Transcript From Dec. 17th Press Conference – Ohio State Buckeyes
12/17/2003 12:00:00 AM | General
Dec. 17, 2003
DR. BILL MURPHY: Welcome, thank you for coming. I’m Bill Murphy, vice president of university relations. We’re here today to provide you with the results of the president’s special investigation committee. President Karen Holbrook formed the committee last July to look into allegations that questioned the university’s academic integrity with respect to student athletes. Before we proceed with the press conference, Interim Executive Vice President and Provost Barbara Snyder needs to explain the limitations the federal privacy law put on what we can say.
PROVOST BARBARA SNYDER: This is me wearing my dual hat of law professor and provost. FERPA, as you may know, is the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act and it’s a federal law designed to protect the privacy of students’ educational records. FERPA prohibits the university from disclosing any parts of the report that relate specifically to individual students unless those students waive their rights and permit disclosure. One of the students mentioned in the New York Times story last summer, Chris Vance, has waived his rights under FERPA. Therefore, we can tell you that the committee concluded that he did not commit academic misconduct in Professor Pierce’s African-American and African studies course. As of now, other students have not granted the university permission to disclose their educational records and the report is appropriately redacted to protect those students’ rights. University counsel has conferred at some length with the senior official at the department of education about the stringency of the constraints imposed on the university by FERPA. Please understand that we cannot disclose in this press conference any information related to specific students beyond the information I just disclosed to you.
DR. MURPHY: Copies of the report and actually copies of the remarks of the principals up here will be available after the press conference is over. We’re also making a transcript of this press conference and that will be posted on line. First we will hear from President Holbrook who has accepted the committee’s report. Next, Committee Chair Matthew Platz, distinguished university professor in the department of chemistry, will outline the committee’s process, how its conclusions were derived and some of its key findings and, third, Provost Snyder will discuss the committee’s recommendations and plans for moving forward. At the end of the press conference, Athletic Director Andy Geiger will answer athletics-related questions. President Holbrook?
PRESIDENT KAREN HOLBROOK: Thank you, Bill. And good afternoon. Last July, interim provost Barbara Snyder and I appointed a committee to investigate the allegations of preferential treatment of student athletes to determine whether the University Student Athlete Support Services Office known as SASSO offered inappropriate tutorial assistance and to investigate whether there are aspects of the current academic support program for student athletes that should be reformed or enhanced, and, if so, to make recommendations for such changes. After beginning its investigation, the committee also researched the question of whether inappropriate accommodations were made for student athletes in general education curriculum courses. As I told you last July, we took the allegations made against the university very seriously and I assured you that integrity would be the foundation of our investigation. After meeting with the full committee and reading the report, I am convinced that, indeed, the committee acted thoughtfully and responsibly, was thorough in its process and reached some reasoned conclusions after investigating this situation over the last five months. The most important conclusion in my mind is that the University’s academic integrity is sound. The committee found no breaches of institutional integrity, nor evidence to support the allegations that the University’s Student Athletic Support Services Office offered inappropriate tutorial assistance. I’m convinced that the integrity of the institution and SASSO are unquestionable. A member of the NCAA enforcement division staff participated in many of the committees’ interviews and conferred with University representatives throughout the process. NCAA enforcement staff has also reviewed the report and has indicated that it does not contemplate taking any action on its own with respect to the matters investigated. I’m very pleased to learn that we have no systemic problems in the way we work with our student athletes. At the same time, whenever you conduct a thorough investigation of your processes, you can always find ways to do things better. We did in this case as well. The committee has made some very thoughtful recommendations. However, rather than moving swiftly, we will take a measured approach and work with our athletics council to ensure we act in a way that is best for the student athletes, the University, and for our athletic department. I thank the committee, a prestigious group of faculty and staff selected for their integrity and their understanding of undergraduate education who took on this task in addition to their teaching, their administrative, and their scholarship roles and conducted a methodological and comprehensive investigation. I’d also like to thank Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, a former president of the University of Illinois and the past president of the American Council of Education, for his advice and counsel to the committee. Finally, I’m very pleased to add a word of support for our athletics director, Andy Geiger. The fact that our academic integrity is intact is testimony to the culture of his department and to the ethics of the people who worked to provide academic services to our student athletes. Thank you, Andy, for creating that culture.
