Auburn took right measures with investigation

The New York Times did Auburn University a favor.

A story published two years ago uncovered a controversial issue within the school’s sociology department, claiming that some students – including athletes – took directed reading courses that required minimal classroom time and very little work for grades. The story claimed that football players, among other athletes, were steered to such courses in an effort to improve their GPAs and have them remain eligible.

Friday, the NCAA cleared Auburn of academic fraud.

This does not mean the university ran a completely clean ship in this regard, otherwise the NCAA would not have been called in to investigate in the first place.

The NCAA did say the university “committed secondary violations involving student-athletes who repeated the courses after completing their eligibility for sports in 2005 and 2006.”

The Times story brought a great deal of negative attention upon the university, its athletic program and sociology department. But it did bring attention to university administrators of problems that must be fixed. If there are problems at the university, wouldn’t you think the school’s power brokers need to know about them? The best way discrepancies can be fixed are if they are revealed.

Auburn formed a committee to investigate, the matter and dug deep into the inner-workings of the sociology department.

People were interviewed.

Paperwork was examined.

In a report issued to the NCAA by the university, Auburn discovered two professors “had too many students in too many course sections, which led to their inability to accurately keep track of the students.”

Only 18 percent of the students involved were athletes, and 7.5 percent were football players. Any percentage is too high.

High-profile athletes should never be given a better opportunity for academic success than other hard-working student who pays thousands of dollars per year just to be enrolled and obtain a degree.

The investigation is complete and the findings were minimal. Still, it’s enough to get the university’s attention and ensure that all education departments do not find themselves in a similar situation in the future.

The university’s reputation depends upon it.