The NCAA's notice of allegations against the University of North Carolina has been released, and although there are no real surprises, the expanse of the accusations are breathtaking. The primary allegation involves "lack of institutional control," a felony in the NCAA enforcement jurisprudence. For years, members of the academic counseling program and faculty members — faculty members! — arranged for student athletes and a few others to take classes that were shams. There were classes that never met, classes that required only the submission of a paper, which was graded by a non-faculty member with extraordinarily low standards. Papers that couldn't pass a decent high school teacher's scrutiny got A's from the generous grader, who lacked academic credentials.
This sham went on under the noses of academic administration. The African-American Studies Department and the College of Arts and Sciences utterly failed to provide adequate oversight. The AFAM department head was part of the conspiracy to give generous grades and not require class attendance in order to keep athletes academically eligible.
This is shameful, and many a Carolina alumnus feels deeply embarrassed. School pride has been grossly wounded. What punishment the NCAA might impose seems less important than the facts found in earlier investigations and the NCAA's notification. This embarrassment is rooted in the hell-bent determination to make UNC a football power, regardless of the cost. College acceptance standards have been reduced or vacated in order to sign athletes who spent more time in high school honing their athletic skills than in learning basic reading, writing, history and math. Other sports fell into the lure of easy grades, and the grotesque abandonment of academic standards emerged.
Some blame for this scandal reflects the poor preparation for college so many high school students receive. Students — and not just athletes — arrive on campus unprepared to do college-level work. Remedial education has become a major task of colleges. "Paper classes" just go one step beyond remedial education.
The university's response to the NCAA allegations is due within 90 days, but don't expect any significant mediating factors. At best, UNC can proclaim that the conspiracy has been disbanded, the major conspirators have been fired, and academics are back in control (or let's hope so).
This nightmare will not be over in another 90 days or six months. The NCAA is likely to impose future penalties in the form of scholarship restrictions, post-season bans, vacated victories or other long-term sentences. Even when the last post-season penalties are lifted, this embarrassment will not go away. We who have loved this university will continue to live with it for decades to come.
Showing posts with label academic scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic scandal. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2015
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
UNC's neck is in the guillotine
University of North Carolina alumni and fans are awaiting a verdict from the NCAA a little like a man with his neck in the bottom of a guillotine. How bad will it hurt?
To punish a scandal that essentially sold out the university's integrity for success in athletics over a period of 18 years, presumably giving UNC an advantage over college teams that didn't bend the rules (wink, wink) or forgo the college's agreement to provide a college education to talented athletes willing to toil for the college's glory, what is the appropriate punishment? I'll never understand the logic behind the NCAA's inconsistent decisions, but it seems inevitable that UNC will have many, most, or all of its game victories and championship seasons negated. Roy Williams' stellar record of career basketball victories could be shoved to the bottom of the list, just as Bobby Bowden lost his place in the career victories list after a scandal at Florida State. That might be the least of the consequences.
The NCAA could go for the coup de grace. It could issue the "death penalty," as it did in response to a scandal at SMU in 1987. SMU's offenses were long-standing — a slush fund that had paid players for a decade. SMU was barred from fielding a football team for a year, which stretched into two years because the university had to start over from scratch. UNC's scandal was longer-lasting but perhaps not as blatant as SMU's. UNC did not violate the sacred notion of amateurism, but it tarnished its own academic reputation and integrity. A "death penalty" is not out of the question for UNC.
Ameliorating circumstances on UNC's side might be that the academic fraud was limited to one department and was conceived by and run by a handful of lower-level officials. But that might not be a sufficient excuse. The ability of non-academics to hijack education for the benefit of struggling athletes (and a few others) indicates a lack of oversight by the university administration. Perhaps that fault falls outside the purview of the NCAA — an academic matter rather than an athletic one — but it's of little comfort for UNC supporters who are embarrassed and angered by the indignity of it all.
To punish a scandal that essentially sold out the university's integrity for success in athletics over a period of 18 years, presumably giving UNC an advantage over college teams that didn't bend the rules (wink, wink) or forgo the college's agreement to provide a college education to talented athletes willing to toil for the college's glory, what is the appropriate punishment? I'll never understand the logic behind the NCAA's inconsistent decisions, but it seems inevitable that UNC will have many, most, or all of its game victories and championship seasons negated. Roy Williams' stellar record of career basketball victories could be shoved to the bottom of the list, just as Bobby Bowden lost his place in the career victories list after a scandal at Florida State. That might be the least of the consequences.
