhibit in the response.]

 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX
October 13, 2017
Page No. 2
__________
•

Launching the Academic Processes for Student-Athletes website (www.apsa.unc.edu). The
website provides detail of the Student-Athlete Academic Initiative Working Group's review
and analysis of 21 comprehensive processes related to student-athletes and academics at the
University. One such process, Process 7 – Academic Support for Student-Athletes, includes
guiding principles for the role(s) and conduct of ASPSA employees.