Finding PSU truth
Thank you for the news story “PSU professors join suit against NCAA” (May 31 and TribLIVE.com), which highlights something that most reporting on the Paterno family's lawsuit against the NCAA has missed. The lawsuit is not primarily about overturning sanctions. The deepest motivation is to find the truth about what happened at Penn State.
The Freeh report does not support its conclusion that there was a cover-up motivated by a culture that worshipped football. (In fact, all objective evidence indicates the opposite — that Penn State athletes have always been held to the highest academic standards.) To address any wrongs and move past the scandal, the Penn State community needs to understand the events surrounding Jerry Sandusky's abuse of children and take any steps needed to prevent this from ever happening again.
It serves no useful purpose if a conclusion is prematurely and inaccurately accepted — how, then, can there be any genuine solution? For this reason, many thousands in the Penn State family are working toward finding the truth. This lawsuit against the NCAA is one important step in that direction.
The writer earned bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees from Penn State.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Wolf is the right choice
- Gun questions for mayor I
- ObamaCare solution
- Shame on Wolf
- Wake up, voters
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Don’t fall for Wolf’s tax scheme
- Making it special
- An Obama clone
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Pushing witchcraft