SACS Wants More Evidence UNC’s Changes Are Working
The University’s accreditation agency says that while UNC has made progress toward compliance with seven of the agency’s standards, it has yet to provide sufficient evidence that changes and initiatives arising from the long-running academic fraud case have been effective in correcting the situation.
A letter to Chancellor Carol L. Folt from Belle Wheelan, president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, tells more of what SACS expects from UNC to allow the University to be taken off probation in June 2016. For example, SACS says UNC must codify and demonstrate consistent application of changes in the department of African, African-American and diaspora studies and must show success from initiatives on how the University handles the academic lives of athletes.
The letter said that while UNC had made changes in its academic-support program for athletes, “the evidence is insufficient to determine compliance.”
In November, SACS notified the University that UNC was out of compliance with standards in 18 categories. In June, the commission’s board of trustees said that it was satisfied with UNC’s progress in 11 of those areas but that the University had failed to meet SACS’ standards in seven remaining categories: integrity, program content, control of intercollegiate athletics, academic-support services, academic freedom, faculty role in governance and handling of federal funding for financial aid.
The agency placed the University on probation for one year and authorized a special committee to visit Chapel Hill and review progress toward compliance.
In a disclosure statement sent to UNC on June 18, SACS provided a detailed definition of probation and an explanation of why UNC was given that status as opposed to a less serious warning of noncompliance. That letter read in part:
“Probation is the Commission’s most serious sanction, short of loss of membership, and can be imposed on an institution for failure to correct deficiencies of significant non-compliance with the Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, or Federal Requirements of the Principles of Accreditation of the Commission; failure to make timely and significant progress toward correcting the deficiencies; or failure to comply with Commission policies and procedures. The imposition of Probation is an indication of the gravity of non-compliance with the Principles.”
In the more recent letter, Wheelan wrote, “Please note that an institution’s accreditation cannot be extended if it has been on Probation for two successive years.”
Folt issued a statement that read: “We appreciate the additional information and guidance from the commission and welcome this opportunity not only to submit a report to demonstrate the effectiveness of the reform measures identified in the letter, but also to meet next spring with the commission’s special committee to further show the University’s compliance with its accreditation standards.”
Folt said she and Provost James Dean met with Wheelan “to underscore that the University firmly believes it has done everything possible to address and move beyond the past academic irregularities that ended four years ago — to prevent them from recurring and to ensuring integrity in everything that we do.”
When SACS notified the University of the probation in June, Wheelan said it was the first time in her 10 years with the commission that SACS had put a school on probation for matters of academic integrity.
“It is very serious, since it’s gone on for so long and so many students were impacted by it,” Wheelan said, referring to the case of academic fraud centered in the former department of African and Afro-American studies that went on for 18 years and involved athletes disproportionately.
SACS first investigated UNC in 2012, and early in 2013 it notified the University that UNC was out of compliance with principles of accreditation in the academic fraud case. It advised UNC to “take immediate steps” to come into compliance with its standards on academic policies, academic support services and student records and with the federal definition of college credit hours.
The commission stopped short of placing UNC on probation that time. In June 2013, SACS announced it had decided not to sanction the University. It asked UNC to provide a monitoring report by the following June on continued progress with academic procedures in the department. UNC subsequently offered free makeup classes to about 80 students and more than 300 alumni who had enrolled in AFAM courses that were not taught. Independent investigator Kenneth Wainstein had reported that the paper classes ended in 2011. The offer of the free makeup classes drew little interest.
SACS opened its latest probe late last fall, saying the information in the Wainstein report on academics and athletics irregularities raised questions about UNC’s compliance with its principles of accreditation.
