Skip to main content
Link to news home page
News

Investigation supports decision to let accused players compete, offers ways to prevent future incidents

March 7, 2003

An investigation by the UW–Madison chancellor’s office into allegations that a small number of football players cheated on a take-home final examination reaffirms the chancellor’s original decision to let them compete in the 2002 Alamo Bowl, Dec. 28.

A review of the conduct in question and the decision to let the student-athletes compete was the first part of a two-part investigation, led by Casey Nagy, executive assistant to the chancellor, and David McDonald, the chancellor’s special assistant for athletics, made public Friday.

The second part of the investigation reviewed existing procedures within the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics to promote academic integrity, and made recommendations for improvement.

The investigation stems from allegations made against the student-athletes Dec. 20, the final day of the semester and two days before the team was to depart for San Antonio. At that time, Chancellor John Wiley consulted with the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics and the Big Ten, and formed an interviewing team to question the student-athletes and others involved in the allegations.

It was quickly determined that the allegations did not represent the type of rules violation that would require UW–Madison to revoke the player’s post-season eligibility, a decision reaffirmed by the investigation.

“Eligibility is implicated only if there is evidence of institutional complicity in academic misconduct,” a report on the investigation states. “Since there is no reason whatsoever to believe that institutional officers, agents or employees participated in the students’ conduct that is under scrutiny, eligibility considerations are not raised by that conduct.”

A determination of whether the student-athletes’ behavior constitutes academic misconduct is solely the responsibility of the course instructor and the Dean of Students’ office. Any such investigation would be handled separately and, in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), would be conducted in the strictest confidence.

Part I: The Conduct in Question
The investigation report notes that the student-athletes were very open and cooperative when questioned, but insisted that they had not knowingly done anything wrong. Prior to the Alamo Bowl, the accused student-athletes agreed to several interviews and turned over all requested evidence.

The chancellor’s office also looked at the class itself, an online course titled Social Work 644, and interviewed its instructors, as well as conducted interviews with a wide range of personnel from the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics.

The investigation found that some – but not all — of the accused student-athletes appeared to have collaborated on their exam answers, as evidenced by verbatim passages in each of their exams. The student-athletes admit to collaborating on how to answer some of the questions, but say they completed their answers independently of one another.

The investigation also found that at least one student acknowledged using a file containing course resource materials at the Fetzer Academic Center, UW–Madison’s study center for student-athletes, to help him complete the exam. Though using the file was not expressly prohibited, the student admits to finding a previous year’s exam in the file, and copying some of its answers onto his own exam.

“There can be no question that the conduct in question represents plagiarism and duplication of work product,” the report states. However, the report has no further discussion of individual culpability or potential institutional sanctions.

“Whether the features described above ultimately are found to constitute academic misconduct is a question that must be resolved through the independent actions of the course instructor and the Dean of Students Office, following established rules of procedure,” the report states.

Part II: Review of Academic Support Practices for Student-Athletes
Though there is no reason to suspect involvement of UW–Madison personnel in any academic misconduct, the first part of the investigation did reveal the need to review existing academic support services for student-athletes and to make suggestions for improvement.

The investigation commends the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics’ academic advisors and learning specialists for their dedication to helping student-athletes succeed in the classroom without resorting to illegitimate means. But the investigation notes that there is room for improvement in the division’s student-athlete support structure.

“An enormous amount of energy and significant divisional resources are dedicated toward promoting academic success for student-athletes, but there is insufficient systemic continuity or accountability accorded this endeavor,” the report states.

The report recommends a series of actions meant to enhance the university’s ability to support student-athletes, including:

  • Reconfiguration of the staffing and layout of the computer lab in the Fetzer Academic Center to discourage inappropriate collaboration on course work
  • Ensuring that course files in Fetzer are maintained by academic advisors or learning specialists, and that they are routinely screened for inappropriate material
  • Developing measures to ensure that as student-athletes, coaches, administrators, academic advisors and learning specialists build relationships and loyalty, they remain able to provide objective assistance.
  • Hiring a tutorial coordinator as soon as possible.
  • Enhancing the existing orientation available to student-athletes on such issues as plagiarism, inappropriate collaboration, and academic misconduct.
  • Develop a uniform set of guidelines to be used when sanctioning student-athletes for both academic and non-academic infractions, and creating a permanent campus committee charged with imposing those sanctions.

The report also says that while coaches promote academic success, achievement in the classroom is not part of the reward structure available to both coaches and student-athletes.

“One positive step in this direction is underway, and involves the establishment of a national honor society chapter at the university specifically designed for student-athletes,” the report states. “Another significant step would involve integration of academic incentives into the reward structure available to coaches and staff.”