Friday, February 1, 2019


The NCAA decision regarding Missouri's academic dishonesty may have merit. However, the claim that there is a distinction between the Missouri case and the UNC case is contrived. The report about the ruling includes the following paragraphs.

While the case is expected to draw comparisons to recent academic misconduct at North Carolina, the NCAA said it differed in that "UNC stood by the courses and grades it awarded student-athletes."

"In support of that position," the NCAA's report said, "UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes' work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."

In the UNC case, there were no courses. Students were assigned to a bogus independent study, or enrolled in a lecture class that did not meet. Student-athletes in these non classes submitted a paper at the end of the term which could be stunningly superficial. In addition, the report on the UNC scandal suggests that students did indeed get support for even these superficial papers. If Missouri is penalized, then there can be no justification for UNC to not have been penalized.

No comments:

Post a Comment