Facing criticism over its limits on punishing institutions for academic misconduct, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is working to clarify its definition of academic fraud and what constitutes an NCAA violation.
Current NCAA rules do not define academic misconduct, a reflection of colleges’ desire to police such problems themselves. But high-profile cases, including one at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have raised the specter of increased NCAA involvement.
This week NCAA leaders are expected to discuss the issue as part of a broader governance redesign. The association could issue new guidance within the coming weeks.
Among the ideas, say people familiar with the process, are more clearly identifying who should be held accountable for academic misconduct after it has occurred and how the NCAA determines whether it will investigate.
In recent months, at least one NCAA committee has debated scenarios in which an athletics department could be cleared of academic fraud through independent or institutional reviews but still face the possibility of NCAA sanctions.
It’s unclear how often that might happen, but some critics believe the NCAA should have more ability to intervene.
Some members of an NCAA task force on academic integrity have argued that the association’s references to academic fraud and integrity issues are “ambiguous” and “too lean.”
‘Where Do You Draw the Line?’
Any new definition is expected to clarify when the fraud is an institutional responsibility vs. when it is an individual responsibility, said Carolyn M. Callahan, the faculty athletics representative at the University of Virginia and a member of the NCAA’s Division I Academic Cabinet.
“If someone who hands out towels in the locker room” helps an athlete cheat, “is that the responsibility of the institution—or the two students who are cheating?” said Ms. Callahan, a professor of education. “Where do you draw the line on responsibility?”
Under current NCAA rules, unless an athletics official knowingly arranges for an athlete to receive fraudulent credit, knows about such fraud, or helps facilitate improper grade changes or other academic shenanigans, the NCAA usually stays away.
Likewise, if both nonathletes and athletes are enrolled in bogus classes, as was the case in Chapel Hill, the NCAA often doesn’t get involved. Its logic: It’s not solely an athletics problem.
A document posted on the NCAA’s website suggests that “student-to-student” academic misconduct, or an athlete acting alone, would not typically be considered an NCAA violation.
But the document raises the possibility that, if a certain “high” number of athletes are involved in academic impropriety, that could rise to an NCAA violation.
If that standard were applied at North Carolina—where dozens of athletes were found to have taken inappropriate classes set up by a former head of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies—it could put the Tar Heels back on the NCAA’s radar.
Changes in the NCAA’s definition of academic fraud would probably not have much impact on the frequency of academic impropriety, said John Bruno, a longtime faculty athletics representative at Ohio State who serves on the NCAA’s Division I Academic Cabinet and its task force on academic integrity.
And such changes have some colleges concerned.
“There’s worry in terms of autonomy issues about the NCAA stepping in and trying to do more,” said Mr. Bruno, a psychology professor. “One of the points I have raised is that, when their systems are working properly, institutions have very prescribed ways of dealing with misconduct and fraud. The NCAA needs to be very careful about usurping some of that jurisdiction or even redefining it so they’re dealing with fraud in a way that’s different than the institutions are.”
