EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT

Transcription

1 EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT A. INTRODUCTION. This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative endeavor in which the Committee on Infractions reviews infractions cases submitted in written form. This process is used as an alternative to a formal hearing, and may be utilized only when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations. The summary report was reviewed by the committee during a March 2011 conference call. The committee accepted the findings and penalties set forth in the report. This case involved academic fraud by four baseball student-athletes ( student-athletes 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively) and a women s tennis student-athlete ("student-athlete 5") who worked as an English tutor in the athletics department. Student-athletes 3 and 4 also violated NCAA ethical-conduct legislation by providing false and misleading information to the institution regarding their involvement in academic fraud and the extent of the impermissible academic assistance they received. A member of Conference USA, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 28,000 students. The institution sponsors eight men s and nine women s intercollegiate sports. This was the institution s first major infractions case. B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(b)] During the 2009 fall semester, student-athletes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 violated the provisions of ethical conduct legislation when they knowingly engaged in academic fraud. Specifically, student-athlete 5, while working as an academic tutor employed by the athletics department, wrote papers for student-athletes 1, 2, 3 and 4. Student-athletes 1, 2, 3 and 4 submitted the work as their own. As a result, during the academic year, student-athletes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition while ineligible.

2 Page No. 2 Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, institution, and student-athletes 1, 2, 4 and 5 agreed with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. Studentathlete 3 did not respond to the notice of allegations. The committee finds that the violations occurred. On March 2, 2010, an intern in the athletics department reported to the director of student development ("director of student development") that student-athletes 1 and 2 had told the intern that student-athlete 5 wrote an English paper for them. After members of the athletics administration met to discuss the issue, student-athletes 1 and 2 were interviewed. Both admitted to the violation, which resulted in them being immediately declared ineligible and suspended from the baseball squad. At the time, student-athlete 1 had participated in six contests of the season while student-athlete 2 had played in one. When student-athlete 5 was interviewed, she admitted the academic fraud with respect to student-athletes 1 and 2. She further admitted providing impermissible academic assistance to student-athletes 3 and 4, which led to interviews with those two young men. Both of them admitted to paying student-athlete 5 for help on a joint project in one of their courses, but they maintained they had only received "editorial suggestions" from her on a single occasion. Because the institution saw the evidence of academic fraud with student-athletes 3 and 4 as inconclusive, it appointed a committee to investigate further. Tutoring records were reviewed, further interviews were conducted (with as many as 20 people) and, on March 30, student-athlete 5 s institutional account was audited. The audit revealed that she had written eight papers for student-athlete 3 and five papers, plus a PowerPoint presentation, for student-athlete 4. Upon being reinterviewed, student-athletes 3 and 4 admitted they had provided false information regarding the number of occasions on which they were provided assistance by student-athlete 5. Even though they continued to deny that student-athlete 5 had actually written the papers, the institution and enforcement staff concluded otherwise. Student-athletes 3 and 4 were permanently dismissed from the baseball team and the institution did not request their reinstatement. Student-athletes 1 and 2 had their eligibility restored with conditions. After being declared ineligible, student-athlete 5 withdrew from the institution due to a significant medical condition. Her reinstatement was not requested. By the time they were declared ineligible and removed from the team, student-athlete 3 had appeared in 25 contests. Student-athlete 4 had played in five contests.

