clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The Notice of Allegations Against UNC: What Really Happened?

New, comments

We sifted through the NCAA's Notice of Allegations against UNC to bring you some specific details.

John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports

Now that the NCAA has released an official Notice of Allegations against UNC, you may be wondering how it will compare to what happened with Syracuse. First of all, it's important to note that the University of North Carolina is still at the beginning stages of this process. We won't be able to compare sanctions for a while, so we'll have to wait for that.

How long, you ask? No one is certain. At this point, UNC is able to respond to the allegations within 30 days and, potentially, go to a hearing with the Committee on Infractions. Remember that from October? Syracuse participated in such a hearing and received their sanctions about five months later. This means that we're at least six months away from a resolution here.

John already did a great job of pointing out some of the major aspects of the allegations against UNC, so check that out. For some particularly enlightening quotes that do a lot of the explaining, though, see below.

Allegation No. 1 pertains to impermissible academic benefits:

It is alleged that beginning in the 2002 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible benefits to student- athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

While Syracuse was accused of extra benefits, too, these allegations seem a bit more intense. Specifically, benefits were within the African and Afro-American Studies department and included:

  • Requesting course offerings on behalf of student-athletes.
  • Obtaining assignments for classes taught on behalf of student-athletes.
  • Suggesting assignments for the student-athletes to complete.
  • Turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes.
  • Recommending grades.

Imagine how that went for a second. "Hey, we think so-and-so student-athlete deserves a B for this paper I just turned in for him/her." Not to say that the recommendations were followed, but still. Additionally:

Certain AFRI/AFAM courses were anomalous because they were designated as lecture courses but were taught as independent study courses with little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades.

In support of this allegation, the NCAA offers a number of factual instances, such as:

July 22, 2010 - Email from Jan Boxill (Boxill), then philosophy instructor, director of the Parr Center for Ethics, women's basketball athletic academic counselor in ASPSA and chair of the faculty, to Travis Gore (Gore), administrative support associate in the AFRI/AFAM department. This includes, but is not limited to, recommending a grade on a paper for a then student-athlete.

***

August 1, 2009 - Email from Boxill to [Deborah] Crowder (former student services manager for the AFRI/AFAM department). This includes, but is not limited to, Boxill asking Crowder if an assignment from a previous class would work for a then women's basketball student-athlete.

***

May 17, 2010 - Email from Boxill to [Julius] Nyang'oro (former chair and professor in the AFRI/AFAM department). This includes, but is not limited to, Boxill indicating that a women's basketball student-athlete is enrolled in his course and Boxill's statement that the student-athlete needed to do well in the course.

***

February 8, 2007 - Email from Boxill to [Janet] Huffstetler (former tutor). This includes, but is not limited to, Boxill providing some suggestions for an assignment for the men's basketball student-athletes enrolled in her philosophy course.

***

March 28, 2006 - Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder providing information on what a men's basketball student-athlete needs to graduate.

Regarding allegation No. 2, which pertains exclusively to Jan Boxill, the NCAA factual support includes:

On April 16, 2007, after reviewing a student-athlete's incomplete paper for the course AFAM 280, Boxill added content to the student-athlete's introduction and conclusion.

***

On July 22, 2010, Boxill turned in a women's basketball student-athlete's paper to the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department and, in the same email containing the paper, recommended a grade to the department for the submitted work.

***

July 22, 2010 - Email from Boxill to Travis Gore (Gore), administrative support associate in the AFRI/AFAM department. This includes, but is not limited to, recommending a grade on a paper for a then student-athlete.

Allegations No. 3 and No. 4 simply pertain to the failure of Deborah Crowder and Dr. Julius Nyang'oro to participate in the investigation. But for those waiting to hear about "lack of institutional control", the NCAA left that for allegation No. 5.

It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations set forth in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2 demonstrate that the institution violated the NCAA principles of institutional control and rules compliance when it failed to monitor the activities of Jan Boxill...

Further, the institution exhibited a lack of institutional control in regard to the special arrangements constituting impermissible benefits athletics academic counselors and staff within African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department provided to student-athletes.

At this point, we have to wait a bit longer to see how this all pans out in terms of sanctions, but you can rest assured the clock is ticking.