In November, The Plainsman received a tip about the Auburn University Office of Undergraduate Admissions office committing “unethical and potentially illegal” actions. At that time eight employees had resigned from the office. Now, nearly six months later, there has been a mass-exodus of the staff in correlation with this behavior, and that number is up to 15.
Ten people close to the matter have agreed to speak on the basis of anonymity and corroborated information regarding this article. No one was willing to be quoted or directly cited for fear of retaliation from the university.
These inaccuracies and misleading numbers, along with the reported behavior surrounding the coverup of the truth, could have implications for current and prospective students at Auburn. These stories involve the Office of Admissions, Enrollment as well as the university as a whole.
A majority of the 15 former employees have been upper and middle management in the Office of Admissions, some of whom have been working in the Quad Center for more than 10 years. The total office capacity is an estimated 35 employees. According to at least one source, only five of the positions have been filled, and as per Auburn salary data, there are currently 23 employees in the undergraduate admissions department.
Of the 23 left, 15 of them have been in the office for less than three years. This means that most of the staff is junior and relatively inexperienced.
Many of the resignations have to do with a “toxic, negative and unsupportive work environment that [they] dread coming to every day.”
The catalyst struck in March 2024 when Phil Verpil was hired into his current position as executive director of undergraduate admissions, serving as assistant vice president of enrollment management. He reports directly to Joffery Gaymon, Auburn’s vice president of enrollment.
Soon after, Verpil began implementing changes in procedures and university protocol, according to several people who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Many people close to the matter believe Verpil’s actions directly contradict university values. Within the first two months, three members of leadership resigned. From July 2024 to March 2025, two associate directors, one coordinator and three assistant directors resigned. Not one of their positions has been filled.
“A lot of people, leadership wise, a lot of them aren’t bought into whatever agenda that [Verpil] ha[s],” said a person close to the matter.
In September 2024, Auburn’s anonymous reporting system EthicsPoint received several reports of improper activity in the admissions and enrollment process. (Auburn has since converted to EthicsLine). One of these concerns was the manipulation of data and “sloppy” fact-reporting the office had fallen into under Verpil’s leadership.
At least four people interviewed said that Verpil seemed to be intentionally targeting, recruiting and admitting students based on race and other information that was “unethical and potentially illegal” to review as a college admissions employee.
Several sources questioned the veracity and trustworthiness of Verpil. In meetings, data shown to attendees was difficult to verify or substantiate, and often it left people confused. At least three people close to the matter said facts or statements would oftentimes not make sense, and sometimes percentages didn’t add up to 100.
“Another situation where the numbers didn’t add up was in a presentation about War Eagle Day,” one person we spoke with said. “I wasn’t in this meeting, but I was told that Phil [Verpil] claimed that 48% [of prospective students visiting Auburn] were first generation students when the actual percentage was 12%. All the campus partners have access from admissions to event attendee lists and could see the discrepancy with that. This is just one example of many times the numbers haven’t added up.”
While not as significant, another instance of Verpil fudging numbers occurred when he instructed an employee to request 33% more uniforms for student employees than was needed at the expense of the university bookstore. He waited until a witness left the room and then told the employee “It’s not that many more. We have 75, I think, student recruiters. And then, could we do like 100?... The bookstore doesn’t know.”
He asked this employee to knowingly give false information to the bookstore at the bookstore’s expense.
Concerns like these sent to EthicsPoint initiated several investigations within the Office of Admissions, and multiple employees were called in to answer questions. Three employees who expressed concerns and cooperated with the investigation were placed on administrative leave on September 19 without an explanation as to why; these three all held leadership positions within the Quad Center.
The narrative presented by Verpil to office employees was that those three had been committing data manipulation and fraud. A transcript of a recording follows, in which of Verpil tells another employee that the three had been caught “tampering” with in-house records:
“I’m sure that there’s chatter about me running people out, and I’m not. Let me just get it all out on the table. The last thing I want to do is lose staff… My goal is to have a great team. I’ve got a lot of great people in this office…
There are three individuals currently on administrative leave: *****, *****, *****. Some of this is out of my control, that was per the recommendation of HR. The thing that is most concerning is that HR is alleging that they have tampered with data — student records — which is alarming... And, again, I have to go with what they’re telling me to do, so I’m just in the room listening, but that’s what they shared with me. Apparently there are records that we’ve used in-house to make decisions on students, and each of them have records of tampering with all three.
You can imagine my shock because I’ve met with all three. I like all three. I don’t have an issue with any of them… There are no feelings or anything. So, then when I got that I was like, ‘Okay, that’s interesting.’ I think from my position, it’s the most alarming because that is the work that we do, right? We can’t have bad data. If we’re reporting things to the institution, to the state, it is about having truthful and factual data. It has to be factual.
I am not the one to have anything outside of that. I wouldn’t be in my role. I wouldn’t have been promoted. Every institution I’ve been in, I’ve been promoted. There’s no way that that’s my thing. You know, I’m always about having the most accurate data.”
Multiple sources shared recordings with similar statements.
The three employees which this particular investigation concerns were never given the reason or answers. The information was merely disseminated about them, and Verpil put out a search for interim positions.
“We were never actually told we were placed on administrative leave for data manipulation,” one of the people involved in the incident said. “We were told, ‘we’re going to place you on administrative leave that allows us to do some digging. Enjoy your paid time off. We’ll be in touch with updates.’”
The accusation is complex, and one must understand the Auburn application review process to fully grasp the claims and weight of the situation.
“[It is] really frustrating, disappointing and traumatic to participate in an HR investigation in good faith and then to, presumably, be put on leave because of it, among everything else that happened,” said another person who was involved.
Auburn’s admissions process
The core accusation is centered around Auburn’s GPA-based waiver for ACT and SAT scores, as well as federal laws that prohibit public universities from considering race in the admissions process.
