Kean University Receives Notice of Allegations from NCAA

On September 28, 2011, the NCAA enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in the enforcement case involving Kean University. The NCAA staff, through the notice of allegations, contended five violations occurred. Two of the violations were self-reported by the institution and three violations were alleged by the NCAA enforcement staff. The allegations included:

• During the 2010 spring semester, a head coach and a former institutional vice president provided an extra benefit by arranging for the offering of a course in conjunction with an athletic team’s foreign tour of Europe. Although the course took place in late August 2010, the course was not offered on the institution’s registration system until two weeks after the fall drop/add period, which effectively precluded it from being taken by the general student body;
• A student-athlete’s grade was changed from an F to an incomplete before institutional remedies were exhausted. The student-athlete would have been ineligible but for the grade change;
• The institution violated financial-aid provisions due to student-athletes receiving financial aid at a higher rate than the normal student body;
• An athletics coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance; and
• The enforcement staff additionally alleged the institution failed to monitor its athletics department and exhibited a lack of institutional control.

A notice of allegations is defined in the NCAA Manual. Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 32.6.1 states “when the enforcement staff determines that there is sufficient information to warrant, it shall issue a cover letter and notice of allegations to the chancellor or president of the institution involved (with copies to the faculty athletics representative and the athletics director and to the executive officer of the conference of which the institution is a member)”. Furthermore, Bylaw 32.6.1.1.1 requires “the enforcement staff shall allege a violation when it believes there is sufficient information to conclude that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding”.

* NOTE: Specific details were “blacked out” of the document made available to the public by the institution.