North Carolina Academic Fraud Investigation

[JFGsCoffeeMug]

I just don't see how this could be on the student, though. Even though they "should have known" it is not up to these students to police the university and be whistle blowers. They have no idea how things are run, if classes are basically fake, or if this is how it is in other schools.

If I was an 18 or 19 year old, and I had a class that was like this where I didn't do anything, sure I might wonder, "Is this real?? Do I seriously not have to do ANYTHING??" However, my next thought would probably be, "The university is offering it, there is a an actual "teacher", I'm getting actual credit hours...maybe it's just a cool loophole class and is technically okay."

The onus is not on the student's to disclose this mess as they don't know the workings of a university and are unfamiliar with how all classes are set up. Even if they had a "hunch" or they thought it was obvious this class seemed fake, they may not have the motivation or confidence to speak up.

Someone in the university knew, they had to, and they are lying about it. Anyway, I feel this is mostly on the university, not the students. But it looks like the law would seem to disagree. Which is a shame.

It doesn't sound like the university is arguing the students were somehow complicit in the academic fraud. It looks like the argument is instead centered around a statute of limitations issue.

Simply stated, there is a deadline for filing this type of case. Once a certain number of years have elapsed, you can no longer bring the lawsuit. The clock usually starts once you have the necessary information to sue. In this instance, the university will argue that individuals seeking compensation for academic fraud, which allegedly occurred in 2005, should have filed their lawsuits long before allowing 10 years to tick off the clock.

Those individuals knew or should have known those particular classes were fraudulent back in 2005, and they should not be presently rewarded for their lack of diligence in bringing suit. Or so the argument goes.

 

[illinicb]

Saying they didn't know is not an excuse. The whole thing smells like 'Lack of Institutional Control'.
Not that the NCAA will come down hard on UNC, but still.....

Certainly fits a layman's definition of "Lack if Institutional Control", but this is unique in the sense that it goes beyond (maybe well beyond) athletics. The NCAA may be the least of their worries.

 

[whovous]

Those individuals knew or should have known those particular classes were fraudulent back in 2005, and they should not be presently rewarded for their lack of diligence in bringing suit. Or so the argument goes.

What those individuals knew is an evidentiary question which is not suitable for a motion to dismiss. What they should have known strikes me as something that is wide open to interpretation. When a healthy chunk of a University participates in a fraud, should an 18 year old kid be able to look at it and know it is wrong? My gut reaction is that he should not be expected to be that smart, but my gut only rarely decides lawsuits.

 

[illineuron]

I'm not a lawyer, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express. However wouldn't the statute of limitations time limit be initiated when the university acknowledged that the classes were fraudulent. Have they ever done that? If so, the plaintiff would be alleviated the responsibility of that determination. And being informed by the university. any effected student could then decide if they wished to file suit.

 

[whovous]

No, the University is not required to acknowledge the scheme was fraudulent to assert a limitations defense. There are other problems with the defense, however.

 

[IlliniJim20]

Certainly fits a layman's definition of "Lack if Institutional Control", but this is unique in the sense that it goes beyond (maybe well beyond) athletics. The NCAA may be the least of their worries.

I have always maintained this issue, going beyond the scope of the NCAA, would be the excuse the NCAA has for not punishing UNC athletics. In other words, they will say it is an academic, institutional issue, not an athletic issue, thereby saving one of their cash cows.

 

[JFGsCoffeeMug]

I'm not a lawyer, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express. However wouldn't the statute of limitations time limit be initiated when the university acknowledged that the classes were fraudulent. Have they ever done that? If so, the plaintiff would be alleviated the responsibility of that determination. And being informed by the university. any effected student could then decide if they wished to file suit.

The moment the university publicly acknowledged the classes were fraudulent would probably be the latest point at which the clock could have started running. To figure out the earliest point at which the clock could have started running, we would argue a reasonable person in that same position either would have known or should have known at a much earlier date the classes were fraudulent.

The more egregiously deficient the classes in question, the more likely a reasonable person should have known they were fraudulent. Could it have been obvious when they enrolled? After the first day of class? At the midpoint? On the last day? After receiving grades? At some point, if it strains credulity, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say you had no idea.

