A sentence just as likely to be uttered by the Brady Campaign in the aftermath of a school shooting. Having said that, IMO here's the crucial portion of today's release:
Sollers writes. "They ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."
We're talking about a report that served as the sole foundation for punitive action against a university and devaluation of an estate. Would you tend to agree that these types of actions can / should be taken on what we "instinctively know", or should the bar be set a bit higher than that?
Ya know, ANY university of this size worth its salt would have had its own undercover private investigator giving administrative decision-makers enough signals on this matter...even if such an investigator might not give them the full scoop so that such an admin could create distance as to exactly what he knew...The scandal broke early last Fall...the Penn State Admin had over 8 months before the Freeh report came out in July...and almost 9 months pre NCAA sanctions.
The Penn State admin knew -- or should have known -- exactly what was "challenge-able" from either the report or the sanctions...Such an investigator could certainly reinforce what was "defensible" from Penn State's angle...
Guess what? They did neither.
Your admins are still in place @ Penn State, are they not? (Then why are you posting any blame further than them?)