WHITE PAPER

_______________________________________ PENN STATE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CHARGES

Lycurgus Group, LLC 222 E. Town Street, Suite 2W Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-859-9570 www.lycurgusgroup.net

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 a. b. Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 4 Sexual Abuse .................................................................................................................................... 6 Lessons .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................10

II. Penn State Case Studies ............................................................................................................................ 4

III. IV.

PAGE |1

The Penn State sexual abuse scandal continues to unfold. The facts and allegations, because so well reported and continuing to develop, will not be repeated here.1 This may be, as Boston Globe columnist and ESPN contributor Bob Ryan suggests, the single biggest story in the history of college sports.2 The Lycurgus Group joins the hopes and prayers of others that the victims in this matter can find some sense of justice. While it is too early in the legal process to draw any definitive conclusions about where the fault should fairly lay, it is not too early for Institutions to begin to answer the question about how similar mistakes can be avoided in the future. The purpose of this White Paper is to examine the potential conflicts of interest inherent when Institutions conduct internal investigations sensitive of high profile allegations of wrongdoing and to propose the use of external investigators as a viable solution in extraordinary situations. I. Introduction

College sports especially football and mens basketball -- is a big business. The annual television rights alone generate over $1 billion annually for schools.3 Numerous schools average over 100,000 in attendance for home football games. The pressure to win is not just from alumni and boosters. A review of ticket sales by the Harvard College Sports Analysis Collective students found that [t]he driving force behind big ticket sales is generally a compelling and successful team.4 This is supported by anecdotal evidence that problems with NCAA compliance issues can hurt attendance and ticket sales. For example, following a high profile scandal that resulted in the resignation of a successful coach and the suspension of star players, Ohio State Buckeye football tickets were available at below face value for the first time in memory.5

Some of the most complete coverage is available from the Chronicle of Higher Education. See http://chronicle.com/section/Penn-State/578
1

Bob Ryan, Immediate Removal Was The Correct Step, Boston Globe, November 10, 2011 available at http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/football/articles/2011/11/10/immediate_removal_of_joe_paterno_at_penn_ state_correct_step/?page=full
2

The NCAA, as its own institution, received approximately $757 million through TV and marketing rights fees, championship revenue and other services in 2010. Mark Schlabach, NCAA: Where Does the Money Go?, July 12, 2011, available at http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6756472/following-ncaa-money Most of the money is distributed to its members each year. This figure does not include money individual institutions or conferences receive for attendance , individual broadcasting rights, or apparel agreements. One observer noted that,
3

The NCAA clings to the romantic image of students wearing letterman jackets and smiles without acknowledging that the entire landscape has changed. In the past three decades especially, college sports has become big business and its profit margins remain remarkable because it features an unpaid workforce. Washington Post, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/frontline-money-and-march-madnessncaas-in-the-money--but-athletes-arent/2011/03/28/AF20beqB_story.html
4 Alex Koenig, What Factors Contribute to Attendance in College Football? available at http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/what-factors-contribute-to-attendance-in-college-football/. The analysis notes that schools that were coming off winning seasons regardless of whether or not they maintained their winning ways actually sold more tickets . . . More significantly, losing has a similar effect on fan support and the negative publicity that comes with losing continued to hurt attendance even when a team started to win games again.

Tim Feran A buyers market for Ohio State football tickets, Columbus Dispatch, Aug. 30, 2011, available at http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2011/08/30/a-buyers-market-for-osu-tickets.html.
5

