PSU denied due process
In his column “Penn State's progress” (June 4 and TribLIVE.com), fellow Penn State Trustee Keith Eckel criticized a “well-funded and highly vocal constituency” that, in his view, has employed a “burn it all to the ground to prove a point” approach to the university's business.
While it is not entirely clear to whom he is referring, we, the five trustees who recently joined a legal action against the NCAA and its president, Mark Emmert, feel obliged to respond.
We support the governance changes and improvements recommended by Louis Freeh in his report, which are being implemented and monitored by former Sen. George Mitchell. Institutions must grow and adapt to changing times and challenging circumstances and we are proud to be part of that effort at Penn State. We certainly do not subscribe to the “burn it all to the ground” approach of which Eckel speaks.
Our issue, and the reason we have joined the lawsuit, is the NCAA's complete failure to afford Penn State due process. Under its own constitution and bylaws, the NCAA owed Penn State certain fundamental rights and adherence to rules and procedures designed to provide fairness to a member institution. These rights were due not only to the university, but to intended beneficiaries of its NCAA membership agreement, including student-athletes, coaches, faculty and administrators.
It is not incompatible with our legal and fiduciary responsibilities as trustees that we challenge and seek relief from the NCAA's unprecedented and unlawful actions while embracing the governance improvements that have arisen therefrom. It comes down to a distinction between the Freeh report's flawed and unsupported findings leading to rushed imposition of crippling sanctions — which we do not accept — and its recommendations for improved governance leading to an enhanced environment for learning and academic pursuits — which we enthusiastically accept and support.
This letter also was signed by Peter A. Khoury, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie and Adam J. Taliaferro.
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.
- Incomprehensible hatred
- Ignorant on marriage
- Clueless on law
- Off base on Chatham prez
- Banding helps birds
- Who’s responsible?
- Restore royalty minimum
- Buffer zones needed II
- Ex-Im & Westinghouse
- Wolf & ObamaCare
- Expanding their options