In the UNC scandal, the accrediting agency fumbled the NCAA's punt

The scandal over phony classes at UNC-Chapel Hill that helped keep athletes eligible was deeply troubling for anyone who cares about academic integrity. Not only was the situation of an unprecedented duration and scale – the classes went on for 18 years and involved thousands of students, almost half of them athletes – but it also happened at one of the nation’s most respected universities.

But as bad as that academic fraud was, its venality was eclipsed by the dismal response by university officials and governing bodies who could curb future offenses by imposing penalties for UNC’s abuse of academic credit and lack of oversight. University officials originally defended the classes, then spent millions of dollars on public relations consultants and lawyers in an effort to scrub the issue away. The NCAA investigated twice, alleged five major violations and then bowed out, saying it had no jurisdiction over academic matters. Now the third party that could do something, the agency that accredits UNC, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, known as SACS, has come up small.

News & Observer reporter Dan Kane, whose dogged reporting exposed the phony classes, reported recently that the SACS would “look into” the legal sophistry UNC employed to escape NCAA sanctions. At issue was the fact that UNC conceded to SACAS in 2013 that the classes in question did not meet academic standards, but then turned around and told the NCAA that the classes were legitimate and outside the NCAA’s jurisdiction.

In an interview, Kane brought this conflict to the attention of the accrediting agency’s president, Belle S. Wheelan, who said, “I promise we’re looking at it.” When Kane reported that the agency was reviewing UNC’s statements to the NCAA, Wheelan promptly sent a letter to UNC Chancellor Carol Folt telling her there was nothing to worry about and Kane’s report was in error. She closed the letter on a chummy note, “I’m sorry for any anxiety this article caused and look forward to seeing you in Dallas at the SACSCOC Annual Meeting.”

UNC, continuing the craven behavior that has marked its entire response to this scandal, distributed the letter as an “all clear” from its accrediting agency and a final correction to what its leaders consider misleading reporting. But what the letter represents is the whimper of a toothless accrediting agency. Wheelan publicly discredited The N&O report, but tellingly never requested a correction. If she had, she wouldn’t have gotten one. Kane reported her comments accurately.

Accrediting agencies need to be wary of protecting those they regulate. Financial accrediting agencies wrongly gave top ratings to risky mortgages securities leading up the 2008 financial crisis and academic accreditation agencies have certified for-profit schools that plundered the federal student loan program. It’s true that university accrediting agencies are limited by only two disciplinary choices – largely meaningless probation or the nuclear option of revoking accreditation. But Wheelan had a third option. She could have told the truth about what she told The N&O and she could could written a warning letter expressing concern about UNC’s NCAA defense of the classes and compelled UNC to formally admit the classes were fraudulent. UNC would keep its accreditation, but at least the record would be set straight.

Instead, the head of the accrediting agency told the head of UNC she was sorry for any anxiety created by the truth. And that, truly, is a sorry end to this whole sorry episode.

This story was originally published November 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM with the headline "In the UNC scandal, the accrediting agency fumbled the NCAA's punt."