UNC Engulfed in Scandal

Adam Mancini
Sports Editor

Amid recent allegations of yet another academic scandal, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has gone on the defensive. Mary Willingham, a learning specialist at the UNC Center for Student Success and Academic Counseling, claims she has conducted research into the literacy levels of athletes of the most prestigious teams of the university, including the football team. According to Willingham, 8 to 10 percent of student athletes who played football or basketball between 2004 and 2012 read at a third-grade level or below, and 60 percent read between fourth and eighth-grade levels. Immediately after releasing the findings of her research, UNC refuted her claims, questioning her data. Provost Jim Dean brushed the research off as “a travesty, and unworthy of this university.”

This is not the first time that the university has been wrapped up in an academic scandal. In 2010, the National Collegiate Athletic Association made allegations claiming that UNC student athletes received preferential treatment and impermissible benefits, including seven players who received more than $27,000 in benefits between 2009 and 2010. Additionally, a tutor allegedly helped two players by writing portions of papers and conducting research for them. In 2012, Willingham blew the whistle on a huge system of academic fraud at UNC, in which many athletes registered for (and got high grades in) classes that they never attended.

Are these allegations against UNC indicative of what is happening across all of college sports? College athletic budgets are massive, and the big-time sports generate huge amounts of revenue for schools, giving them the perfect incentive to ensure that their athletes focus on their sports instead of academics. So with a lessened emphasis on education, the graduation rates of student athletes should be lower than that of other students, right? Not so. A federal report showed that college athletes were actually one percent more likely to graduate in six years than other students.

But things are different at UNC-Chapel Hill, especially when it comes to football, the school’s marquee sport. The six-year graduation rate at the university stands at 89 percent for all students, fourth highest in the nation, while only slightly above 65 percent football players graduated within six years. The results were comparable to those of North Carolina State University (64 percent) and Eastern Carolina University (66 percent). Be that as it may, these percentages are based on the NCAA’s forgiving “Graduation Success Rate” calculations, which does not account for the departure of players who leave early while still in good academic standing. When accounting for this, the graduation rate of UNC football players drops to just over 50 percent. At NCSU and ECU the rate falls to 57 percent. 

However, it is difficult to compare Willingham’s reading-level findings to those of any other school because only one other person has ever published data on the topic. That person is University of Oklahoma professor Gerald Gurney, who found that 10 percent of student athletes at the university were reading below a fourth-grade level. While his findings are parallel to those of Willingham at UNC, it is difficult to tell if these low reading levels are commonplace across all universities because of a lack of research.

UNC-Chapel Hill officials continue to reiterate that the research is flawed, claiming that 97 percent of the school’s student-athletes between 2004 and 2012 met the minimum requirements for being “college literate.” Men’s basketball head coach Roy Williams was very outspoken on the issue, saying, “I'm really proud of the kids we've brought in here. ... We haven't brought anybody in like that. We've had one senior since I've been here that did not graduate. Anybody can make any statement they want to make but that is not fair. The University of North Carolina doesn't do that. The University of North Carolina doesn't stand for that."

While UNC continues its attempt to reassure the public that it has done no wrong, other universities across the country would be wise to be wary of potential copy-cat investigations into their own academic programs, as Willingham may have unknowingly sparked mass suspicion of universities cutting corners to ensure athletic, and as a result, monetary success.