"The University following the Wainstein report and working with their accrediting agency, stood in public forums and said this is egregious, this is serious wrongdoing, and they accepted the term that the accrediting agency used - academic fraud.
When they came before the COI, they pivoted dramatically. They said that was typo. It wasn't correct. They believe the courses were legitimate. That they were taught by real faculty. Real work was submitted. The work was graded under supervision of a faculty member. The grades were legitimate. They stand on the transcript and they count it for graduation.
With that in front of us from the institution we had to go to the core principle of who has the right to judge academic legitimacy. And the current NCAA rules clearly say that is the business of the institutions, not the business of the NCAA."
My 2 questions: (1) why didn't the NCAA use UNC's prior statements before the public, repeated multiple times, as controlling? (2) why does the NCAA have a clearing house if institutions are the sole authority on their own academics?
When they came before the COI, they pivoted dramatically. They said that was typo. It wasn't correct. They believe the courses were legitimate. That they were taught by real faculty. Real work was submitted. The work was graded under supervision of a faculty member. The grades were legitimate. They stand on the transcript and they count it for graduation.
With that in front of us from the institution we had to go to the core principle of who has the right to judge academic legitimacy. And the current NCAA rules clearly say that is the business of the institutions, not the business of the NCAA."
My 2 questions: (1) why didn't the NCAA use UNC's prior statements before the public, repeated multiple times, as controlling? (2) why does the NCAA have a clearing house if institutions are the sole authority on their own academics?