3 Page No. 3 The first instance of academic fraud occurred on November 17, 2009, during a study hall session, when student-athletes 1 and 2 commented on how fast student-athlete 5 was typing. She responded by offering to write one English paper each for student-athletes 1 and 2 at a cost of $10 per typed page. The young men accepted the offer, and studentathlete 5 wrote the papers that evening or the next morning. Upon completing the papers, she sent them to student-athletes 1 and 2 as attachments to separate s. Studentathletes 1 and 2 paid the women s tennis student-athlete $20 and $30, respectively, for the papers, submitted them as their own in fulfillment of the English assignment and received credit for the work. As noted above, the audit of student-athlete 5 s account revealed that, between November 2 and December 11, 2009, she wrote eight papers for student-athlete 3 for assignments in one of his courses after the young man asked for her assistance. Three of the papers were joint assignments with student-athlete 4. Student-athlete 3 paid studentathlete 5 $10 total for the papers, submitted them as his own in fulfillment of the assignments and received credit for the work. Similarly, between November 10 and December 14, 2009, student-athlete 5 wrote five papers and created one PowerPoint presentation for student-athlete 4 after the young man asked for her assistance. Studentathlete 4 paid student-athlete 5 $25 total for the papers, submitted them as his own in fulfillment of the assignments and received credit for the work. 2. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d)] On March 3, 18 and April 1, 2010, student-athlete 3 failed to deport himself in accordance with the honesty and integrity normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics as required by NCAA legislation and violated the provisions of ethical-conduct legislation when he provided false and misleading information during interviews with the institution. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff and institution were in agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. Student-athlete 3 did not respond to attempts to contact him regarding his position on the matter. The committee finds that the violations occurred. Student-athlete 3 was interviewed by the institution on March 3, 18 and April 1, 2010, regarding the violations set forth in finding B-1 above. On the first two occasions student-athlete 3 denied receiving impermissible academic assistance from studentathlete 5, stating only that she had provided "editorial suggestions" on one occasion. He specifically denied that he had ever paid student-athlete 5 to write papers for him.

4 Page No. 4 However, the audit of student-athlete 5 s institutional account established that she had written eight papers on his behalf. He submitted all of them as his own and received academic credit for them. During his third interview, conducted the day after the institution had discovered multiple papers in his name on student-athlete 5 s institutional account, studentathlete 3 admitted to previously providing false information and that student-athlete 5 had assisted him with academic assignments on more than one occasion. However, he insisted that the papers were his own, stating, "I wrote [the papers], it was my writing, and then she corrected what I did." He claimed to have typed the papers on studentathlete 5 s computer before sending them to himself from her account. His story was unpersuasive, as the s recovered from student-athlete 5 s computer made it clear that the papers were being generated by her. In a final interview of studentathlete 3, conducted by the enforcement staff in October 2010, student-athlete 3 finally acknowledged the academic fraud and that he had paid student-athlete 5 for doing academic work on his behalf. 3. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d)] On March 3, 18 and April 1, 2010, student-athlete 4 failed to deport himself in accordance with the honesty and integrity normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics as required by NCAA legislation and violated the provisions of ethical-conduct legislation when he provided false and misleading information during interviews with the institution. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, institution and student-athlete 4 agreed with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. As was student-athlete 3, student-athlete 4 was interviewed on March 3, 18, and April 1, 2010, regarding the violations set forth in Finding B-1 above. On the first two occasions student-athlete 4 denied receiving impermissible academic assistance from studentathlete 5, specifically stating that she had not written papers for him and that he had not paid her. He claimed in the first two interviews that the only assistance he received from student-athlete 5 was minor editing for his joint project with student-athlete 3.

5 Page No. 5 Student-athlete 4 s third interview took place April 1, 2010, the day after student-athlete 5 s institutional account had been audited. During the audit the institution located six s, with completed assignments attached, sent from student-athlete 5 to studentathlete 4. Further, in her statement, student-athlete 5 admitted that student-athlete 4 had paid her to do the work. Confronted with this information, student-athlete 4 acknowledged in the third interview that he had received help from student-athlete 5 on papers he had already somewhat written. Like student-athlete 3, student-athlete 4 claimed to have been the primary author of the papers. However, as with student-athlete 3 s situation, the evidence showed that studentathlete 4 s papers had been generated from student-athlete 5 s computer, then sent by her to him. Finally, during a September 1, 2010, interview with the enforcement staff, student-athlete 4 admitted to the academic fraud and his provision of false information. C. PENALTIES. For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. This case was unique in that all violations were committed by individuals, with no allegations made directly against the institution. In fact, the institution acted appropriately at all phases before and during the investigation. Student-athlete 5 and all other tutors had been educated regarding their duties prior to the academic fraud occurring. Once information regarding the violations surfaced, the institution responded immediately and investigated fully. It took decisive action to suspend the offending student-athletes and rescind the fraudulent academic credit they had received. The committee commends the institution for its actions and notes that the penalties were mitigated as a result. On the other hand, student-athlete 5 committed the academic fraud while employed as an academic tutor, and the institution bears responsibility for her actions. For this reason, the committee felt that certain penalties must be assessed. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution s thorough investigation, self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The institution self-imposed Penalties C-2 (though it suggested a two-year term of probation), C-3 and C-4 and agreed to the committee imposing Penalties C-1, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9 and C-10. Because this case was processed through summary disposition and the penalties were agreed upon by the institution and the committee, there is no option to appeal. [Note: The institution s corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.] 1. Public reprimand and censure.

