<ol>
<li><a href=”#faq1″>When were the academic irregularities first discovered, and how did the University respond?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq2″>Why did the University commission a new independent inquiry in 2014?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq3″>Why was Kenneth Wainstein chosen to lead the 2014 investigation?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq5″>What did Mr. Wainstein’s report conclude?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq6″>How much did you pay for this report, and where did the funds come from?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq7″>What reforms and actions have been put in place to prevent this wrongdoing from occurring again?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq8″>Why did the NCAA reopen its previous investigation in June 2014?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq9″>What is the status of the NCAA investigation?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq10″>What are the next steps in the NCAA case?</a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq11″>What is the status of the University’s accreditation with SACSCOC? </a></li>
<li><a href=”#faq12″>How is the University demonstrating transparency about the academic irregularities?</a></li>
</ol>
<h3><a id=”faq1″></a>1. When were the academic irregularities first discovered, and how did the University respond?</h3>
When irregularities within the department formerly known as African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) were first discovered in 2011, the University immediately self-reported the wrongdoing to the NCAA, and commissioned a series of inquiries to investigate and learn how these classes had developed. (See <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/reports-resources/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”><em>Reports & Resources</em></a> tab for a detailed summary of these prior inquiries.)
<h3><a id=”faq2″></a>2. Why did the University commission a new independent inquiry in 2014?</h3>
Since both former AFAM department chair Julius Nyang’oro and former AFAM department administrator Deborah Crowder were unwilling to be interviewed for previous University inquiries due to a pending criminal investigation, previous reviews were unable to truly get to the bottom of what had happened, and, as a result, there were numerous unanswered questions.
At the end of 2013, the criminal investigation came to an end and the University learned that it would have access to Crowder, Nyang’oro and the information from the State Bureau of Investigation’s criminal investigation. Soon thereafter, in February 2014, the University retained Kenneth L. Wainstein to conduct an additional inquiry into how and why the academic irregularities came into existence, and who knew about them.
<h3><a id=”faq3″></a>3. Why was Kenneth Wainstein chosen to lead the 2014 investigation?</h3>
Kenneth L. Wainstein, a 19-year veteran of the U.S. Justice Department, was jointly selected by then UNC President Ross and Chancellor Folt to serve as an independent counsel and to conduct the inquiry. A partner with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in Washington, D.C., Mr. Wainstein served as general counsel and chief of staff to the FBI, and was twice nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for leadership positions in the Justice Department. (See his <a href=”http://www.cadwalader.com/professionals/kenneth-wainstein” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”><em>biography</em></a> for additional information.)
<h3><a id=”faq5″></a>4. What did Mr. Wainstein’s report conclude?</h3>
According to the report, Nyang’oro and Crowder were responsible for offering hundreds of irregular classes at UNC-Chapel Hill between 1993 and 2011. These so-called “paper classes” were irregular in that they had no class attendance or faculty involvement, and Ms. Crowder, a non-faculty administrator, managed the classes and graded the papers. Various University personnel were aware of red flags, yet did not ask questions. There was a failure of meaningful oversight by the University. Mr. Wainstein’s investigation found no indication of wrongdoing in any academic departments beyond AFAM, that no current coaches were involved or aware and that the wrongdoing ended in 2011.
(See the executive summary of <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.sites.unc.edu/files/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”><em>Mr. Wainstein’s report</em></a> for additional information.)
<h3><a id=”faq6″></a>5. How much did the University pay for this report, and where did the funds come from?</h3>
Then UNC President Ross and Chancellor Folt commissioned the independent, eight-month investigation by Kenneth Wainstein and his firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, to receive the most thorough and complete report possible into past academic irregularities at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The University received an <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2014/11/Wainstein-Invoice.pdf”>invoice</a> for $3,111,385.17. That total includes $115,775.42 for expenses and reflects a $60,000 discount and an additional $68,662.50 fee write-off by the firm. The invoice also breaks out charges by firm employees who worked on the investigation.These costs were paid from excess unrestricted accumulated earnings from the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation Inc. No state-appropriated funds or tuition dollars were used.
<h3><a id=”faq7″></a>6. What reforms and actions have been put in place to prevent this wrongdoing from occurring again?</h3>
Since first learning of the past irregularities, which ended in 2011, the University has acted decisively on the findings of numerous independent and internal investigations and reviews to accept responsibility for the past, hold individuals accountable, and implement more than 70 wide-ranging reforms and initiatives. These comprehensive, campus-wide efforts have been aimed at transforming Carolina’s culture, structure and policies from the top down and ground up to prevent such irregularities from occurring again.
Key reforms generally cover six areas:
<ul>
<li><strong><em>Admissions and Preparedness</em></strong>: Enhancements to and transparency of the special-talent admissions process, and improved methods of assessing preparedness for academics.</li>
<li><strong><em>Academic Excellence and Accountability</em></strong>: Changes in reporting relationships, policies, and processes to improve accountability and standards for independent studies, expectations for faculty, and department chair reviews.</li>
<li><strong><em>Course Integrity</em></strong>: Processes, systems and reporting to ensure compliance and to audit course delivery, numbering of courses, assessment standards, grade changes, and clustering.</li>
<li><strong><em>Athletics Integrity</em></strong>: Standards for athletics oversight, changes to the Faculty Athletics Committee, increased staffing for institutional compliance, risk identification and management, and extensive reporting.</li>
<li><strong><em>Athletics Excellence and Accountability</em></strong>: Measures to enhance the student-athlete experience and strengthen collaboration through the faculty governance structure.</li>
<li><strong><em>Advising and Supporting</em></strong>: Improvements to maximize students’ academic opportunities and future success and better monitor student athletes’ academic progress.</li>
</ul>
For additional information, refer to <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/actions-and-initiatives/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/actions-and-initiatives/</a> and <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/</a>.
<h3><a id=”faq8″></a>7. Why did the NCAA reopen its previous investigation in June 2014?</h3>
The NCAA reopened its 2011 review of academic irregularities as part of the prior investigation after determining that additional people with information and others who had been uncooperative might speak with the enforcement staff.
<h3><a id=”faq9″></a>8. What is the status of the NCAA investigation?</h3>
In May 2015, the University received the NCAA’s <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/unc-chapel-hill-releases-ncaa-notice-of-allegations/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>original notice of allegations</a> from the joint investigation of the past academic irregularities, which ended in 2011.
In August 2015, the University notified the NCAA that, in preparing a response to the notice, it <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>identified new information </a>possibly requiring further review. That stopped the clock on the University’s deadline to respond to the original notice.
In April 2016, the University received the NCAA’s <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/unc-chapel-hill-releases-ncaas-amended-notice-of-allegations-1/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>second notice of allegations</a>.
In August 2016, the University submitted its <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/unc-chapel-hill-posts-response-to-ncaas-amended-notice-of-allegations/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>response to the second notice</a> to the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions.
In October 2016, the University participated in a procedural hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Following the hearing, the panel requested the NCAA’s enforcement staff to revisit second notice of allegations.
In December 2016, the University received the NCAA’s third notice of allegations. For details and the University’s comments at the time, <a href=”https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/carolina-comments-on-releases-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>click here</a>.
In May 2017, the University responded to the third notice of allegations and posted a public record copy to this website along with accompanying exhibits and correspondence subject to public records requests. <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-response-to-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>Click here</a> for the University’s response to the third notice and additional details.
NCAA Bylaw 19.0.3 requires that all infractions-related information remain confidential throughout the infractions process. Consistent with NCAA protocol, University officials will not comment on details about the case until it is completed.
<h3><a id=”faq10″></a>9. What are the next steps in the NCAA case?</h3>
As of May 2017, the next steps in the NCAA’s process for the University include a hearing before the Committee on Infractions scheduled later this summer. The committee typically issues a report several weeks after the hearing.
<h3><a id=”faq11″></a>10. What is the status of the University’s accreditation with SACSCOC?</h3>
Carolina remains accredited by SACSCOC, which oversees academic standards, after providing information necessary for the regional accrediting agency to complete two reviews since 2012. In June 2016, SACSCOC validated the quality and effectiveness of the more the more than 70 reforms and actions instituted since 2011 when the irregularities ended. A yearlong review prompted the SACSCOC Board of Trustees to maintain our accreditation and remove Carolina from probation. For more information, refer to <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/message-from-chancellor-folt-carolina-off-probation/”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/message-from-chancellor-folt-carolina-off-probation/</a> and <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/</a>.
<h3><a id=”faq12″></a> 11.How is the University demonstrating transparency about the academic irregularities?</h3>
To enhance accountability, responsiveness and efficiency around records requests, we launched a new public records website in October 2015 in conjunction with the release of the Wainstein Report. You may view that site at <a href=”http://publicrecords.unc.edu” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>http://publicrecords.unc.edu</a>. It includes a webpage showing when a public records request was received, the name of the individual who made the request, a description of the request and details about request processing.
As of December 2016, the University also has posted seven batches of public records totaling more than 1.32 million pages of public records gathered by Mr. Wainstein’s firm during the investigation as part of its response to the two largest public records requests in University history. Carolina will continue to post more investigation records as they become available. Refer to <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/university-releases-batch-of-records-gathered-for-wainstein-investigation/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/university-releases-batch-of-records-gathered-for-wainstein-investigation/</a>.
In addition, the University has posted hundreds of pages of reports, documents, exhibits and other materials related to progress with the more than 70 reforms and initiatives, the two accreditation reviews by SACSCOC, and the current NCAA investigation. Go to <a href=”http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/</a> for specific examples and details.