CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – The NCAA acknowledged in procedural documents released publicly on Tuesday that determining the legitimacy of the University of North Carolina’s irregular AFAM courses is beyond its jurisdictional scope and that its allegations against the institution are focused on the arrangements that were afforded to student-athletes with regard to those courses.

The enforcement staff’s written reply, which was delivered to the Committee on Infractions hearing panel 60 days after UNC’s response to its third notice of allegations, lays out the NCAA’s argument ahead of next month’s COI hearing. The document indicates the enforcement staff’s allegations are based on a “straightforward application” of the facts of the case as it relates to the bylaws in place, not to the quality of the AFAM courses in question.

“It is equally important to be clear what this case is not about,” the enforcement staff wrote. "This case is not about so-called fake classes or easy courses. The institution acknowledges that although the courses at issue did not meet its expectations for academic rigor, the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent. Nor is this case about NCAA review of classroom curriculum. The institution continues to argue that the NCAA enforcement staff should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions. The enforcement staff continues to agree and feels strongly that those considerations are reserved to the sound discretion of individual schools and their accrediting agencies. Nothing in this case suggests otherwise.”

Attempting to penalize UNC on the legitimacy of the AFAM courses appeared to be a losing argument from the beginning, especially given the NCAA’s stance in court that it has never regulated the content of college courses and that it does not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education received by student-athletes at member institutions. That stance played a significant role in a federal judge dismissing the NCAA as a defendant in the class-action lawsuit filed by former UNC student-athletes Rashanda McCants and Devon Ramsay in 2015.

By shifting its approach to the access and assistance provided for the irregular courses, the NCAA maintains its ability to allege impermissible benefits and a lack of institutional control without having to prove academic fraud.

In Allegation 1b, the NCAA enforcement staff states that “while general students had to work directly with [Deborah] Crowder or [Julius] Nyang’oro to access and complete the anomalous courses, the institution and its athletic department provided student-athletes with special arrangements that were not generally available to the student body.”

UNC countered that charge in its NOA response by providing multiple emails of campus academic counselors contacting Crowder or Nyang’oro for similar arrangements for non-athletes. One such email consisted of Alice Dawson, the Senior Assistant Dean of the Academic Advising Program, asking an AFAM staff member about enrolling a student into an independent study course two weeks after the final day of registration.

The NCAA contends such emails fail to help UNC, referencing the proportions in play between the number of student-athletes and general population. While the enforcement staff agrees “that proportionality of student-athlete enrollment is not an NCAA violation,” it maintains the high student-athlete enrollment is “a clear manifestation and illustration of the extra benefit of preferential access.”

The special arrangements cited in Allegation 1b included “athletics personnel” contacting the AFAM department to register student-athletes for classes, sometimes after the enrollment deadline had passed, obtaining assignments for the student-athletes, suggesting assignments as well as submitting assignments for the student-athletes.

The “athletics personnel” the NCAA references were actually ASPSA academic counselors, who were not employed by the athletic department but rather the University’s College of Arts & Sciences.

UNC believes the aforementioned special arrangements fall under Bylaw 16.3, which makes academic and other support services mandatory. Bylaw 16.3.1.1 reads: “Member institutions shall make general academic counseling and tutoring services available to all student-athletes. Such counseling and tutoring services may be provided by the department of athletics or the institution’s nonathletics student support services.”

UNC is not alone in its bylaw interpretation. In July 2015, Brad Hostetter, the ACC’s senior associate commissioner and chief of internal affairs, provided a bylaw interpretation at UNC’s request. The memo shared the ACC compliance staff’s opinion that it was permissible under Bylaw 16.3 for athletics academic counselors to contact academic department staff members regarding each of the following: to check the availability of courses; to request that courses be offered; to register student-athletes; to request and obtain student-athletes’ assignments; and to submit or otherwise “turn in” student-athletes’ assignments.

If that manner of academic support is permitted under NCAA bylaws, it cannot be deemed an extra benefit under Bylaw 16.11.2.1, which defines extra benefits as benefits “not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.”

The NCAA, however, disagrees with the interpretations of both UNC and the ACC. The document suggests the academic support permitted by Bylaw 16.3.1.1 is not unlimited and does not include “access to and assistance in” courses such as the irregular AFAM classes.

“Put simply, student-athletes received access to and assistance in certain courses that was not generally available to other students,” the written reply reads. “The arrangements violated familiar NCAA bylaws and operated to the competitive disadvantage of other schools.”

Regarding Allegation 1b, the NCAA’s written reply states that obtaining assignments and turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes is not permitted, as those “are basic educational tasks all students are expected to perform, yet numerous student-athletes at the institution were relieved of these obligations while administrators performed them instead.”

The NCAA further condemned what it viewed as recommended grade suggestions for student-athletes and also criticized the actions of athletics academic counselors who “used these courses to help maintain NCAA eligibility for student-athletes who were at risk academically.”

The COI hearing is scheduled for Aug. 16-17 in Nashville, Tenn. UNC basketball coach Roy Williams, football coach Larry Fedora and women's basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell will join athletic director Bubba Cunningham and other school officials at the hearing. The NCAA typically delivers its infractions report and announces any potential penalties 8-12 weeks after the hearing.