During the first-ever public comment session Board of Trustees meeting on Friday, Chairwoman of the Board Karen Peetz said there is no plan on engaging in a full review of Freeh report that was released in July.
Instead, Peetz said, the board plans to focus on section 10, which issued more than 100 recommendations to the university.
Though there has been discussion surrounding this report, reviewing its findings would not be productive at this point.
The Freeh report was aimed at coming up with viable recommendations to strengthen our school and improve oversight in areas that needed it.
This report is a valuable asset to our university, regardless if it was in response to the sexual abuse case dealing with Jerry Sandusky.
As students, we need to stop belaboring this report as something that could be false.
Pushing for a review of another review does nothing to benefit us.
It will be a neverending cycle until it’s decided that enough is enough. And that’s exactly what the trustees did.
There is no reason for the university to review the Freeh report, the goal is to implement these recommendations that will inevitably better our school.
Like anything, the Freeh report is obviously not foolproof.
But, people calling for a complete review are missing the point.
The Freeh report will not exonerate former football coach Joe Paterno. It will not take back the criticism that Penn State and its community has had to deal with over the past year.
Reviewing it will not push our university forward.
If anything, it hinders our progression.
The trustees are not planning to undergo a review of this report, but instead, they are doing what they should be doing.
They are taking action and focusing on the recommendations that will make our policies and procedures stronger, in hopes of making the university safer, more open and more efficient.
This should be in the forefront of Penn Stater’s minds.
There is action being taken. We must focus on the important issues surrounding this report. Sturdier oversight will benefit the entire Penn State community — reviewing a report that has already been accepted, instead of focusing on the parts of it that could be beneficial.
This answer by the board was sparked by the first commenter of the session.
These public comment sessions will be able to shed light on issues, such as the question of reviewing the Freeh report.
It gives resolution and an opportunity to ask questions for those still wondering about the varying degrees of topics that the public has been pushing for the board to address.
This is a step in the right direction, as the public gets to be more and more involved.
We should move forward as university with these recommendations, not remain stuck on the rest of the report’s legitimacy.
