In October of 2014, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill published the results of an internal investigation into an academic fraud scheme in place for years, accusing philosophy faculty member Jan Boxill of involvement in directing students to take “fake” classes and providing them with impermissible degrees of assistance. This was followed by a report by the NCAA lambasting UNC, which included accusations along the same lines against several people including Boxill. Boxill ultimately resigned, but defended herself.
Now, UNC is preparing to submit its response to the NCAA, and it either includes or will be accompanied by a response from Boxill’s attorney, Randall Roden, according to The News & Observer:
Roden… denied those allegations in a draft of the response to the NCAA.
“It did not happen,” the response said. “Not one of the Allegations against Jan Boxill is true.”
Roden also wrote a letter to the NCAA enforcement staff, objecting to the process. He said the university and the NCAA pushed a theory of misconduct based on speculation from incomplete records taken out of context. The letter said the evidence gathering and review regarding Boxill “has been impossibly burdensome and fundamentally unfair.”
The full response from Boxill’s attorney is expected to present emails to contest accusations that Boxill wrote portions of students’ assignments.
“The text in the emails that UNC and the NCAA accuse Jan Boxill of writing came from the students themselves, not from Dr. Boxill,” Roden’s response said. “She has consistently been denied access to the database of her own emails that would have enabled her to demonstrate the truth. But through months and months of painstaking research and talking to the students themselves, she has been able to reconstruct many of the specific interactions – and now has emails that show without doubt that the questioned material was created by the students and given to Dr. Boxill by the students. This entire case is based on assumptions that are not correct and are not supported by a single witness.”
UPDATE (8/3/16): Further details here.