 

[illinicb]

I have always maintained this issue, going beyond the scope of the NCAA, would be the excuse the NCAA has for not punishing UNC athletics. In other words, they will say it is an academic, institutional issue, not an athletic issue, thereby saving one of their cash cows.

First, UNC basketball isn't exactly a cash cow for the NCAA, but that aside, the NCAA and any accreditation organizations (whatever they may be) can be on parallel paths for different reasons and one party's interest doesn't preclude the other from being moving forward.

My premise assumes there is an accreditation org that has taken notice of this. I believe I saw that at one point, but there might also be nothing there. Haven't been keeping a close eye on it.

 

[TeamworkOrange]

I have always maintained this issue, going beyond the scope of the NCAA, would be the excuse the NCAA has for not punishing UNC athletics. In other words, they will say it is an academic, institutional issue, not an athletic issue, thereby saving one of their cash cows.

That's exactly what the NCAA did the first time they "looked into" the UNC academic issue. The NCAA claimed that because other students were involved, it was an academic issue and beyond their jurisdiction -- even though it clearly affected the eligibility of athletes! The NCAA tried to brush it under the rug and and move on until the heat got turned up on them. Now they are trying their best to drag it out hoping people will lose interest.

The NCAA used that same hands off approach in regards to Kansas when the FBI became involved with their whole ticket scandal. The NCAA successfully swept that under the rug.

Kentucky used that same NCAA "loophole" to build a luxury dorm for their basketball players. LINK Because 50% of the residents in the dorm are regular students then the NCAA allows it. Of course the NCAA doesn't check to see if the "regular students" are the offspring of big boosters.

For most schools, the NCAA argues why schools are breaking rules, but for a select few schools, they'll argue why they shouldn't do anything to them even though there are facts clearly showing they violated rules and received an unfair advantage over the competition. The NCAA is just as corrupt as the schools who are repeatedly breaking the rules. Every aspect of college sports has become so corrupt that it's making it very hard to be a fan nowadays.

 

[whovous]

The moment the university publicly acknowledged the classes were fraudulent would probably be the latest point at which the clock could have started running. To figure out the earliest point at which the clock could have started running, we would argue a reasonable person in that same position either would have known or should have known at a much earlier date the classes were fraudulent.

The more egregiously deficient the classes in question, the more likely a reasonable person should have known they were fraudulent. Could it have been obvious when they enrolled? After the first day of class? At the midpoint? On the last day? After receiving grades? At some point, if it strains credulity, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say you had no idea.

I'd argue that the standard should be that of the reasonable DI scholarship athlete, and that a whole bunch of them thought they were simply entitled to things like this. I could see them losing the lawsuit, but not on a motion to dismiss.

 

[gibb52]

I'm not certain that any school enjoys Favored Nation status with the NCAA. USC, Bama, Okla, Ohio State and Penn State have all been on Football probation, and they are the cashiest of cash cows. Syracuse, UConn and Kentucky have been on BB probation among others.

If there is a legit attempt by UNC to create sham classes, and it looks like they did, they will pay eventually.

 

[chiefini]

I'm not certain that any school enjoys Favored Nation status with the NCAA. USC, Bama, Okla, Ohio State and Penn State have all been on Football probation, and they are the cashiest of cash cows. Syracuse, UConn and Kentucky have been on BB probation among others.

If there is a legit attempt by UNC to create sham classes, and it looks like they did, they will pay eventually.

I'm not holding my breath...

 

[7yearillini]

It doesn't sound like the university is arguing the students were somehow complicit in the academic fraud. It looks like the argument is instead centered around a statute of limitations issue.

Simply stated, there is a deadline for filing this type of case. Once a certain number of years have elapsed, you can no longer bring the lawsuit. The clock usually starts once you have the necessary information to sue. In this instance, the university will argue that individuals seeking compensation for academic fraud, which allegedly occurred in 2005, should have filed their lawsuits long before allowing 10 years to tick off the clock.

Those individuals knew or should have known those particular classes were fraudulent back in 2005, and they should not be presently rewarded for their lack of diligence in bringing suit. Or so the argument goes.

Exactly

 

[DaytonIllini]

This week 7 school teachers were sentenced with up to 7 years in prison for fraudulent standardized testing. If I was involved in that sort of nonsense at UNC, I'd be looking to cut a deal with someone and cover my rear.