DR. MURPHY: Thank you, President Holbrook. I’d like to introduce Committee Chair DR. Matthew Platz who outlined the processes that the committee followed and its principal findings. Matt?
DR. PLATZ: Thank you, Bill. And good afternoon, everyone. President Holbrook has outlined her charge to the committee. My role is to tell you how we went about our work. The committee organized and operated by subcommittees to address each substantive issue. We interviewed a wide variety of individuals and reviewed a large number of documents to obtain as broad a spectrum of information as possible. We interviewed more than 60 people, including academic administrators, professors, teaching assistants, tutors, student athletes and students who are not athletes. The meetings included individuals no longer associated with the University, as well as many current employees. We conducted the vast majority of our interviews in person. The subcommittees brought information back to the full committee, which then made findings and recommendations. These are present in our report. Our findings are as follows: The committee determined that Chris Vance, a football player mentioned in the Times article, did not commit academic misconduct, nor did he receive special treatment in professor Paulette Pierce’s African-American and African Studies 101 course. I’m able to share this information with you because Mr. Vance has signed a waiver allowing the University to release this information from the report. Furthermore, no evidence supports the allegation of widespread academic misconduct by SASSO tutors or academic counselors. None of the current or former SASSO tutors or professors the committee interviewed knew of any inappropriate assistance to student athletes by SASSO employees. Furthermore, the current and former counselors and tutors reported no influence from academic administrators regarding high-profile student athletes saying that they have always been encouraged to do their jobs professionally. It is important to note that SASSO staff members are evaluated on their delivery of services to student athletes and not on the grades received by the student athletes. In particular, no current nor former SASSO employees, in memory, have been terminated, demoted, or had their salaries reduced when high-profile student athletes experienced academic difficulties and lost eligibility. At the same time, we recommend that certain academics be strengthened, including case loads for counselors, working with students having significant academic difficulties, increasing staff diversity, and examining SASSO’s current joint oversight by the department of athletics and the office of academic affairs. The committee also examined the enrollment of student athletes in general education curriculum courses at the University to determine whether we could find any indicators that athletes were given preferences in grading. We found no such statistical indicators. We found in interviews with department chairs that departments and colleges have well thought out local policies to handle students experiencing exceptional circumstances. However, the committee recommends that every department review its policies and practices governing accommodations for students in special circumstances and, if necessary, develop procedures in that policy to address those issues. The committee also looked at TA training, including the issues of students’ privacy rights and course management. We found that while most departmental practices are effective, training across campus is inconsistent in both the manner and depth in which it occurs. We, therefore, recommend that academic departments review and enhance their current training practices. More detail on each of these recommendations is present in the report. The committee is satisfied that it has completed its charge from the president to investigate allegations of impropriety and make finding and recommendations regarding them. The committee would like to commend the University community and public for the full cooperation it received in investigating these allegations and completing this report. The committee would like to note that through its extensive interview, site visits, and analysis of evidence, it found that the University system for finding and correcting incidents of academic misconduct is sound. Although the committee recognizes that cheating does and will occur, it is satisfied that the University has offices and programs in place to satisfactorily address those issues. The committee believes that its work confirms that the University takes seriously its commitment to the education of all students, including student athletes. An essential element of this commitment is the exercise of faculty discretion, to use accommodations where appropriate to best satisfy the commitment to educating its students. The committee is confident that the University will properly consider its recommendations in the spirit of furthering the institution’s educational mission. Finally, I want to add my thanks to my colleagues for their work on this committee. They are distinguished scholars in their disciplines and leaders within their colleges and departments. They are individuals without formal ties to athletics and who had and have no vested interest in the outcome of this investigation. I am grateful for their thoughtful and intelligent review of the facts, hundreds of hours of their time, and for their considered opinion in providing recommendations. Thank you, Bill.
DR. MURPHY: Thank you, Matt. Once again, I’d like to introduce Barbara Snyder, interim executive vice president and provost.
PROVOST SNYDER: I want to thank Matt first for taking on the role of leader of this committee, and also, of course the rest of the committee members for the very hard work they put in in producing this very thorough report. This entire process has been very instructive for the University. As President Holbrook said, we believed our processes to be very good and we’re pleased that our confidence in our academic integrity was confirmed by the work of the committee. SASSO has received high marks, not only from this committee, but from the athletics administrators who evaluated the University program last year as part of the NCAA certification process. We will review the recommendations the committee has offered and will carefully consider how best to implement them. Of particular interest to us is the need to better educate our faculty and staff about FERPA, a process we’ve already begun. This fall I sent to all faculty and administrators a document called “FERPA Basics,” developed with our office of legal affairs, intended to better educate them about FERPA in general and to answer some of the most commonly asked questions. We also plan to discuss the report’s recommendations with the appropriate faculty committees. For example, we will discuss the recommendations related to SASSO with the academic progress and eligibility committee of the University’s athletic council with the faculty athletics representative and with the office of academic affairs liaison to athletics. In fact, we’ve already implemented one of the recommendations of the committee in hiring an additional academic counselor in SASSO. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the University community for their full cooperation with the committee. Academic integrity is at the core of what we do here at Ohio State and we’re very grateful that the University committee took this investigation as seriously as this administration did. Thank you, Bill.
DR. MURPHY: The panel will now take questions. Before you ask your question, please state your name and your media affiliation. REPORTER: Alice Thomas with the Columbus Dispatch. You mentioned that one of the recommendations would be more oversight of SASSO. Could you elaborate a little bit on that, what might that entail and where that’s coming from?
DR. MURPHY: Barbara?
PROVOST SNYDER: I think I would like Matt to take the first crack at the committee recommendations.
DR. PLATZ: There’s a dual reporting structure between the office of academic affairs and the department of athletics, and we in the committee would like to strengthen the line to the office of academic affairs and weaken the line to the department of athletics.
PROVOST SNYDER: And that’s something that we will be discussing with the academic progress and eligibility committee, the athletic council. The athletic council is a University senate committee that’s charged with the responsibility for academic oversight of our support programs for student athletes.
REPORTER: I have two questions, Nancy Burton, Channel 4. President, you mentioned that the NCAA will not take action. How do you know that? What assurances do you have? And then my second question is, was it inappropriate for the TA to refer to that student publicly? Is that what has changed with the federal privacy? Is that what you’re saying that she never should have talked about Clarett’s academic performance because she violated federal privacy acts? Will you comment on both of those, please?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: Let me comment on the first and I’ll pass the second to Barbara on the FERPA issue. We know about the NCAA because the report has gone to the NCAA before today. They have looked at it, examined it, felt comfortable with what the findings held, and as I mentioned in my remarks, we had an NCAA representative working with us during the full work of the committee.
REPORTER: So it’s over, in essence, the —
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: The NCAA has indicated they will not reopen it in their own investigation.
REPORTER: Madam President, John Damschroeder, Fox 8 in Cleveland.
REPORTER: I had one other question, the FERPA privacy.
PROVOST SNYDER: Let me tell you what we’ve learned in this process. What we’ve learned is a very important issue and that we need to do a much better job of educating our faculty and staff who work with students’ educational records about the requirements of FERPA, and we’re already doing that, in addition to the document I’ve already sent out, into additional ways to incorporate this training for faculty and for TAs that are part of our instructional staff. And we’re investigating things like videos and web-based programs that people can do on their own as well as incorporating parts of the FERPA information into the training that we already do for faculty and TAs who are new to Ohio State.
REPORTER: Are you saying, was it inappropriate for her to release information about Maurice Clarett?
PROVOST SNYDER: I have given as much of a response as I can give.
REPORTER: How does the work product of the law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King enter into your submission to the NCAA? What will that cost the University? Where will the money come from?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: I’m going to pass that to Barbara. I’ll pass the whole question to Barbara, she did the numbers.
PROVOST SNYDER: We asked for and received permission from the Attorney General to spend up to $75,000 hiring special counsel and we expect the special counsel’s bill will come in fairly close to that figure. I can also tell you with regard to the whole investigation that we expect the total expenses, including those for the special counsel, to come in at something probably under $100,000 total.
REPORTER: How does that law firm, though, enter in? They’re an NCAA specialty law firm basically made up of people who used to work for the NCAA. How do they factor in to your submission to the NCAA?
PROVOST SNYDER: They provided us with advice.
REPORTER: Are they the ones writing the submission?
PROVOST SNYDER: They provided us with advice.
REPORTER: Do they allow you now to shelter that from open records law as a client/attorney privileged document?
PROVOST SNYDER: They provided us with advice. The educational records we maintain are covered by FERPA.
REPORTER: No, the NCAA self report, is that covered or is that open?
PROVOST SNYDER: That is a question that we would have to defer to our University counsel.
REPORTER: You are University counsel.
PROVOST SNYDER: No, I am not. I’m the interim provost.
REPORTER: In the course of your interviews, you mentioned there were 60. Approximately when did you interview Norma McGill and can you characterize the committee impression of the interview with her? Did you find her credible? Did you find her not credible?
DR. PLATZ: Unfortunately, I can’t answer that question. Unfortunately, I can’t describe the interview with any specific student.
REPORTER: She’s not a student, she’s a TA.
DR. PLATZ: She’s a graduate student at the University.
REPORTER: Your interview, the part I’m asking you about, has nothing to do with her performance as a student, it’s her performance as an instructor.
DR. PLATZ: I understand your question, but my understanding is that I cannot answer that question because of FERPA regulations.
REPORTER: You mentioned there were no widespread inappropriate actions by the tutors and no statistical indicators that athletes were being helped. Did you find any inappropriate areas in either of those two categories and, if so, how much?
DR. PLATZ: We did not find a single case of inappropriate tutorial assistance by SASSO employees with student athletes.
REPORTER: And as far as students’ preferential treatment in the classroom?
DR. PLATZ: Well, I cannot respond to a particular course or a particular class and group of students because of SASSO — because of FERPA implications.
REPORTER: Even in general, you can say class X we found a certain student acting inappropriately, you couldn’t say that without naming names, or naming the class?
PROVOST SNYDER: No.
DR. PLATZ: I don’t believe so.
REPORTER: Just generally, you can’t say whether anything inappropriate was found over six months of this investigation, anything by any student athlete or support person?
DR. PLATZ: We did not find any inappropriate behavior on the part of SASSO employees.
REPORTER: The impression you’re leaving here is that this story was a complete hoax, that everyone who talked to the New York Times, talked to the NCAA, was essentially lying; is that the impression you want to leave with us today?
PROVOST SNYDER: The report speaks for itself. You have a copy.
REPORTER: But isn’t that what you’re saying, none of this was true?
PROVOST SNYDER: The report speaks for itself.
REPORTER: What do you want to say about it, though?
PROVOST SNYDER: We want to say our academic integrity is intact and we have said that and we are pleased to be able to tell you that.
REPORTER: Rusty Miller from the Associated Press. One of the root problems in the original story was a student athlete was given an oral exam, supposedly. Does any of this deal with what your continuing process or procedure is with teachers administering or teaching assistants administering oral tests?
PROVOST SNYDER: We are not going to be saying anything that relates to any particular student athlete.
REPORTER: I’m not asking about anyone in particular. I’m talking about students in general.
PROVOST SNYDER: Let me try to answer in general then. As a general matter, there is no centrally prescribed way of examining students. You would find across the University a great variety of teaching styles that vary from department to department and, indeed, from faculty member to faculty member. And you may recall a newspaper article this fall describing innovative teaching methods employed by one of our faculty members in the introductory biological sciences course. There are just various ways of teaching students, and faculty members have discretion in doing that and we are not — we do not prescribe anything in particular centrally.
REPORTER: But there is no oversight then? If somebody could administer at their discretion, teachers have free reign in how they want to administer the test?
PROVOST SNYDER: Obviously there are some constraints because there are some University rules on that, but we do not have any prescribed way of administering examinations, just like we don’t have any prescribed way of teaching students. Some departments choose to administer departmental-wide exams and others do not.
REPORTER: Is there a University guideline, though, saying that students that are given oral exams — don’t they have to be diagnosed as learning disabled?
PROVOST SNYDER: They do not need to be diagnosed as learning disabled. Students who are given oral exams may be given oral exams as a result of an accommodation for a student who does have a documented disability or that may be the instructor’s discretion.
DR. PLATZ: Oral examinations are a standard part of the graduate student experience, and I can assure you it’s the one they least look forward to.
REPORTER: You said that the NCAA was part of the investigation, you sent the report to them; when did that report go to them and when did you hear back from them as to the findings of that report? And then my follow-up question would be, you say that one recommendation has already been implemented; is that as a part of sending that initial report off to the NCAA?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: No. Let me start at the first end of your question. The report was completed last week or presented last week to me and to the provost for review. We listened to the committee. We talked with the committee extensively. We read the report before we met with the committee and we accepted the report as we left. I accepted the report. After that, we mailed it to — it had gone to the NCAA for their observation of it and their reading of the same report. They also came back and confirmed the same words that I had said earlier, that they accepted the report, or they felt they did not need to go further in their own investigation. Now, you asked if that response was connected with hiring the counselor. No, I think when the recommendation came out that additional counselors were needed, the athletics department took that seriously and hired an additional counselor.
REPORTER: What was the date of that hire? How long ago?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: I can’t tell you that, but I think it’s within the last — I don’t know.
PROVOST SNYDER: The person may not have started yet, for all I know, but the hire has been made.
REPORTER: You have filed with the NCAA a self-report on the extra benefits issue. Have received word from the NCAA that there’s no need to go forward on that?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: This is a different issue.
REPORTER: I understand.
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: Today we’re simply dealing —
REPORTER: You filed that one previous to this with the NCAA because, two things here: One, I have the freedom of information request to get that, so I’m real interested in what counsel decides on whether that’s an open record; and, two, if you’ve heard from the NCAA on the academic issue, but you haven’t heard on the extra benefits issue, does that indicate in your view that the NCAA will be back in here looking on the extra benefits issue?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: I can’t address that and I would make no interpretation of having heard on this report. We simply sent this forward to be certain that this melded and meshed with what the NCAA represented and believed to be the case with the report.
REPORTER: One of the allegations that the teaching assistant made was she had grade books that supported a couple of her contentions. In addition to the 60 people you spoke with, did you also look at records such as the teaching assistant’s grade book?
DR. PLATZ: We looked at a large number of documents, protected documents, publicly available documents.
REPORTER: The New York Times had that grade book. Did you look at that grade book?
DR. PLATZ: We looked at a large number of documents.
REPORTER: You can’t answer that, whether you looked at the grade book?
REPORTER: Did your investigation show that Professor Pierce did administer an oral exam to one student in what you said is a common practice for oral exams among graduate students? That was not a graduate level course that she was teaching. Did she, in fact, administer an oral exam to one student in that lecture?
DR. PLATZ: I can’t respond to that question.
REPORTER: It’s not a specific question about a student. Why can’t you answer that?
DR. PLATZ: Because it would relate back to a specific individual.
REPORTER: How many students did not waive their FERPA rights? How many did you approach besides Chris Vance who decided not to go public?
PROVOST SNYDER: We can only tell you that Chris Vance agreed to waive and others did not.
REPORTER: Not even a number of who did not? Are we talking like a dozen, or ballpark?
PROVOST SNYDER: You read the New York Times story. That’s all I can say.
REPORTER: Do you believe the New York Times story damaged the University’s reputation at all?
PROVOST SNYDER: I hope not, because I hope this report suggests that our academic integrity was and continues to be intact and that the programs for academic support provided to our student athletes are administered in keeping with the University’s principle and integrity.
REPORTER: Do you believe if this would have been more of an outside investigation and included more outsiders it would have more credibility or are you satisfied with the work that’s been done?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: I’m completely satisfied with the credibility. We spent a large amount of time thinking about who the appropriate faculty would be, who our faculty who deal with undergraduates on a regular basis who are not connected with the athletic department in any way whatsoever or serve as a representative or on the athletic council, and in many cases, they may not even be fans, and they may be. We didn’t look at that, but we really wanted faculty who were valued by the University and known to be good instructors for undergraduate students. We also included Ken Ikenberry, as I mentioned, who has a long history at the University of Illinois in dealing with athletic events, including some negative athletic events, to come in as counsel and also as serving on the American Council for Education as its president for a long time, a gentleman who has a great deal of credibility and, I think, benefited the committee by watching, by talking, by communicating and connecting with what was going on. I — and as you know, we did have outside counsel, as you’ve already heard, helping us as well. So I feel like we have a very credible group and I don’t see the need to bring in other people other than the ones we have.
REPORTER: Did the NCAA investigator, Mr. Duffin, ever meet with anyone or do anything except observe your investigation? Did he ever meet with anyone independently?
DR. PLATZ: I can tell you Mr. Duffin participated in a number of interviews.