PAGE |2

College sports is governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA asserts that its core purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.6 The NCAA operates an enforcement program designed to reduce violations of NCAA legislation and to impose appropriate penalties if violations occur.7 In recent months, NCAA investigations at prominent institutions such as Ohio State, Oregon, and North Carolina have made headlines. But this is not a recent occurrence. In 1950, for example, several players for the City College of New York were implicated in a point shaving scandal. In the 1980s, Southern Methodist Universitys football program was disbanded after it was revealed that players received payments for attending the school. And in 1999, the University of Minnesotas basketball team received sanctions for having an office manager write term papers for the athletes. The NCAA does not only focus on large issues such as point-shaving and direct payments by schools to players. Florida State University received sanctions when it was revealed that agents had arranged for some players to receive free shoes from a Foot Locker store. In some instances, the reliance on internal staff is appropriate based on the nature of the allegations. However, two recent incidents at Penn State allegations of wrongdoing by a climate research scientist and the sexual abuse allegations involving a former football coach who maintained ties to the Institution illustrate that when the institution faces potentially serious allegations, the better course is not to use of internal staff, whether in the compliance office or otherwise, to conduct the investigation. The use of internal staff may create the appearance of a conflict of interest because the staff is not independent from the Institution. In addition, internal staff may not have the resources or experience necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of serious allegations.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa. The NCAA divides institutions into three divisions: I, II and III. Each of the three divisions has different rules for personnel, amateurism, recruiting, eligibility, benefits, financial aid, and playing and practice seasons. One investigator noted that,
6

The NCAA clings to the romantic image of students wearing letterman jackets and smiles without acknowledging that the entire landscape has changed. In the past three decades especially, college sports has become big business and its profit margins remain remarkable because it features an unpaid workforce.
7

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/how+we+work/infractions

PAGE |3

II.

Penn State Case Studies a. Climate Change

Dr. Michael Mann, a Penn State Professor, is a world-renowned expert on climate change. As a result of emails obtained from Great Britain, Mann was accused of various unethical practices with respect to his climate change research, including manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of global warming. These accusations, which were the result of the release of email exchanges among climate change scientists, were widely reported in the media. Penn State formed an investigatory committee to review the allegations. The investigatory committee consisted of five professors and the Universitys Director of the Office of Research Protections.8 In conducting the investigation, staff in the Universitys Office for Research Protections reviewed over 1000 emails or email strings. The Committee also reviewed relevant newspaper and magazine articles, a report from the National Academy of Sciences, and other materials, including Internet blogs.9 The Committee interviewed Dr. Mann and other potential witnesses about the allegations, and sought additional relevant documentation.10 As a result of this investigation, the Committee initially rejected three of the four allegations against Dr. Mann, and recommended further investigation of a fourth allegation.11 The committee reviewed additional written materials and conducted recorded interviews of at least six additional witnesses.12 The Committee summarized its findings in a nineteen page report and unanimously concluded that Dr. Mann had not engaged in any professional misconduct.13 The investigation in the Mann case was conducted in an open and transparent manner by faculty members of impeccable integrity. The committee appears, to the Lycurgus Group, to have been diligent, thorough, and dedicated to determining the truth of any allegations. Yet, despite the best intentions of the committee and Penn State, the process employed by the university was criticized in the public because of a perceived conflict of interest. Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, accused the University of conducting an incomplete investigation and demanded that grants to Penn State for climate change research be suspended.14 Similarly, Senator James Inhofe called for an investigation to be conducted by the National Science Foundation.15 When the investigation was completed, many did not accept the findings because of the perceived conflict of interest presented by the university investigating itself. One Fox News
See RA-10 Final Investigation Report and Decision Re: Professor Michael E. Mann, available at http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf.
8 9

Id. at 2. Id. at 2-3. Id. at 4. Id. at 5-6. Id. at 18-19. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/penn-state-probe-michael-mann-total-whitewash#ixzz1KH70lRjm

10 11 12 13 14 15

Available at http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/investigation-into-climate-scientist-prompts-fedsto-question-taxpayer-funding

PAGE |4

contributor stated that the investigation was was set up to be a total whitewash and the panel made no effort to investigate."16 A number of observers specifically suggested that the investigation was flawed because the investigation was conducted by Penn State staff instead of an outside investigator. Even before the investigation was complete, one observer questioned the integrity of the investigation on this basis: the initial probe involves a committee of just three, all of whom are Penn State employees with a clear interest in preserving the reputation of a university ranked ninth in the nation in receiving government research and development grants. It may raise some eyebrows to know that no outsiders will monitor the proceedings. . . . [T]he public is asked to trust the findings of a secret probe conducted by the colleagues of the accused.17 When the investigation was complete, Fox News quoted various conservative observers and lawmakers who questioned the integrity of the investigation on conflict of interest grounds. The Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative research and educational institute, stated, for example, that it was a conflict of interest for Penn State to investigate itself and Republican State Rep. Rose Marie Swanger called for a separate investigation to be conducted by the state. 18 The criticism came from as far away as Australia, where one observer noted, This was not an independent review - this was effectively the university examining itself and the result is entirely predictable . . . The university was highly unlikely to be critical of one of its most high-profile academics who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in research grants.19 And not all of the criticism was from political sources. A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was quoted as Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated, Penn State has clearly demonstrated that it is incapable of monitoring violations of scientific standards of behavior internally.20 Some observers have challenged this criticism of Penn State. These defenders of the investigation have argued, for example: There is no reason to believe that the PSU administration would risk the universitys excellent reputation for any single faculty researcher . . .21 Whether this criticism or defense of the investigation is accurate, or even fair, is beyond the scope of this paper. The

Available at http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/penn-state-probe-michael-mann-totalwhitewash#ixzz1KH70lRjm
16 17Available

at http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/12/climategate-professor-michael-mann-protected-to-maximum-extentby-penn-state-policy/#ixzz1KH9OwjYj. Available at http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/penn-state-probe-michael-mann-totalwhitewash#ixzz1KH70lRjm A spokesman for the Commonwealth Foundation said, From the beginning we called for an independent investigation. Penn State obviously has an incentive to protect one of their own. http://www.centredaily.com/2010/07/02/2073499/psu-prof-mann-cleared-in-probe.html
18 19 20

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/02/2943806.htm

Penn State University panel clears global-warming scholar - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_688634.html#ixzz1KHMrTzPq
21

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/

PAGE |5

investigation of Dr. Mann by Penn State illustrates an important point: investigations conducted by objectively credible people may be subject to conflict of interest criticism.22 b. Sexual Abuse Recently, law-enforcement officials indicted a former Nittany Lions football coach on charges that he sexually abused a number of young boys over a 15-year span. The fact that this occurred at Penn State a well-respected Institution with strong faculty oversight and Institutional controls was shocking.23 Jerry Sandusky has been charged with 40 counts of child molesting, including violations on Penn State's campus. The university's athletic director senior vice president for finance and business were charged with perjury and failing to report allegations of suspected child abuse to authorities. Penn State has been criticized for not recognizing the inherent conflict of interest when the Institutions administration was asked to investigative serious allegations against a prominent member of the athletic community. A typical comment was found in a Chicago Sun Times column: the institution was more important that the victims. Thats how this whole thing got started. Weve seen it over and over again: People will do just about anything to protect the reputation of a monolithic institution.24 Some commentators recognized that the problem is not as simple as an institution cynically seeking to protect its own image. Instead, the challenge facing Penn State was the inability of the human beings who run the Institution from recognizing their own conflicts and limitations. One of the natural inclinations of an Institution is to focus more on the subject of the wrongdoing, not the wrongdoing itself. A Pennsylvania paper quoted an attorney who worked on institutional child abuse cases. He said, Instead of focusing on the victims, they focus on 'How do we protect the person accused of this misconduct, . . . It's not enough to say, 'We have this information. Don't do it anymore.25 This inclination is part of human nature, and is especially strong at schools with strong athletic cultures like Penn State. Because the athletic leaders are a symbol of a university, Penn States leaders may have felt a strong desire to protect their home, against external criticism. Another problem is that those charged to investigate and report the situation were close friends with the target of the allegations. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed observed: if a person is accused of wrongdoing in State College, chances are they have a familiar and trusted face. That culture, some professors and observers say, may have influenced administrators who saw no need to involve police when Jerry Sandusky,
In the light of the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, see below, some bloggers have called for the reopening of the Mann investigation. See e.g. http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/penn-state-investigation-michael-mann-reopened/
22

Brad Wolverton, An Icon Falls, and a President With Him, Chronicle of Higher Ed., November 10, 2011 available at http://chronicle.com/article/An-Icon-Fallsa-President/129766/
23

Rick Morrissey, Too Much Nittany Lyin, Chicago Sun Times November 12, 2011 available at http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/8794033-452/too-much-nittany-lyin.html
24

Phil Ray, Attorney Sees Similarities In PSU, Church Handling Of Abuse Reports, The Altoona Mirror November 10, 2011 available at http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/555300/Attorney-sees-similarities-in-PSU--churchhandling-of-abuse-reports.html
25

PAGE |6

an accomplished former football coach, was seen sexually assaulting a young boy in a locker room, according to the grand-jury report.26 Sally Jenkins, a well-respected sports commentator for the Washington Post, for example, noted, Try to forgive Joe Paterno: When he looked at Jerry Sandusky, he didnt see a dirty old man in a raincoat. He saw a friend, a close colleague, and a churchy do-gooder. He saw a nice guy.27 This places greater responsibility on Institutional administrators who may not have as close a relationship with the target. Jenkins notes the need for more dispassionate superiors . . . . to take a much colder-eyed, distanced organizational view of Sanduskys alleged behavior.28 Finally, the allegations of conflicts of interest were not limited to the Penn State community in this matter. In 1998, the mother of one of the alleged victims reported an incident to the Penn State University police. The police interviewed both the boy and Sandusky, and then and prepared a report containing details of inappropriate conduct. The report was reviewed by Penn States outside counsel prior to its submission to the District Attorney. The potential conflict arose when the outside counsel, Wendell Courtney, represented both Penn State and Sanduskys charitable foundation, The Second Mile.29 Courtney, thus, continued to provide legal advice to Sandusky and his foundation a foundation that focused on children while aware of the allegations against Sandusky. Courtney was criticized in the media for this dual representation. One observer wrote: It's an extraordinary conflict of emotion, if not of interest . . . There's nothing professionally wrong with representing a nonprofit organization for kids headed by a man who was accused of but not charged with abusing a child. But it doesn't look

Libby Sander and Jack Stripling An Insular Penn State Stayed Silent, Chronicle of Higher Ed, November 10, 2011 available at http://chronicle.com/article/An-Insular-Penn-State-Stayed/129713/
26

Sally Jenkins, Blame for the Penn State scandal does not lie with Joe Paterno, Washington Post, November 8, 2011. Jenkins quotes an expert in child sexual abusers who notes that citizens typically have difficulty in recognizing the behavior of acquaintance molesters because they tend to be deeply trusted and even beloved. They are not strangers, but one of us. Id.
27 28 29

Sally Jenkins, Blame for the Penn State scandal does not lie with Joe Paterno, Washington Post, November 8, 2011.

Foxnews.com, Sandusky Made $457G From Pennsylvania Charity Despite Child Sex Allegations, Tax Records Show, November 11, 2011, available at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/11/sandusky-made-457g-after-pennsylvania-charitylearned-allegations-tax-records. According to media reports, Courtneys web page stated that he represented the Second Mile foundation. Barry Petchesky, A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile, November 11, 2011, available at: http://deadspin.com/5858636/a-penn-state-attorney-whoreviewed-the-1998-police-report-against-jerry-sandusky-also-represented-the-second-mile. However, his web page appears to have been altered following reports to remove this representation. http://www.mqblaw.com/statecollege/attorneys_wendell_courtney.html (visited November 11, 2011 @ 4:23 pm). Courtney has subsequently denied that that he represented both Penn State and the Second Mile foundation in 1998 when the sex abuse investigation occurred at the university. However, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Attorney General stated that the grand jury investigation had shown that the Courtney had represented both institutions in 1998. It's clear from the findings of the grand jury that Mr. Courtney had direct dealings with both Penn State and The Second Mile and he had knowledge and was aware of the 1998 incident, he said. By Jon Schmitz, AG's office rebuts lawyer's Second Mile, Penn State claim, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 11, 2011, available at http://www.postgazette.com/pg/11315/1189180-100.stm.

