1. DIVISION I Academic Misconduct – Application of new legislation
Carolyn M. Callahan, University of Virginia
Kurt Zorn, Indiana University
This is a divider slide, intended to go between presentation topic sections. It can also be used to identify your department/group name as the presenter.
If you opt to use this slide as a divider slide, the master title text box area is where you will type in the presentation’s name and the subhead text box is where you will type in the presentation’s section name, department/group name or other content.

2. Presentation Overview
History/Legislative Background.
Case studies.
Campus implementation.
Best practices.
Resources.

3. History & Legislative Overview

4. Basis for Legislative Review
1983 last legislative update to existing national framework.
Media and congressional attention.
Student-athletes’ integral role in student body.
Lack of clarity & consistency to existing approach.
Summary of impetus for review of existing legislative approach to academic integrity issues.

5. Legislative Process
Targeted review of academic misconduct legislation and regulatory structure (+/- 3 years)
Core principles identified  proposed legislation developed (+/- 1 ½ years)
Academic integrity proposal sponsored. (Summer 2015)
Continued membership outreach and proposal refinement.
Proposal adopted.
Effective, August 1, (April 2016)

6. Institutional Policies & Procedures
Old
Not required.
Current
Maintain and follow policies and procedures regarding academic misconduct that are:
Written;
Accessible; and
Apply to general student body.
Content and scope determined by institution.
Former legislative approach did not require that institutions maintain policies to deal with academic misconduct issues. Contributed to perceived lack of consistency in application of old legislation.
New legislation requires institutions to maintain and/or establish written academic misconduct policies and procedures that are applicable to general student body. Legislation defers to institutions to determine proper content and scope of institutional misconduct policies & procedures. Policies must apply equally/consistently to student-athletes and non-athlete students, alike; however, an expedited review process may be incorporated into written policies for student-athletes.

7. Academic Misconduct: Staff Involvement
Old
Conduct violates institution’s academic misconduct policies and either:
Results in falsification of student-athlete’s academic record; or
Enables student-athlete to compete.
Current
Results in falsification of student-athlete’s academic record;
Enables student-athlete to compete or receive athletics aid; or
Involves an institutional staff member or booster.
Former legislative approach did not find an academic misconduct violaton unless institutional staff or booster involvement with an academic integrity issue resulted in the falsification of a student-athlete’s academic record or enabled the student-athlete to compete.
Now, institutional staff or booster involvement with an academic integrity issue in and of itself would constitute an NCAA academic misconduct violation.
This shift reflects a fundamental emphasis on adult behavior. Individuals who meet the definition of institutional staff members or boosters should be held responsible when involved in activity that violates an institution's academic misconduct policies & procedures.

8. Academic Misconduct: Staff Involvement
Old:
Conduct violates the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures
Arrangement of Fraudulent Academic Credit or False Transcripts?
Yes to either?
No to both?
-or-
No NCAA 10.1(b)
Violation
NCAA 10.1(b)
Competed Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
Current:
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
NCAA Academic Misconduct Violation
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
Conduct violates the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures
Visual compares former approach to NCAA 10.1-(b) violations to new academic misconduct legislation and its emphasis on adult behavior.
No NCAA Violations

9. Institutional Staff Members
Staff Involvement
Institutional staff members shall not be involved in:
Conduct that violates the institution’s written policies & procedures regarding academic misconduct;
Falsification or alteration of the student-athlete’s academic record;
Knowing submission of erroneous APP data; nor,
Impermissible academic assistance.
Institutional Staff Members
Non-Student Staff
Student Employees
Performs work for institution.
Regardless of compensation.
Includes work within the athletics department.
Responsibilities include the provision of academic services to student-athletes; OR,
Engages in academic misconduct or impermissible academic assistance at the direction of nonstudent staff or a booster.
Clarifies who would be treated as an “institutional staff member” for purposes of new legislation.
For non-student staff, anyone who performs work for the institution (including volunteers) would be treated as institutional staff.
For student employees, their job responsibilities must include the provision of academic services to student-athletes (e.g., work in the institution’s “Student-Athlete Support Center” and provide tutoring to student-athletes). The analysis of whether a student employee meets this definition becomes more fact-specific at institutions that structure the academic support of their student-athletes in a less linear/demarcated fashion.
Additionally, a student-employee who does not meet the definition of an institutional staff member based on the aforementioned definition would still be treated as an institutional staff member if they are directed to engage in academic misconduct by someone who meets the definition themself (e.g., a coach, or booster).