REPORTER: Independent? In other words, did he observe your — was he part of your process? Did he ever do anything on his own independent of Ohio State oversight?
DR. PLATZ: Well, I can’t answer the second part. I don’t know. I can tell you he attended many of the interviews that we conducted.
REPORTER: Can you tell us how you verified the students’ work? How did you verify that they did the work that they said they did?
DR. PLATZ: Well, we talked with lots and lots of people and when we heard the same story over and over again from multiple sources, we believed it.
REPORTER: Why?
DR. PLATZ: Because we talked with people who had many different perspectives and had different or no agenda or investment in the outcome of this case.
REPORTER: And everybody said the same thing?
DR. PLATZ: Largely. The facts in this case were very easy to uncover.
REPORTER: So no concerns that homework or term papers were being done for students?
REPORTER: How would you verify —
DR. MURPHY: I’m sorry, one question at a time. One back here.
REPORTER: You’re comfortable then by saying no inappropriate tutorial help, that includes doing homework, nor term papers in that umbrella?
DR. PLATZ: That’s correct. The committee believes that SASSO tutors and counselors did not give inappropriate assistance to student athletes.
REPORTER: And preferential treatment in the classroom, did you say you can’t address specifically cases of that or you didn’t find it?
DR. PLATZ: I cannot address that specifically in the course in question.
REPORTER: Is there any provision for —
DR. MURPHY: I’m sorry, there was a question here to be finished and then we’ll go to you.
REPORTER: How are you defining preferential treatment, number one? And number two, how can you be so certain that a term paper written by a student was, in fact, not done by someone else or someone was given answers to write that term paper?
DR. PLATZ: Well, I’ll do the second question first. What I’ve been saying is there’s been no inappropriate assistance to student athletes by employees of SASSO. Now, the committee is not so naive as to feel that no students on this campus cheat and student athletes have the same temptations and the same opportunities outside of this building as the rest of the student body does.
PROVOST SNYDER: I can address the preferential treatment. It would be treatment that would not be available to other students in the class in the same circumstances, and I think that’s really what the committee looked for.
DR. PLATZ:Exactly.
REPORTER: President Holbrook — go ahead.
REPORTER: Is there any provision for whistle blowers at all in the future? Are you at all concerned that this is a chilling effect on anybody who speaks out and believes there is preferential treatment? You’ve basically said the person who spoke up originally and spoke to the New York Times had no voracity. Are you concerned at all about this in the future that people will not step forward if they do see things?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: I don’t think anybody has said today or in this report that there is no voracity other than the fact that we found there is integrity. There was no criticism of the individual, nor was there any punishment or retribution to the individual who levied the charges.
REPORTER: But your conclusions are diametrically opposed to what their conclusions were. Wouldn’t that mean you don’t believe what they said?
PROVOST SNYDER: I think what we did was take their allegations seriously and investigate. I will assure you that if future allegations of the same sort came forward, we would again take them seriously and investigate. I don’t think anyone who blows the whistle can or should expect that they will always be vindicated. I think what they can expect from at least Ohio State is a serious investigation and that’s what we did in this case.
REPORTER: President Holbrook, this matter began when a teaching assistant went to the department head in the African-American and African studies department and felt like her concerns were not received in the spirit she hoped they would be. Are you satisfied that that conversation was handled in the way you wanted it to? Otherwise this may not have ever resulted in a newspaper story being written. Any possible personnel changes or procedural changes as a result of what happened between Dr. Goings and Norma McGill?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: Again, this has to do with student record and we’re not at liberty to discuss it.
REPORTER: He was talking a little bit more about procedure, though. Will there be changes made in the whistle-blowing aspect of things where people do have another venue if they don’t think they’re getting satisfaction from their department head?
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: We have several venues in the University for students or for anybody to make allegations and to register them with official University processes.
REPORTER: Does Paulette Pierce face any — you said no one faces any discipline or retribution. But you were talking about FERPA a lot and she was quoted quite a bit in the New York Times article also. Does she face any type of sanction or discipline because of that?
PROVOST SNYDER: No.
REPORTER: Has she refuted things where she was quoted as saying in the New York Times articles?
PROVOST SNYDER: I can’t answer that.
REPORTER: Why can’t you answer that?
PROVOST SNYDER: Because that would concern the educational record of an individual student.
