Initial Review: Freeh Report on Penn State University

This morning, the report from the independent investigation into the culture at Penn State University was released by the committee led by former FBI director Louis Freeh

The investigation, commissioned by the PSU Board of Trusteees sought to examine the circumstances which led to the instances of child abuse that former coach Jerry Sandusky has been found responsible for. Those instances, as you may remember, happened during his tenure as PSU assistant coach and also in some of the PSU facilities following his resignation.

Among the concerns following the initial investigation into Sandusky’s actions were how much of these situations were known to PSU staff, and how reports of child abuse were handled by football administration and others at the university. Over the past few weeks, it has become apparent that the report and investigation by Freeh’s group would focus also on on the campus climate and culture surrounding the University’s football program; for instance, recent articles have indicated that there may have been a disconnect between the University’s protocols for student accountability and how violations by members of the football program were handled.

Many were concerned that today’s report would either “blow the lid off” the legacy of former head coach Joe Paterno, or would unfairly tarnish the work that he accomplished over his tenure. There are also concerns that the NCAA may examine the findings of the Freeh report for possible lack of institutional control.  This would be in addition to the Pennsylvania State Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Education, and the FBI being invested in the findings of this investigation, particularly for former president Spanier, former VP Schultz and former AD Curley

In addition to looking at the foundations for any problems that may exist, the comissioned report makes some recommendations for how the athletic department and the University might move forward from the tragic past few months.

The full report can be read at TheFreehReportOnPSU.com and is available in it’s entirety here as well. Judge Freeh will be hosting a press conference later this morning to answer concerns and questions about both the group’s process, findings, and recommendations.

We’ll be bringing you further commentary and reflection on the Freeh report as the week progresses, but here are some initial observations.

•  According to the report, the terminations of President Spanier and Coach Paterno by the Board of Trustees was warranted, given the circumstances of the Sandusky matter. The report believes that, specifically, Coach Paterno did not act as he should have regarding allegations surrounding his former long time assistant coach.
• The report also holds the Board’s feet to the fire, and states that they did not do enough to create a culture of compliance for the athletic department; similar to many institutions, the department functioned too frequently independently of the University with limited accountability. Ultimately, they are responsible for what happens at the University, according to the report- this seems to fly in the face of criticism that the report is a cover for the Board’s “wrongful” termination of Coach Paterno and others.
• Quote from the findings section of the report-

Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University… failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities.

• Failure to understand and follow Clery Act guidelines is identified as an issue for the University and it’s Board.  The University’s policies and protocols were under development during this time, and have only recently been solidified. It’s also noted that football staff often opted out of Clery training.
• When Sandusky was told he would not be stepping into the head coaching position, the athletic director began exploring options for his promotion to a higher position in the department. Paterno tells Sandusky he could coach at PSU for as long as he (Paterno) was there.
• Coach Paterno was aware of and monitored the investigation into the sexual assault in 1999; Sandusky had access to the University’s facilities until November 2011.
• There is an assault at the team’s hotel during Alamo Bowl preparations. What this may mean for legal action in Texas is unknown at this time. Also, a victim alleges that he was brought to the Rose Bowl in 1995- again legal action in California is unknown.
• The University is criticized for having separate processes of accountability (Human Resources, compliance, etc.) for it’s various schools/departments, and for allowing each of these to function independently of the centralized office/mission. In addition, the lack of compliance staffing and Clery staffing is noted.
• According to the report, the 1998 incident did not include intentional genital contact, but was still investigated by the University.
• According to notes in Joe Paterno’s files, Sandusky was passed over for the head coaching position due to his commitment at Second Mile. Paterno felt, it seems, that Sandusky hadn’t been able to gain the experience necessary to serve as head coach with his dual commitments.
• During the initial Grand Jury investigation, the president and vice president discussed having an independent investigation of the matter, but decided against it due to the fact that the Board of Trustees would want this investigative body to continue oversight of the athletic department well after the initial matter was resolved.
• Another quote-

However, there is an over-emphasis on the “Penn State Way” as an approach to decision making, an resistance to seeking outside perspectives, and an excessive focus on athletics that can, if not recognized, negatively impact the University’s reputation as a progressive institution.

• The Freeh group recommends centralizing University compliance efforts; very similar to what Ohio State has done in the past 15 months.
• The report focuses on the issues in the immediate matter, particularly child welfare and University protocols/responses. This is a small ray of sunshine for Penn State; there was significant speculation (including on this site) that the report would address a larger “culture” of control by the football program, particularly in handling issues “in house” when there were athlete violations of University or other guidelines.

Again, we’ll have more reflection on this in the coming days.

But for now, we’ll keep our Nittany Lion friends and all of the Penn State community in our thoughts- Universities, students, staff, faculty, alumni, fans all deserve better than this.

In addition, we remember the victims of this situation and are reminded that all it takes for evil to prosper is for a few good people to do nothing.  If you see something, say something.