10. Impermissible Academic Assistance: Reduced Scope
Extra Benefit
Impermissible Academic Assistance
Must meet all criteria:
Assistance/exception does not violate institution’s misconduct policies; however,
Assistance/exception provided is not generally available to all students;
Assistance/exception provided is not already permitted by NCAA Bylaw 16.3 (e.g., general academic support);
Assistance/exception was substantial;
Institutional staff member/booster was involved; and
Leads to eligibility.
Impermissible academic assistance analysis, replaces former academic extra analysis employed.
New analysis only applies to conduct that falls outside of an institution’s own academic misconduct policies & procedures, but still has the following features that in sum warrant an NCAA impermissible academic assistance violation:
Assistance/exception provided to student-athlete doesn’t violate institution’s misconduct policies & procedures;
Assistance/exception provided is not generally available to the broader student body;
Assistance/exception provided is not the type of general academic support that may be provided to student-athletes (as specified in Bylaw 16.3);
Assistance/exception provided was substantial (e.g., impacted the student-athlete’s final grade in a course);
Someone who meets the institutional staff member or booster definition was involved; AND
Assistance/exception enabled the student-athlete to be eligible for competition.

11. Extra Benefit v. Impermissible Academic Assistance
Old:
Academic assistance or exception provided is not generally available to other students on institution’s campus on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.
Yes?
No?
NCAA Extra Benefit
Violation
No NCAA
Current:
Conduct does not violate institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
No NCAA Violations
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance Violation
Visual comparison between former academic extra benefit analysis and new impermissible academic assistance analysis.

12. Adopted Framework – Full Picture
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
NCAA
Academic Misconduct Violation
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
No NCAA Violations
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
If No
If Yes
Comprehensive visual of new NCAA academic misconduct framework.
Designed to emphasize how an institution’s written academic misconduct policies & procedures determine what type of analysis (NCAA academic misconduct, or NCAA impermissible academic assistance) must be applied to a given academic integrity issue involving a student-athlete.
One or the other – never both.

13. CASE STUDIES

14. CASE STUDY NO. 1 – Student-Athlete
A student-athlete cheats with other students on a final exam.
Conduct violates the institution’s academic Honor Code.
The professor fails the student-athlete, along with all students involved.
Despite the failed course, student-athlete remains academically eligible for the subsequent term.
Has an NCAA violation occurred?

15. CASE STUDY NO. 1 – Student-Athlete – Current
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
No NCAA Violations
If No
If Yes
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
Did cheating violate institution’s own academic misconduct policies & procedures? YES. (right side of chart will disappear – move to NCAA academic misconduct analysis).
Were any of the NCAA academic misconduct features present? NO. (Not to all option will highlight appropriately).
As a result, no NCAA violations to report. (Green circle will highlight appropriately). However, institutions expected to follow its own institutional policies & procedures for Honor Code violation.
NCAA
Academic Misconduct Violation
No NCAA Violations

16. CASE STUDY NO. 2 – Coaching Staff
An assistant coach helps an incoming junior college transfer with an online math course during the summer prior to transfer.
The student-athlete needed the math course to meet the transfer requirements.
Compliance learns of the incident at the start of football season and withholds the student-athlete from the football season.
At the end of the fall term, the institution determines that the assistant coach’s conduct violated its institutional academic misconduct policies and the coach is released.
Has an NCAA violation occurred?

17. CASE STUDY NO. 2 – Coaching Staff - Current
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
No NCAA Violations
If No
If Yes
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
Did coach’s involvement with the student-athlete’s summer coursework violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures? YES. (right side of chart will disappear – move to NCAA academic misconduct analysis).
Were any of the NCAA academic misconduct features present? YES. (Coach’s involvement  institutional staff member box will highlight appropriately).
As a result, NCAA VIOLATION must be reported. (remaining indicators will highlight appropriately).
NCAA Academic Misconduct Violation
No NCAA Violations

18. CASE STUDY NO. 3 – Grade Change
A student-athlete is ineligible due to her failure to achieve a GPA by the start of her senior year. 
A sympathetic professor agrees to convert the student-athlete’s grade of ‘F’ to an ‘Incomplete’ for the fall term.
The professor has provided similar flexibility to other students in the past.
The student-athlete’s GPA improves to a
The institution’s grade change policy does not prohibit this type of decision.
Has an NCAA violation occurred?

