How dare someone question Penn State Board of Trustees member Kenneth Frazier – and by extension the Freeh Report.
Frazier made that message clear Thursday when he launched a diatribe against a Harrisburg lawyer during an open session of a Board of Trustees meeting.
William Cluck had the gall to question the Freeh Report as the ultimate arbiter on the Jerry Sandusky scandal since upcoming trials could also shine a light on what happened.
Frazier’s unwillingness to even consider that the Freeh Report may be incomplete is staggering considering he is one of the leaders of a board that preached transparency in the aftermath of the Sandusky scandal.
Such openness is apparently lip service when it comes to the Freeh Report.
Consider that Louis Freeh held a news conference less than an hour after releasing a report that was almost 300 pages – or before anyone had a chance to actually read it and question how such sweeping conclusions could be drawn from the evidence he had.
Freeh, to my knowledge, has not engaged in any question and answer sessions since that day. And he only released a statement defending his findings following the release of the Paterno Report – one in which the former FBI leader contradicted himself.
Now there are calls for transparency in regard to the tactics and methods that led to Freeh’s report, especially since the price tag for it will almost surely exceed $10 million.
A large segment of the Board of Trustees is still urging Penn State alumni to move forward. Some board members, like Frazier, seem openly hostile to the kind of public discourse that is as American as the concept of due process.
Meanwhile, the Freeh Report assigned the least amount of blame for breakdowns at Penn State to a group that continues to all but pass it off as gospel.
That is why dug-in, defiant board members such as Frazier come off as tone deaf to angry alumni.
– Scott Brown