Auburn’s admissions process involves several steps. The first step is complete when a prospective student fully submits their application and turns it into the admissions office with all necessary documents (i.e., test scores, transcripts, essay answers and letters of recommendation).
The second step is completed by a computer system, which screens applicants based on GPA and test score numbers only. It determines if the student is automatically admitted based on their high scores. If an applicant has a 3.6 GPA, they qualify for a test-optional route and can apply without submitting test scores if they wish. Then for the third step, every other applicant is individually reviewed by a committee of office admin and leadership.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that it was unconstitutional for college admissions offices to consider race at all in their admissions processes. This outlawed affirmative action and banned the use of race to be considered in college admissions processes.
So now, when evaluating applicants, members of the review committee divide and review all applications — everything besides scores and GPA that does not involve race or gender. Then, all notes are shared in Microsoft Box files, and all members of the committee reconvene to make final decisions.
Decisions were stored on Box to protect the university from allegations of unethical decisions in the admissions process. Oftentimes, these files are accessed by leadership to help guide advisors in the recruiting process, such as knowing whether a student should apply test-optional or not or training a new employee on how to be an effective advisor.
Back to the office
For the three employees, these files were regularly used to track information. It must be noted that accessing these files was critical to these three employees' jobs, and they were never told that looking at the information was banned. The Box platform keeps track of each person who opens the file by saying, “date by user.”
Because these employees had been regularly looking at the files to filter and retrieve information, they were accused of tampering with files and skewing data. In reality, no edits were made. Records showing all iterations of that file in Box provide substantive evidence of that.
Several people interviewed for this article said they believed Verpil pinned the data manipulation on three scapegoats and placed them on administrative leave when he heard he was under investigation.
In his discussion with other employees, Verpil says that putting the three employees on administrative leave was out of his control and per the recommendation of HR. Verpil’s words contradict many others, including several who have been working in the office of admissions for years.
Because these employees were placed on administrative leave in the early fall, none of them contributed to the admissions committee review process for the 2025-2026 school year. Verpil put admissions advisors, some of whom had been working at the admissions office for less than a year, on the admissions review committee in lieu of leadership.
In October, after the admissions committee review process ended, Verpil sent a memo about the three employees put on leave, absolving them of any “overt negative activity.” They were deemed not guilty and were permitted to return to their jobs.
The memo, with the subject “Conclusion of Investigation and Reminder of Proper Procedures for Accessing Student Information,” emphasized that employees should remember policies that were, in actuality, entirely new.
“It’s impossible to re-iterate something that has never been iterated before,” said one of the people involved.
All the files were moved to “a shared drive” instead of Box, and only the review committee was permitted to look at during the review process. Throughout the rest of the year only the customer resource manager and the associate director of operations have access to the files — not the original people who needed to use it year-round for their jobs as leaders in the office.
Further, even after they requested documentation, none of the employees received a copy of the investigation findings as a whole (i.e., the reports to EthicsPoint and investigations involving their own careers), but communication between one of the people involved and the Institutional Compliance Committee reveals that executive university leadership has received the findings.
The Plainsman requested through Auburn Open Records copies of emails between Gaymon and Verpil regarding the actions of the three employees, to verify that he had informed his superior about an investigation of potentially illegal activity in his office.
The Plainsman also requested copies of documentation with the Office of Compliance and Human Resources Department about the investigation and its conclusions
The university denied these records existed.
According to the Alabama State Code, these records fall under public information, making them accessible under state law. The Plainsman has asked the general counsel for specific laws that exempt them from disclosing the requested information.
Several sources interviewed throughout this process expressed strong concern about the truth being hidden. One person said that this behavior is “destroying people’s lives and Auburn’s reputation.”
Many people involved in this situation have felt retaliated against after expressing concerns over Verpil’s leadership and the office’s “new direction,” despite the university’s policy which outlaws retaliation: “No employee shall take retaliatory action against any individual for reporting, or causing to be reported, in good faith, suspected wrongdoing, or for assisting in an authorized investigation of alleged wrongdoing. Retaliation, if confirmed, will result in disciplinary action.”
“I’ve wanted to shout this to anyone who is listening that I find it disingenuous for Auburn to claim they have a zero tolerance policy for retaliation. Because this situation makes me feel like Auburn actually has a 100% tolerance policy for retaliation,” said one person.
Despite the toxic environment and several employees feeling “unsupported” and “gaslit,” Verpil has continued to lead the Admissions Office full steam ahead. Rumors of fraud still swirl throughout the office. New people search for alternate employment options nearly every week. As mentioned earlier, the number is up to 15 resigned employees as of May 7, 2025.
The Plainsman reached out to Verpil and his superior Gaymon for a comment regarding this story. They did not respond.
This is an ongoing story. The Plainsman will provide updates once more information is released. The intent of this article is to represent and protect the voices and perspectives of people who feel unsafe in their positions and exasperated by the behavior surrounding this situation. The hope is to enable truth to come to light instead of standing by while it continues to be obscured.
Note from the journalist:
Personally, I would love to see a more diverse Auburn — diversity of background, socioeconomic status and ideology — not for the sake of numbers but for the sake of having a variety of members in our community who are valued. That is what makes "The Auburn Family" so great. There are ways to encourage and facilitate that as an admissions office, ways that are ethical and in-line with federal and state law.
The sources I diligently worked with for months to publish this story are trustworthy people, and they, too, want the university to be great. I have a strong conviction as a watchdog of the truth "to be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable" and "give voice to the voiceless."
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
Sami Grace Donnelly, senior in English literature, began writing for the Plainsman in the fall of 2021. She has served as a columnist, writer abroad, Opinion Editor, managing editor and is now Editor-in-Chief of the Plainsman.
