“We define an ‘active student-athlete’ as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses,” the response says. The most comprehensive probe of the case, performed by the firm that employed investigator Kenneth Wainstein, concluded that more than 45 percent of the total enrollment of the identified classes consisted of varsity athletes, who make up less than 5 percent of the student body. The 102-page response suggests a redefinition of “athlete,” in which athletes would account for 37.2 percent of the enrollments in the fraudulent classes offered in the former department of African and Afro-American studies over an 18-year period. In its response to the NCAA’s third notice of allegations in the long-running case, UNC asserted that “nobody in athletics took special advantage of the courses.” It acknowledged that Jan Boxill, the former philosophy lecturer and one of the central figures in the case, acted improperly at times but that her interaction with athletes did not constitute lack of institutional control, as charged by the NCAA. Therefore, it contends, the fraudulent-classes case is not punishable under the athletics governing body’s bylaws. The University has reiterated its contention that a set of no-attendance, paper-only classes were not designed for athletes and were not available to athletes on a preferred basis and that the staff of the academic support center for athletes did not act improperly. South Building, UNC's main administration building.