Last week, UNC-Chapel Hill revealed its Notice of Allegations from the NCAA regarding the school’s 18-year scandal of “no-show,” easy-grade classes in the African and Afro-American Department—classes that helped many athletes remain eligible to play. The allegations include the serious charge of “lack of institutional control.” UNC-Chapel Hill must respond and the NCAA will ultimately decide the punishment, if any.
We shouldn’t forget that the notice is a political document from an organization that is trying to keep college sports “clean” but also lucrative. It should be read with political ramifications in mind.
Three points I find interesting.
- The allegations begin with 2002 not 1993 (even though it does allude to the 18-year history at one point). According to Dan Kane, the investigative reporter at the News & Observer who uncovered much of the scandal, this keeps the NCAA from having to deal with Julius Peppers’ transcript, which has been made public. It showed that the star NFL player raised his grade average through AFAM classes; he last played at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2001.
- The allegations steer clear of everyone except those who have been prominently named so far—Deborah Crowder, Julius Nyang’oro, and Jan Boxill. There is no allegation about coaches or assistant coaches—people whom the $3.1 million report on the scandal by former prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein mostly stayed away from, too. The NCAA seems to have relied on Wainstein’s report and then narrowed its findings.
- Finally, the university is charged with giving “impermissible benefits” to students. Impermissible benefits are advantages given to students that are not available to students generally. Normally, they are cash, free services, discounts, and preferential treatment.
It would be odd to say that being deprived of education is a benefit. And the NCAA doesn’t want to look like it’s telling universities what to teach. So the NCAA dances around this issue. It avoids saying that the courses were the impermissible benefit; rather, the benefit was the “special arrangements [that] athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes.” The focus is on the counselors, who sought out the courses, registered students, obtained their assignments, and even recommended grades. They “relieved student-athletes of the responsibilities of a general student.”
Somehow, that makes the whole issue seem smaller than all the angst and turmoil over it would suggest: just some counselors helping student-athletes more than they should. Perhaps UNC-Chapel Hill will get off more easily than expected.
And perhaps the focus will shift to the academic investigation by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).