6 Page No One year of probation from, through May 18, The committee deviates from the presumptive minimum two year term of probation for the reasons set forth immediately above. 3. Student-athletes 1 and 2 were ruled ineligible for competition for the remainder of the baseball season and the entire season. 4. Student-athletes 3, 4 and 5 were ruled permanently ineligible and removed from the baseball and women s tennis teams. 5. Prior to the institution discovering the violations and removing student-athletes 1, 2, 3 and 4 from competition, the young men participated in a number of contests during the academic year. Because of the previous academic fraud, all four student-athletes were ineligible to participate. Further, student-athlete 5 participated in five tennis matches during the spring 2010 season prior to being declared ineligible and removed from the team. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws (e)-(2) and (b), the institution will vacate all wins in which the four baseball student-athletes competed during the season. The individual matches won by student-athlete 5 in the spring 2010 season will also be vacated, and the women s tennis team results shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated matches. The individual records of student-athletes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be vacated as well. Further, the institution s records regarding women s tennis and baseball, as well as the record of the head coaches in those sports, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which women s tennis and baseball records are reported, including, but not limited to institution media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institution and NCAA archives. Any public reference to the vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Finally, to ensure that all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publications and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics, to identify the specific student-athlete(s) and contest(s) impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA statistics department a written report, detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report must be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than forty-five (45) days following the initial Committee on Infractions release. 6. The institution shall:

7 Page No. 7 a. Inform prospective student-athletes in baseball and women s tennis that the institution is on probation for a year and explain the violations committed. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation must be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent. b. Publicize the information annually in baseball and women s tennis media guides (or web posting), as well as in a general institution alumni publication to be chosen by the institution with the assent of the office of the Committees on Infractions. A copy of the media guides, alumni publication, and information included in recruiting material shall be included in the compliance reports to be submitted annually to the Committees on Infractions. 7. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition; b. File with the office of the Committees on Infractions an annual compliance report indicating the progress made with this program by May 1, 2012, prior to the end of the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on prevention of academic fraud in the institution s athletics tutoring program. The reports must also include documentation of the institution s compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the committee. 8. The above-listed penalties are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties. 9. In accordance with Bylaw , the NCAA president shall forward a copy of the public infractions report to the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

8 Page No At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution s president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution s current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, East Carolina University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw , concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case,. The Committee on Infractions advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution s probationary period or imposing more severe sanctions or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. An institution that employs an individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhere to the penalties imposed, subjects itself to allegations and possible findings of violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS John S. Black Melissa (Missy) Conboy Roscoe C. Howard Jr. Eleanor W. Myers James O Fallon Gregory Sankey Dennis E. Thomas, chair

