A true Freeh report review must be unfettered and uncensored

Thomas Jefferson once said, Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. It is with the goal of
greater wisdom that the nine alumni-elected members of Penn State Universitys Board of Trustees have
sought to determine the actual facts surrounding the Sandusky scandal and its impact on Penn State.
As events unfolded in 2011 and 2012, the PSU Board of Trustees engaged the services of former FBI
director Louis Freeh to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding this
sad chapter in our schools history so that steps could be taken to prevent anything remotely similar
from ever happening again.
Alas, Freehs report left many in the Penn State community with far more questions than answers.
Accordingly, many have called for a careful look at the materials that underpin Mr. Freehs report to
determine, once and for all, if his investigation truly supports his findings or if instead, the report is
merely a hastily-prepared, incomplete, mass-market, media product. The report has been criticized by
numerous experts for its questionable accuracy and unsupported conclusions. Former U.S. Attorney
General and Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh concluded the Freeh Report was seriously
flawed.
In November, we were informed that the full set of background documents and materials would be
made available to trustees for review. However, on December 19, President Barron published an op-ed
in the Centre Daily Times, explaining his intention to protect the individual anonymity of those
interviewed by Freeh. To that end, President Barron has asked attorneys to redact or withhold
information that would reveal interviewee identity. It is understandable that Dr. Barron believes
individual confidentiality is important. We too are sensitive to the subject, but believe that getting to the
complete truth outweighs the importance of individual confidentiality. On the surface such
confidentiality appears well intentioned. Yet if interviewee identity is withheld, no one can accurately
assess the quality of the testimony and we can never know how Freeh weighed such testimony. For
anyone to conduct a credible, in-depth review of Mr. Freehs findings, unfettered and uncensored
access to all the materials Freeh used is necessary. The very reputation of our university is on the line.
Any action taken to redact or change information is an action that compromises transparency.
For example, the position or title held by an interviewee is highly relevant to give context to his or her
statements or opinions. Certain persons positions would preclude firsthand accounts, whereas others
are in a position to provide credible testimonybut without names and positions, whos to know?
Further, it is critical that we understand the nature and quality of the questioning of interviewees.
Several witnesses have said they were harassed and pressured to make statements contrary to their
own viewpoints. By definition, redaction will necessarily alter the context of the questioning and the
interviewees answers.
It has been suggested that Mr. Freeh interviewed as many as 430 persons in conducting his
investigation. However, very few individual interviews are actually contained in the report. What was
Freehs purpose in not including the information obtained from the vast majority of the interviews? We

Believe there may be great value in seeing all of the materials, from all of the individuals Freeh
interviewed. Only then will we have a clear picture of what Mr. Freeh decided to include in the report,
and what he chose to leave out.

The Freeh Report is at the center of reputational damage, the NCAA sanctions, and endless public
criticism suffered by the Penn State community over the past several years. Our highest principles as
trustees compel us to search for complete understanding of the most destructive and tragic chapter in
the history of our University. Only then can we arrive at the truth and let the healing begin.
Albert L. Lord.
Anthony P. Lubrano
William F. Oldsey