The NCAA could go for the coup de grace. It could issue the "death penalty," as it did in response to a scandal at SMU in 1987. SMU's offenses were long-standing — a slush fund that had paid players for a decade. SMU was barred from fielding a football team for a year, which stretched into two years because the university had to start over from scratch. UNC's scandal was longer-lasting but perhaps not as blatant as SMU's. UNC did not violate the sacred notion of amateurism, but it tarnished its own academic reputation and integrity. A "death penalty" is not out of the question for UNC.
Ameliorating circumstances on UNC's side might be that the academic fraud was limited to one department and was conceived by and run by a handful of lower-level officials. But that might not be a sufficient excuse. The ability of non-academics to hijack education for the benefit of struggling athletes (and a few others) indicates a lack of oversight by the university administration. Perhaps that fault falls outside the purview of the NCAA — an academic matter rather than an athletic one — but it's of little comfort for UNC supporters who are embarrassed and angered by the indignity of it all.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Easier classes have been around for decades
My first reaction to former Tar Heel Rashad McCants' accusations about "no-show" classes at UNC-Chapel Hill was that McCants never had any credibility, anyway. ESPN gave McCants, who failed to make it in the NBA after leaving UNC early after the team's 2005 national championship, asserted that he was steered to easy African-American Studies classes to keep him eligible to play basketball
I have little doubt that McCants was encouraged to take easier classes at UNC. The academic support system is designed to keep student-athletes eligible for NCAA play and on track toward getting a degree. But recommending an easier class load to someone who is failing classes hardly seems sinister; it is being realistic about a student's capabilities or his determination and persistence.
When I was at UNC, there were no African-American Studies classes for weak students to hide behind, but there were classes that were rumored to be easier than others, just as there were classes that were rumored to be harder than others. Students have always sought easier classes, outside their major, to fill their schedules. In the harder classes category were organic chemistry and statistics. In the easier category was speech. Football players joked about how they did in speech class, so I took speech one semester as a sophomore. It sounded interesting, and I could have used a less demanding class to fill my schedule. That "easy" class resulted in my lowest grade I received at UNC, a C-. It turned out the class was not as easy as I had imagined it might be, and I was nervous standing before a class and delivering a speech, which was what we did in that class.
I also took a couple of classes on a pass-fail basis. I don't know whether pass-fail remains an option, but in the late 1960s, it was heralded as an egalitarian concept of higher education. You either passed or failed, and neither result affected your grade point average. I took the classes my senior year, thinking I would be able to "slide" through my final year by not having to work so hard in those classes. I passed with as little work as I could get by with.
Non of this is meant to excuse the AF-AM classes that didn't meet and provided athletes (and others) inflated grades. They remain an embarrassing stain on the university's academic reputation. But the students who benefited from these easier classes knew what was happening. They were trying to avoid dismissal for failure to maintain a minimum grade point average. When I was in school, we had added incentive to maintain decent grades (a 2.0 or C average). If we were dismissed from school, we'd lose our draft exemption and our local draft board would be calling. That's a more serious consequence than failing to make the cut in the NBA.
I have little doubt that McCants was encouraged to take easier classes at UNC. The academic support system is designed to keep student-athletes eligible for NCAA play and on track toward getting a degree. But recommending an easier class load to someone who is failing classes hardly seems sinister; it is being realistic about a student's capabilities or his determination and persistence.
When I was at UNC, there were no African-American Studies classes for weak students to hide behind, but there were classes that were rumored to be easier than others, just as there were classes that were rumored to be harder than others. Students have always sought easier classes, outside their major, to fill their schedules. In the harder classes category were organic chemistry and statistics. In the easier category was speech. Football players joked about how they did in speech class, so I took speech one semester as a sophomore. It sounded interesting, and I could have used a less demanding class to fill my schedule. That "easy" class resulted in my lowest grade I received at UNC, a C-. It turned out the class was not as easy as I had imagined it might be, and I was nervous standing before a class and delivering a speech, which was what we did in that class.
I also took a couple of classes on a pass-fail basis. I don't know whether pass-fail remains an option, but in the late 1960s, it was heralded as an egalitarian concept of higher education. You either passed or failed, and neither result affected your grade point average. I took the classes my senior year, thinking I would be able to "slide" through my final year by not having to work so hard in those classes. I passed with as little work as I could get by with.
Non of this is meant to excuse the AF-AM classes that didn't meet and provided athletes (and others) inflated grades. They remain an embarrassing stain on the university's academic reputation. But the students who benefited from these easier classes knew what was happening. They were trying to avoid dismissal for failure to maintain a minimum grade point average. When I was in school, we had added incentive to maintain decent grades (a 2.0 or C average). If we were dismissed from school, we'd lose our draft exemption and our local draft board would be calling. That's a more serious consequence than failing to make the cut in the NBA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