19. CASE STUDY NO. 3 – Grade Change
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
NCAA Academic Misconduct Violation
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
No NCAA Violations
If Yes
If No
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Did the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures preclude this type of grade change made by the professor? NO. (left side of the flowchart will disappear).
Apply the impermissible academic assistance criteria to the facts.
Since the professor has applied similar grade change flexibility in the past to other students, the second criteria would not be present. (this criteria will disappear). No need to go through remainder of analysis.
As a result, not all criteria are present to find an impermissible academic assistance violation. (block will highlight appropriately).
Therefore, NO NCAA VIOLATION to report.
Yes to all?
No to any?
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
No NCAA Violations

20. CASE STUDY NO. 4 – Extra Credit
Student-athlete fails to turn in a final assignment, which is the majority of his grade in a course.
The professor, who knows the student-athlete well, awards the student- athlete a passing grade under the assumption that the student-athlete would have passed the course he had turned in the final assignment. 
The professor has not awarded hypothetical credit to other students in the past.
The student-athlete needs this course to maintain his eligibility.
The institution’s grading policies do not address this type of conduct.
Has an NCAA violation occurred?

21. CASE STUDY NO. 4 – Extra Credit
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
Academic Misconduct Violation
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
No NCAA Violations
If Yes
If No
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
Did the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures preclude this type of extra credit provided by the professor? NO. (left side of the flowchart will disappear).
Apply the impermissible academic assistance criteria to the facts – (each criteria will become underlined after it’s discussed/confirmed).
Was the type of exception provided for this student-athlete substantial? YES – the final assignment made up the majority of the grade in the course.
Was the type of exception generally available to other students? NO – professor never provided similar flexibility in the past.
Was this the type of general academic assistance that may be provided to student-athletes via Bylaw 16.3? NO.
Was an institutional staff member or booster involved? YES.
Did the exception provided to the student-athlete enable him to maintain his athletics eligibility for the forthcoming term? YES.
As a result, since all criteria are present – an NCAA impermissible academic assistance violation must be reported. (blocks will highlight appropriately).
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
No NCAA Violations

22. CASE STUDY NO. 5 – Private Tutor
An ice hockey student-athlete hires a private non-institutional tutor to help with a challenging philosophy class.
The institution is unaware of this arrangement.
Throughout the duration of the fall semester, the tutor completes multiple assignments for the student-athlete.
After being awarded an ‘A’ in the course, the student-athlete’s work is flagged for closer review by the dean of the department.
During the spring semester, it is determined that the student-athlete’s conduct violated the institution’s academic integrity policies & procedures.
The student-athlete’s is retroactively failed in the course, and should have been academically ineligible for the spring semester, during which he competed.
Has an NCAA violation occurred?

23. CASE STUDY NO. 5 – Private Tutor
Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?
NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance
Violation
Substantial academic assistance or exception;
Not generally available to institution’s students;
Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3;
Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
Results in certification of eligibility.
Yes to all?
No to any?
No NCAA Violations
If No
If Yes
Alteration or Falsification of Transcript or Academic Record?
Institutional Staff or Booster Involvement?
Competed or Received Aid Based on Erroneous Declaration of Eligibility?
Yes to any?
No to all?
-or-
Did private tutor’s conduct with the student-athlete violate institution’s own academic misconduct policies & procedures? YES. (right side of chart will disappear – move to NCAA academic misconduct analysis).
Were any of the NCAA academic misconduct features present? YES. (Arguably, a falsification of the student-athlete’s record and competed while ineligible both present based on these facts).
As a result, an NCAA violation must be reported. (red circle will highlight appropriately).
NCAA
Academic Misconduct Violation
No NCAA Violations

24. Campus Implementation & Best Practices

25. Campus Implementation Checklist
In the absence of existing institutional policies & procedures regarding academic integrity, establish written policies.
Ensure written policies & procedures are accessible to students and staff.
Establish written expedited review process for student-athletes, if desirable.
Red = Legislative Requirement as of August 1, 2016.
Black = Not required. Institutional opportunity.

26. Campus Implementation Checklist
Review existing institutional policies & procedures regarding academic misconduct.
Does content and scope provide an appropriate and desirable framework for your campus and its academic culture?
Should differences across programs and/or schools be reflected in written policies & procedures?

27. Campus Implementation Checklist
Identify appropriate entities involved in operationalization of institutional misconduct policies & procedures.
Establish necessary communication protocol and intra- campus communication lines/channels.
Establish athletics department protocol regarding impact on student-athlete’s ongoing athletics eligibility.
Educate staff and external audiences (e.g., boosters) appropriately.
Suggest that the desired clarity be incorporated into institution’s written policies & procedures.

28. Best Practices - Opportunities
The adopted legislation defers to institutions to determine the content of their institutional policies & procedures regarding academic misconduct.
Possible areas to consider addressing via institutional policy & procedures include (but are not limited to):
Testing procedures & protocol;
Extra credit protocol;
Tutoring/mentoring protocol;
Waiver of course requirements protocol;
Grade change control & protocol;
Independent decision making authority by academic departments and/or schools; etc.
Other.
Designed to help institutions determine the type of content/policy issues to potentially address within written policies & procedures.
Not prescriptive or comprehensive.