 

[illineuron]

The moment the university publicly acknowledged the classes were fraudulent would probably be the latest point at which the clock could have started running. To figure out the earliest point at which the clock could have started running, we would argue a reasonable person in that same position either would have known or should have known at a much earlier date the classes were fraudulent.

The more egregiously deficient the classes in question, the more likely a reasonable person should have known they were fraudulent. Could it have been obvious when they enrolled? After the first day of class? At the midpoint? On the last day? After receiving grades? At some point, if it strains credulity, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say you had no idea.

So given the university is not held accountable, then the student population becomes responsible for establishing, monitoring, and maintaining minimal academic standards. When students pay tuition there should be a caveat included in the contract explaining that if their education sucks eggs, it's the students' fault.

 

[Deleted member 16340]

If the school's argument is that the student should have known that the coursework was fraudulent, shouldn't the school itself know. If it does, isn't that the definition of "lack of institutional control"?

 

[7yearillini]

So given the university is not held accountable, then the student population becomes responsible for establishing, monitoring, and maintaining minimal academic standards. When students pay tuition there should be a caveat included in the contract explaining that if their education sucks eggs, it's the students' fault.

What is their claim? Consumer Fraud? What are the damages? Did they not get a degree or lose a job because they chose to take an easy class and got a fake A? I don't get what the claim is. And to sit back and sue a decade later because of an investigation is just classic opportunistic plaintiff behavior looking for a settlement for nothing. The SOL motion to dismiss should be granted.

 

[Mike]

What is their claim? Consumer Fraud? What are the damages? Did they not get a degree or lose a job because they chose to take an easy class and got a fake A? I don't get what the claim is. And to sit back and sue a decade later because of an investigation is just classic opportunistic plaintiff behavior looking for a settlement for nothing. The SOL motion to dismiss should be granted.

IMHO academic fraud is a very big deal, especially when you have thousands of cases. Personally think we need a new governing body should the NCAA just let this go.

And to answer the question above, if you pay for something and it turns out to be not as represented you can sue.
Would be interesting to see long term salary data for UNC athletes/non athletes with degrees. Any difference trends from the national norm could potentially be blamed on fraud scandals by the university. When there is money involved you can sue.

 

[alaskaillini]

Based upon their replies, I would guess that JFGscoffemug and 7yearillini are lawyers (looks like 7yearillini also graduated on schedule as law takes 7 years lol).

There are problems for UNC, but I don't see past athletes claiming a breach of contract for inadequate education being one of them. Perhaps there are other claims that could be made for advice received, etc., which could take some time to recognize as fraudulent or wilfully harmful on the part of the UNC staff. So there is some chance they will get their day in court, but it won't be because they just realized that they didn't learn anything in those fake classes.

 

[Deleted member 11241]

Was told from someone close to the situation to expect a decision on UNC to be announced by end of the week. Also, don't expect Syracuse level sanctions as statute of limitations will play a factor. TIFWIW

 

[TeamworkOrange]

Was told from someone close to the situation to expect a decision on UNC to be announced by end of the week. Also, don't expect Syracuse level sanctions as statute of limitations will play a factor. TIFWIW

NCAA Statute of Limitations:

Blue Bloods = three days after infraction occurrence, provided that the school initiated the "a wink and a nod" clause properly

High Majors = 4 years before receipt of notice of infraction, or longer if the NCAA feels like sticking it to that particular school on that day.

Mid-Majors = infinity, for NCAA rules enforcement public relations

ILLINOIS = infinity + the NCAA will fabricate violations if enough time has elapsed since the last alleged infraction.

 

[Deleted member 10676]

[FONT=&quot]Gary Parrish[/FONT][FONT=&quot] @GaryParrishCBS · 18m 18 minutes ago [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]North Carolina has received a Notice of Allegations from the NCAA, according to @InsideCarolina.[/FONT]

 

[AuroraIllini]

Was told from someone close to the situation to expect a decision on UNC to be announced by end of the week. Also, don't expect Syracuse level sanctions as statute of limitations will play a factor. TIFWIW

A real insider :thumb: Good stuff.

 

[TEYPAY]

Interesting read....

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/unc-ba...-hopes-could-be-postseason-ban-201709873.html

 

[Deleted member 11241]

A real insider :thumb: Good stuff.

Oh noooo!!! Not the dreaded "I" word!! Haha