This is the fourth of a multi-part column series on the academic fraud scandal at UNC.

Now that the Weinstein Report has revealed the true scope of the academic fraud perpetrated by the AFAM department, the athletic department and other university officials at UNC, what level and type of punishment should the Tar Heels’ scandal incur? The NCAA has the opportunity to reaffirm the academic primacy of its mission; how will they respond to the findings in the Wainstein Report and the results of their own investigation into the matter?

When considering any possible penalties, it is important to remember how the “paper class” scheme was devised and maintained, and who knew what and when. The Weinstein Report is very clear where and how the fraud originated: The idea was hatched by AFAM department secretary Debbie Crowder, who had an illegal, albeit noble, desire to help academically disadvantaged students, especially athletes, in any way she could.

Crowder’s efforts were aided and abetted by department chair Julius Nyang’oro, who, despite his occasional moral qualms concerning his and his department’s actions, either perpetuated the scheme or allowed individuals like Crowder free rein to change grades, forge signatures and ignore the quality of assignments in the course of the grading process.

The key takeaway here is that no athletic department personnel – whether administrators, coaches, advisors or tutors – went to Crowder, Nyang’oro or anyone else in the AFAM department to suggest the initiation of academic fraud. To be sure, these individuals knew about and appreciated the existence of the scheme and, when Crowder was set to retire, lobbied hard for its continuance, but never was it their intention to commit academic fraud at the outset. Athletic department personnel were simply taking advantage of a situation they knew could be to their short-term benefit.

Because of these circumstances, I believe it would be inappropriate to give UNC the so-called “death penalty” – banning the football, basketball and other athletic teams from competition for a period of time. Even though the academic fraud seen at Chapel Hill is truly unprecedented, the fact that the athletic department wasn’t at the heart of the improprieties leads me to believe that competition bans should not be imposed (despite the fact that some current Tar Heel athletes may have been, at one point, beneficiaries of the “paper classes”).

It seems to me that more appropriate consequences from the NCAA should include, at the very least, vacating wins from the programs whose players remained academically eligible because of the “paper classes.” Penalties of this variety would likely blot out UNC’s national championships in men’s basketball in 2005 and 2009, forever tarnishing legendary coach Roy Williams’ legacy at Chapel Hill.

Speaking of Williams, I believe he should remain personally unscathed in this situation, insofar as I don’t believe it’s a collegiate coach’s responsibility to regulate or vet the classes his/her players are taking. Roy is a very prideful man, and the loss of past championships would more than rock his boat, especially when considering that he’s still incredulous that his players were even involved in the fiasco.

In addition to vacating wins, I believe the NCAA should impose a two-season postseason ban on the men’s basketball and football teams (and any other programs found to have significantly benefited from the AFAM department’s academic fraud), as well as reduction in available scholarships for a period not to exceed two years.

Furthermore, the entire athletic department should be placed on NCAA-administered probation for the period of time equal to the length of time the “paper class” scheme was in place, namely somewhere in the vicinity of 15-20 years. Under the terms of this probation, the UNC athletic department should be ordered to compile comprehensive academic information on all of its athletes and allow an independent auditor to compare this information with university-wide academic data to ensure no major discrepancies continue to exist. Finally, the NCAA should levy the maximum allowable monetary fines against UNC; these consequences have to hurt in order to deter similar behavior in the future.

As much as I’m against penalizing the student-athletes of today for the past transgressions of student-athletes and athletic personnel, the UNC athletic department cannot go unpunished for allowing its athletes to take advantage of an academic fraud scheme of unparalleled proportions.

The Weinstein report, which was authorized and paid for by UNC, clearly constitutes an independent investigation, and could not have been possibly designed to reduce or minimize the involvement of important coaches and certain university officials in this scandal. To discuss the academic fraud scandal and Cameron’s self-proscribed authority over the issue, or how proud coach Williams must be over this possible CYA national championship, e-mail Cameron at cmiller6 ‘at’ stanford.edu.