Penn State Sports Magazine
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/79325
evidence that there were only two known accusations against Sandusky from 1998 to 2001 – one of which was investigated thoroughly and dis- missed by the district attorney – until late 2008. It is precisely these inflam- matory findings that have the media and public so angry at Penn State. Freeh claims his report is authenti- cated by 702 endnotes and 60 foot- notes. By my count, 429 endnotes in- dicated a least one interview to sup- port a specific statement, with 59 cit- ing anywhere from two to 18 inter- views to back up a reference. Of the 60 footnotes, only two included inter- views: five involving the university's Office of Student Affairs and three re- garding Mike McQueary's qualifica- tions to be promoted from a graduate assistant to assistant coach in 2004. These are not trivial statistics. On page 9 of the report, the Special Investigative Counsel states that it conducted "over 430 interviews of key University personnel and other knowledgeable individuals to include: current and former University Trustees and Emeritus Trustees; cur- rent and former University adminis- trators, faculty, and staff, including coaches; former University student- athletes; law enforcement officials; and members of the State College community at the University Park, Berhend, Altoona, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre campuses, and at other locations in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and the District of Columbia, by telephone..." The statement may appear to be overwhelming and conclusive. It is not. It doesn't mean all those inter- viewed are represented in the docu- ment. Nor is there any way of know- ing from the report whether 434 dif- ferent individuals were cited in the endnotes-footnotes or far, far fewer. Surely, there were many interviewees who took exception to the interroga- tors' line of questioning. Nor does it mean the committee should not have interviewed 430 additional individu- als who may have refuted or disputed what the others told them. Most significant, not one of the in- terviewees was identified in a footnote or endnote (although some were iden- tified in the text and a few were obvi- ous by their position) and that is what I find reprehensible about the document. No one had to go on the record with sworn testimony. And be- cause interview transcripts are not available as part of the appendices, it's impossible to know how truly in- dependent and unbiased Freeh and his investigators were. Of course, it's impractical for me to detail all my concerns about the re- port in this short column. But there are three areas that caught my imme- diate attention because they epito- mize for me the deceptive nature of the document: 1) the reliance on in- formation about discipline from the Office of Student Affairs without any rebuttal; 2) the interpretation of the crucial 1998 child abuse investiga- tion that never reached the criminal court; and 3) an uncalled for cheap shot aimed at the working relation- ship of Curley and Paterno. And these do not count the dearth of data regarding the actions of Gov. Tom Corbett and the Second Mile charity, whose direct ties to Penn State fell under the Freeh commit- tee's broad investigative mandate as stated on pages 4 and 5. The first OSA matter is critical to Freeh's conclusion that Paterno and his football program were out of con- trol and isolated from the rest of the university. It centers on an analysis in chapter four of the hearsay evidence presented at the Sandusky trial con- cerning a now-deceased janitor telling two fellow workers he saw Sandusky with a child in a shower in 2000. One of the janitors told the committee his friend was afraid to report the inci- dent because "Paterno has so much power" and all of them would have been fired, adding this sentence: "He explained 'football runs this Universi- ty,' and said the University would have closed ranks to protect the foot- ball program at all costs." To back up that sentence and others preceding it about Paterno's alleged omnipotence and his "excessive influence at the university" there's a long footnote (pages 65-66) referring to the OSA and a well-known off-campus fight in 2007 involving the discipline of foot- ball players. The footnote credits the head of the OSA at the time – Vicky Triponey, who is not mentioned by name – as telling the committee she "perceived pressure from the Athletics Depart- ment, and particularly the football program, to treat players in ways that would maintain their ability to play sports," and that Spanier later re- duced the sanctions OSA imposed on the players. Since the scandal broke, Triponey has been saying this and more to a susceptible media unwilling to seek out a countering view. Thus far, no one has publicly rebutted her. One who might – Curley – cannot talk about it now for legal reasons. If Spanier told the committee anything about the disciplinary situation in 2007 during his interviews, it isn't mentioned. And, of course, Paterno isn't alive to tell his side of the story. There is no indication the investiga- tors talked to anyone who might have a different opinion or looked into Triponey's credibility – which is sus- pect. Almost from the day she was hired, she battled constantly with the university's student leaders, not just the athletic department and Paterno. Those student leaders were so angry about her dictatorial style they set up a Web page that still exists: The Vicky Triponey Timeline of Terror. Furthermore, even before her ar- rival, the Judicial Affairs branch of the OSA was considered by a large segment of students and local attor- neys to be a "kangaroo court." In fact, what really precipitated Triponey's sudden departure – she only recently admitted publicly that she was fired – was an extensive review of Judicial Affairs in 2007 by a campus-wide ac- ademic committee that Spanier had commissioned. When Triponey stren- uously objected to the committee rec- ommendations that Spanier adopted, she was given the opportunity to re- sign or be terminated. Anyone can read that committee re- port at safeguardoldstate.org. Obvi- ously, Freeh and his committee did- n't. Or if they did, the information