9 Page No. 9 APPENDIX ONE CASE CHRONOLOGY March 2 - An intern in the athletics department s student development office reported to the director of student development, that two baseball student-athletes, told her they paid a women s tennis student-athlete, who was an academic tutor employed by the athletics department, to write an English paper for them. The director of student development immediately reported the information to the executive associate director of athletics, who convened a meeting that day to discuss the matter with the director of student development, the associate director of athletics/senior woman administrator; and the faculty athletics representative. Those individuals contacted the head baseball coach and requested to interview the two student-athletes. That same afternoon, the executive associate director of athletics separately interviewed both young men, student-athletes 1 and 2, who promptly admitted to the alleged violations. Both studentathletes were immediately declared ineligible and indefinitely suspended from the baseball team. March 3 The athletics administrators mentioned above met with the director of athletics, and the director of athletics compliance, and made arrangements through the head women s tennis coach, to interview student-athlete 5. During that interview, the young woman was asked generally about academic improprieties and admitted that she was paid for providing impermissible academic assistance to student-athletes 3 and 4. At first, she did not report writing papers for student-athletes 1 and 2 but, when questioned further, admitted that student-athlete 2 paid her to write a paper, but she could not recall doing work for student-athlete 1. March 4 The institution determined there was insufficient information to support an allegation of academic fraud regarding student-athletes 3 and 4, based solely on the contradictory statements of student-athlete 5. March 18 The institution conducted additional interviews with student-athletes 3 and 4 to inquire about potential academic fraud, but the young men continued to deny any wrongdoing. They also claimed student-athlete 5 helped each of them only once with an assignment and denied that she assisted them with other projects or in other courses. Subsequently, the institution sought to interview student-athlete 5 again; but during the investigation, she withdrew from school due to a serious medical issue. March 2 In a letter, the institution requested to interview student-athlete 5, but her parents indicated that she would be unable to meet the request due to her medical condition.

10 Page No. 10 March 30 - After consultation with university legal counsel and considering university policy, the university chancellor authorized the office of internal audit to review student-athlete 5 s university account for information concerning academic fraud. The review produced information that the young woman wrote one English paper each for student-athletes 1 and 2, as reported by those young men. The review also produced evidence that the women s tennis student-athlete wrote papers for student-athlete 3 and papers and one PowerPoint presentation for student-athlete 4 for assignments in their RCLS and Exercise and Sport Science (EXSS) courses, contrary to their reports. April 1 - Following the completion of the review of student-athlete 5 s s, the institution conducted additional interviews with student-athletes 3 and 4, who admitted they provided false information during previous interviews, particularly regarding the number of times studentathlete 5 helped them with assignments. However, both student-athletes again denied that she wrote papers for either of them. Based on the information reported by the student-athlete 5, the s and the inconsistent statements provided by student-athletes 3 and 4, the institution concluded that both young men engaged in academic fraud and provided false and misleading information to the institution on three separate occasions. April 1 Student-athletes 3 and 4 were declared ineligible and dismissed from the baseball team for their involvement in academic fraud and for providing false and misleading information to the institution. The institution did not seek reinstatement for either student-athlete. April 28 The institution submitted a self-report of the violations to the NCAA and requested reinstatement of eligibility for student-athletes 1 and 2, who were declared ineligible for their participation in academic fraud. On June 15, 2010, the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff reinstated student-athletes 1 and 2 with a reduced withholding condition. July 1 The institution submitted its appeal regarding the severity of the withholding penalty; and on July 30, 2010, that appeal was denied. September 23 The notice of inquiry letter was sent February 28 The summary disposition report was submitted to the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. March 24 The summary disposition report was reviewed by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. May 19 Infractions Report No. 352 was released.

11 Page No. 11 APPENDIX TWO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION S FEBRUARY 29, 2011, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT. East Carolina University determined that possible NCAA violations had occurred March 2, 2010, when an intern in the athletics student development office reported to the assistant director of athletics a conversation the intern overheard involving two student-athletes and an academic tutor. East Carolina began conducting an investigation into possible NCAA violations on March 3, 2010, which included the formation by the chancellor of an Athletic Investigative Task Force on March 17, The NCAA self-report was submitted April 28, Student-athletes 1 and 2 were suspended from the East Carolina baseball team for 42 games (75 percent of the season), dependent upon NCAA reinstatement. Student-athletes 3 and 4 were permanently suspended from the East Carolina baseball team. Student-athlete 5 was dismissed from the East Carolina women s tennis team. East Carolina athletics hired an employee for the newly created position of associate athletics director for compliance. East Carolina athletics established preventative measures (developed as of March 2010, with revisions and additions as of December 2010) to prevent the recurrence of academic fraud involving student tutors.