PAGE |7

good, and Courtney knew that when he tried to deny his association with The Second Mile.30 The criticism of Courtneys dual role also included a cynical view of the Penn State administration: the more pressing question that has arisen in the wake of the charges is why Penn State only last year decided to hire a full-time general counsel, distancing itself from the attorney whod served them for so long? Might the administration have known that their need for legal representation was about to take a drastic upswing? And more specifically, that Wendell Courtney wouldnt be able to handle it?31 This potential for a perceived conflict of interest in athletics had been noted by academic observers long before the Penn State scandal made headlines. In the view of some, NCAA practices may inadvertently encourage this conflict of interest. In an article in the Seton Hall Law Review, Professors Rogers and Ryan in 2007 discussed the question of who should conduct an investigation of allegations of violations of NCAA compliance rules.32 They noted that once an institution receives a credible allegation of a violation, the institution faces three choices: (1) permit the NCAA enforcement staff to conduct the investigation; (2) conduct an internal investigation; and (3) hire an outside investigator. The authors suggest that, in most instances, the institution is better served by conducting an investigation instead of merely cooperating with NCAA investigators. This is because the institution will receive the benefit of credit for self-reporting violations.33 Rogers and Ryan noted, however, that the public and media will likely be skeptical of an internal investigation.34 This is exactly what happened to Penn State. Even as the Board of Trustees appointed a committee to investigate the incident, calls of conflict of interest arose. In response to Penn States acting president Rodney Ericksons statement that Never again should anyone, regardless of position, at Penn State feel scared to do the right thing, the Philadelphia Inquirer noted: Unanswered, though, was how successfully the university could investigate itself.35 Others have also been more expressly critical of the Board of Trustees decision to undertake an internal investigation. One commentator noted: A committee has been named by the Board of Trustees to

Barry Petchesky, A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile, November 11, 2011, available at: http://deadspin.com/5858636/a-penn-state-attorney-who-reviewed-the1998-police-report-against-jerry-sandusky-also-represented-the-second-mile.
30

Devon Edwards, Current Second Mile Counsel Courtney Previously Worked for PSU, Onward State, November 11, 2011, available at http://onwardstate.com/2011/11/09/current-second-mile-counsel-courtney-previously-worked-for-psu/
31

Mike Rogers and Rory Ryan, Navigating the Bylaws Maze in NCAA Major-Infractions Cases, 37 Seton Hall L. Rev. 749 (2007).
32

37 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 778. Rogers and Ryan also note that witnesses may not be as forthcoming when interviewed by NCAA enforcement staff. Id..
33

37 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 779. The authors suggest that this is not because of a real conflict of interest but, rather, because perception is shaped by traditional adversarial notions and, for some, cynicism will jade claims of truth-seeking and open cooperation by a representative of the accused.
34

Jeff Gammage and Kenneth Frazier, Merck Chief To Lead Penn State Sex-Abuse Probe, Philadelphia Inquirer, November 12, 2011, available at http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-12/news/30391341_1_tim-curley-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky
35

PAGE |8

investigate all this. However, that is basically akin to the fox investigating the hen house. . . . should be obvious that Penn State should not be investigating itself.36 III. Lessons

it

In both situations, Penn State faced a cant win scenario. Even if the investigations of Mann and Sandusky had been conducted in an open and transparent manner, the process employed by the Institution would have been criticized because of a perceived conflict of interest and lack of expertise. The potential for a conflict of interest when internal investigators are employed is often more than theoretical. Consider, for example, an allegation that one of the employees of the institution knowingly committed a major infraction. When internal investigators are used, the institutions employees may not fully appreciate that the employee and the institution likely have different interests. The institution, in such a situation, may be best served by acknowledging the violation, and imposing discipline or termination upon the employee. In providing information to another employee of the institution, the employee who is alleged to have committed the infraction may not appreciate that the institution may seek to distance itself from the employees conduct, whether by acknowledging the conduct but denying responsibility for it, or by characterizing the conduct as that of an employee acting contrary to policy or direction.37 Confusion on this issue is both likely and predictable. An institutions employee accused of wrongdoing could understandably conclude that, since he is employed by the same institution as the investigator, the investigator would not be pursuing interests adverse to those of the employee. Internal investigators assigned by the institutional may also not have sufficient time or resources available to conduct a major investigation. Tenured faculty or other senior staff with sufficient independence from the athletic department have significant other teaching, research, or administrative commitments at the Institution. A thorough investigation may require the investigator to not only interview witnesses, but to obtain and review various electronic records such as text messages and emails.38 The time spent in conducting the investigation will be increased by the relative inexperience of most persons selected to conduct the investigation.39 Law enforcement experience is essential to undertaking successful investigations of serious charges of wrongdoing. Investigators with law enforcement experience are likely to have superior expertise in interviewing witnesses, reviewing pertinent records, and assessing the credibility of those who
36

Mark Hancock, Penn State: How Far and Deep Did Alleged Coverup of Child Rape on Campus Go?, Bleacher Report,

November 12, 2011 available at http://bleacherreport.com/articles/937348-penn-state-lies-how-far-and-deep-did-thecoverup-of-child-rape-on-campus-go This potential for a conflict is noted in the ethics rules governing lawyers who conduct internal corporate investigations.
37

See Rogers and Ryan, 37 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 779 (A major infractions investigation is not a tens-of-hours time commitment. Hundreds of hours may not cover it.)
38

37 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 779 (noting that the total time spent investigating will increase without involvement of some investigators with enforcement experience.). Rogers and Ryan suggest that an outside investigator may be retained to consulting-type services. However, while this may help with some of the practical issues, this would not remove the conflict of interest concerns.
39

PAGE |9

provide information. In the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, the Institution relied, in part, on the University Police. However, Institutional police forces have often been the subject of the same conflict of interest criticism as other Institutional employees.40 The solution is the use of external investigators who do not have significant ties to the Institution. The use of an external investigator avoids the potential conflict of interest because the investigator is retained by the institution, and not its president, athletic director, coaches, or student-athletes. The use of external investigators, usually attorneys, to conduct investigations is well established in the corporate world. Corporations may, for example, retain investigators to look into allegations that violations of law or regulatory provisions may have occurred. These investigators routinely review corporate records and interview corporate employees. Such investigations are most commonly undertaken to look into allegations of wrong-doing beyond the type of wrongdoing routinely looked into by corporate human resources staff. When a decision is made to retain outside investigations, the Institution should consider retaining investigators with no preexisting relationship to the Institution or the Athletic Department in order to assure the necessary independence for a credible investigation. Outside investigators, as appropriate, should retain the discretion to obtain assistance from experts, such as forensic computer personnel, to assist in the investigation. Outside experts should also be as independent from the Institution as possible in order to maintain the credibility of the investigation. IV. Conclusion

In the vast majority of instances, the reliance on internal staff is appropriate, whether based on the nature of the allegations or the nature of the compliance monitoring desired. However, in the small number of instances where the institution or its employees face substantial penalties or a systemic problem is suspected, the Institution faces inevitable conflict of interest criticism when it investigates itself.

Nina Bernstein, On Campus, a Law Enforcement System to Itself, New York Times November 11, 2011 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/us/on-college-campuses-athletes-often-get-off-easy.html
40

PAGE |10