By Professor
Doom
So, last time around I went step by step
through SACS accreditation procedures to see what it would take for SACS to
even notice a direct, documented, extreme case of fraud like what was going on
at UNC (and parallels of such fraud go on at many other institutions, I promise
you).
After some 18 years, it’s now established
beyond all doubt that UNC was engaging in widespread fraud, and now SACS, the
organization that accredits UNC, and in the eyes of many, guarantees the
legitimacy of education at UNC and other institutions of higher education, will
slowly, reluctantly, try to do something about it.
You can go to jail for grade fixing. So what’s the penalty for this
level of institutionalized fraud?
This week, a letter will be sent to UNC-CH officials
informing them of the new probe, said Belle Wheelan, president of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Colleges. The review will focus
on the findings of the Oct. 22 Wainstein report, which revealed nearly two
decades of academic fraud, including hundreds of fake independent studies and
no-show classes in African and Afro-American Studies taken by more than 3,100
students.
The scope of the academic misdeeds is unlike anything
Wheelan said she’d seen.
First thing SACS will do is write UNC a
letter.
A
letter! Oh man, UNC must be a’quaking.
This letter will let them know that SACS is
coming to take a closer look. While this might sound scary, the gentle reader
needs to realize that the purpose of this letter is to give UNC the time it
needs to set up a Potemkin school, one that looks all nice and legit. Having
been at a few schools that set up Potemkin classrooms for accreditors, I know
this part of the game.
SACS’ Poo-Bah says the scope of the fraud
is unlike anything she’d seen before, but the gentle reader needs to also
realize, SACS’ complaint and investigation policies are set up so that it’s all
but impossible for SACS to see any widespread fraud, as my previous post
discussed in some detail.
Against all odds, the fraud at UNC has at
last been revealed.
What of the penalty for such fraud? In
every other business that is regulated, gross violations of the rules results
in some sort of penalty. What’s the price for the last 18 years of fraud?
So far, basically nothing:
The board found deficiencies in UNC-CH’s compliance with its
standards for academic policies, student services, student records and class
credit hours. It required UNC-CH to offer students and graduates, at no cost,
courses to make up for the phony classes.
No graduates returned for the classes, but about a dozen
students took another course, because the AFAM courses in question could not
count toward a diploma.
So, the penalty for giving fake classes
was…offer legit classes, legitimacy determined by UNC (!!!). Of the THOUSANDS
of students that were involved over the course of 18 years, “about a dozen” decided to take another course. No graduates,
of course, as they’re long gone with their bogus degrees…I’m sure legitimate
alumni feel great about that. Or am I making a bad assumption about there being
legitimate alumni?
A few students still on campus did take
another course. Not in the African Studies department, naturally, since
everyone knows that department’s “coursework” is worthless. I really feel the
need to point out that African Studies is not by any means the only department
offering widespread bogus courses (hi, Education department!). Keep in mind,
the students that took bogus courses in AFAM almost certainly just moved on to
taking a bogus course in a different department. Anyone with half a brain would
ask what those students took, and what their majors are, but I digress.
But…wait a minute here. That’s not how
penalties for criminal behavior work anywhere else. I mean, if I rob a bank,
the penalty I pay when I’m caught isn’t simply “return every dollar”, right? If
I claim I’m selling diamonds and charge for diamonds, but I’m actually selling
glass, and I’m caught after 18 years of such fraud, my penalty isn’t going to be “you’ll have to give a few of them another
piece of glass.”
Heck, UNC doesn’t even have to return the
tuition money it stole, money mostly stolen from taxpayers. Instead, they just
had to offer the robbed students a chance to take some other bogus coursework.
Believe you me, the Poo-Bahs at other
institutions are looking at this and breathing a sigh of relief…they know when
and if the fraud going on at their institutions is ever caught, their slap on
the wrist will feel more like a kiss.
I often trash higher education
administrators for their utter lack of integrity, and the shamelessness in
which they exploit our children and our Federal government’s student loan scam.
I acknowledge that I’ve actually met a Poo-Bah with integrity, and there are
certainly a few around:
President Rosenberg (I refer to him as
President rather than Poo-Bah because he’s actually worthy of a real title)
makes an extremely valid point, albeit one I’ve made in my blog many times. If
accreditation in no way assures even the slightest level of legitimacy of an
institution, what’s accreditation for? Why BOTHER with it? UNC engaged in
creating fraudulent courses and transcripts for 18 years, and the best penalty
accreditation can come up with is “you’re gonna have to do something less
openly fraudulent.”
Imagine if, instead, as President
Rosenberg advises, SACS removed accreditation from UNC as a result of UNC’s systemic,
long running, fraud. That would send a real message to higher education that it
would be time to put some integrity back into the system.
I really should point out that President
Rosenberg is most extraordinary in having such integrity:
UNC-CH Chancellor Carol Folt said she had talked with about
two dozen presidents of major universities, none of whom suggested such an
outcome.
“I actually think that was a pretty outrageous assertion
from a president,” Folt said.
The gentle reader should take note here: the
Poo-Bah of UNC admits only 1 out of 26 Poo-Bahs in higher education has even a
shred of integrity, and is shameless about it. Seriously, it’s “outrageous” to
think there should be a severe penalty for this level of fraud? I again come
back to President Rosenberg’s point: if widespread, open, fraud, over the
course of 18 years doesn’t even risk the
loss of accreditation, what would?
Again, why bother with accreditation if
it’s completely meaningless?
Yes, this question has been asked before
of other fraudulent institutions. It will keep getting asked as fraud after fraud is revealed
in higher education. I promise you, many institutions have systems very
comparable to UNC.
Next time, I’ll look at the current cover-up
by UNC, and more accreditation practices.
What are your thoughts on the AAU? I would hope to see the AAU put UNC on probation or put a revocation of its membership to a vote. The AAU dropped Nebraska for much less than what UNC has done and sent Oregon scrambling to up its percentage of tenured professors, in fear that it may risk losing AAU membership also (lack of tenure seems to be one of your main issues to blog on). The American Assoc of Universities isn't really an accrediting institution, but rather an invite-only club of elite research universities. If the AAU put UNC's membership (dating back to 1922) at risk, that would send a strong message. Administration has to answer to donors and losing AAU membership would be more hazardous for an administrator's career than than get blown out of the first round of the NIT.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced the AAU is really going to have that much leverage over UNC. Losing the AAU would be inconvenient, but ultimately I doubt UNC admin would care. Now, if it was the NCAA punting UNC, well, *that* would be catastrophic, and, ultimately, it's the only reason UNC is going to do anything substantive about it.
DeleteIf the AAU could cut off all research money going to UNC, that would be leverage. But right now the bulk of money going into UNC is in weak (or bogus) coursework, coursework only paid for through the student loan scam, which only goes to accredited institutions.
I'm fairly conflicted about tenure; what's really needed at this point is a union (yes, I know there is one, sort of, but as long as admin can just ignore it, it doesn't count). I'm conflicted about unions, too, but right now the abuses casually heaped on faculty are just too commonplace not to be willing to accept some "evil" as lesser than the abuses. Tenure and unions are both evils, but if accreditation cannot be fixed, I lack any other solutions.