> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student Success Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Freeh Report Calls for Overhaul of ‘the Penn State Way’

By  Beth Mole
July 12, 2012

The Freeh report lays out more than 100 bulleted recommendations, some in painstaking detail, on reforming Pennsylvania State University’s operations, citing weaknesses in its “culture, governance, administration, compliance policies, and procedures for protecting children.”

The recommendations, issued as part of a wide-ranging assessment of how Penn State officials responded to a football coach’s sexual abuse of children, span the university. On the macro level, the report calls for some administrative restructuring, such as separating the Office of Human Resources from the university’s finance and business organization. On a smaller scale, it says Penn State should make a list of the people responsible for Clery Act reporting—referring to the 1990 federal statute that requires colleges to keep records of campus crimes and disclose information about them to the public.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The Freeh report lays out more than 100 bulleted recommendations, some in painstaking detail, on reforming Pennsylvania State University’s operations, citing weaknesses in its “culture, governance, administration, compliance policies, and procedures for protecting children.”

The recommendations, issued as part of a wide-ranging assessment of how Penn State officials responded to a football coach’s sexual abuse of children, span the university. On the macro level, the report calls for some administrative restructuring, such as separating the Office of Human Resources from the university’s finance and business organization. On a smaller scale, it says Penn State should make a list of the people responsible for Clery Act reporting—referring to the 1990 federal statute that requires colleges to keep records of campus crimes and disclose information about them to the public.

With their suggestions, investigators led by Louis J. Freeh, a former FBI director, aimed primarily at correcting the culture on the Penn State campus, which the report suggests is at the root of the university’s problems. In particular, investigators found troubling “an overemphasis on ‘The Penn State Way’ as an approach to decision making, a resistance to seeking outside perspectives, and an excessive focus on athletics.”

While investigators emphasized the need for transparency in university operations, their recommendations also highlight the idiosyncratic workings of the flagship campus that may have contributed to the scandal. For instance, one recommendation is to “include athletic-department employees in management-training programs provided to other university managers,” and another calls for Penn State to “review the organizational placement of the university police department in the university’s finance and business area.”

Beyond organizational and cultural shifts, the recommendations focused on:

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Administrative reviews and restructuring, including the development of an office for general legal counsel.
  • Improving communication between the Board of Trustees, the administration, and the campus community.
  • Standardizing risk management, including establishing a policy to comply with the Clery Act.
  • Integrating the athletic department into campus procedures and responsibilities.
  • Restructuring the university’s police department.
  • Managing the university’s programs for children.

The recommendations, the report says, would help create an environment for “ethics-based decision making,” where everyone would feel empowered to report abuses.

Though the report mentions and occasionally lauds changes the university has instituted since the scandal erupted last year, it also cautions against considering one-time changes to be sufficient.

“Restoring confidence in the university’s leadership and the board,” the report says, “will require greater effort over a prolonged period of time.” The report concludes with recommendations to create a panel charged with overseeing improvements and holding annual reviews for the next two years.

Correction (3:41 p.m., 7/12/2012): This article originally stated incorrectly which year the Clery Act became law. The statute was enacted in 1990, not 1986, and took effect in 1991. The article has been updated to reflect this correction.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Penn State’s Culture of Reverence Led to ‘Total Disregard’ for Children’s Safety
  • A Powerful President Sought First to Protect His University’s Reputation
  • How the Penn State Report Implicates Top Officials
  • Ignorance and Low Priority of Clery Act Obligations May Extend Beyond Penn State
  • A Guide to the Penn State Investigation
  • The Freeh Report: Complete Coverage
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin