From the report issued by the DoE...
The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act , for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry — not so for Penn State. Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department’s PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report’s findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report. The Department notes that there is no legal prohibition that would bar the University from taking contradictory positions in two separate investigations involving the same set of facts.19 However, particularly given the University’s widely publicized prior acceptance of these facts, it does strain the credibility of the University to do so. The Department is dismayed by the lack of accountability the University has evidenced in relation to the Sandusky matter and the Clery Act by taking this course of action.