REPORTER: How do you explain the dichotomy between Paulette Pierce telling the New York Times she found Norma McGill credible and your investigation finding Norma McGill not credible?
PROVOST SNYDER: I can only tell you we have the report of the committee and it speaks for itself.
REPORTER: You find a professor, Paulette Pierce, credible, but you do not find her opinion that a whistle blower is credible — you don’t find that credible?
PROVOST SNYDER: I can only tell you that the report speaks for itself.
REPORTER: How much of the report was redacted?
PROVOST SNYDER: All of it that related to the educational records of particular student athletes who did not waive their rights under FERPA.
REPORTER: Would that have been pages or names or —
PROVOST SNYDER: It is pages, as you will see.
REPORTER: So is it the majority, half?
PROVOST SNYDER: It’s much less than the majority. I think it’s less than half.
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: 25%.
PROVOST SNYDER: You will see for yourself.
PRESIDENT HOLBROOK: You’ll get a copy.
REPORTER: As a result of this investigation or anything you found, will any changes be made in the way Ohio State certifies the eligibility of athletes for bowl games around the new year or after the conclusion of winter quarter? There were some questions raised about whether there were players who would have been academically ineligible for the Fiesta Bowl last year had the game started on the first day of winter quarter. I wonder, will there be any changes in how you certify athletes’ eligibility for bowl games as a result of this?
PROVOST SNYDER: We’re going to defer all questions about NCAA regulations to Andy Geiger.
REPORTER: So you’re saying one change that came out of this investigation is one counselor was hired?
PROVOST SNYDER: No, we’re saying we have allegations which Professor Platz outlined for you and which are in the report that we have already implemented just one of those recommendations. We’re not saying that’s the only thing that will be done. We are saying that’s the thing we have already done.
REPORTER: Is FERPA voluntarily waived in the report to the NCAA, as a participation in intercollegiate athletics, will the NCAA get a full, unredacted report?
PROVOST SNYDER: We have to refer that question to our University counsel.
REPORTER: How many members of your faculty committee attended the Fiesta Bowl last year?
PROVOST SNYDER: I think I can say without a doubt zero.
DR. PLATZ: I believe that’s correct.
PROVOST SNYDER: We didn’t ask that question, so you will have to ask Professor Platz if he would be willing to check with the individual committee members, but I believe the answer is zero.
REPORTER: Professor Platz, you mentioned you’d like to strengthen the link between SASSO and the other side, and weaken the link between that and the athletic side, why?
DR. PLATZ: Right now, the system works because the people at the top of the system have integrity. We’d like the system to work, the strength of the system to be independent of the people who are at the top of the athletics department and SASSO.
DR. MURPHY: Okay. Thank you very much. Andy Geiger will come up front now and take questions. Copies of the report are available in the back of the room. Please sign up and get copies, and you can also get copies of the remarks of each of the principals at the news conference in the back as well.
REPORTER: You said from the very beginning you weren’t concerned about what happened because you were confident that everything was fine and obviously they supported everything you thought all along, there were no changes.
MR. ANDY GEIGER: I also said, Rusty, it was my hope that the investigation would be vigorous and thorough, tireless, and that it wouldn’t end until people were satisfied with the outcomes and I’m delighted to say that I think that happened.
REPORTER: Is there any type of — do you feel a burden lifted off your shoulders now? What is your personal response or feeling on this?
MR. GEIGER: My concern right from the start was that aside from this being a charge against the athletic community at the University that it was a charge against the integrity of the academic processes at the University, the very core and purpose of the institution, and my pleasure in what we’re telling you about today is that I think that aspect of the University’s reputation has been affirmed, and I feel wonderful about that. A lot of people were hurt, and unnecessarily so in my view.
REPORTER: Andy, did you use an outside law firm on the self-report on extra benefits?
MR. GEIGER: No.
REPORTER: Andy —
MR. GEIGER: I think maybe in certain aspects of that, Mr. Glazer answered some questions regarding it as it related to a couple of those issues, but that wasn’t — by far, spent a tiny amount of time on that.
REPORTER: Will there be any changes in how you certify athletes’ eligibility based upon the results of this investigation or because of this investigation coming into being?
MR. GEIGER: I think not, Bruce. We follow NCAA rules to the letter with regard to certification of eligibility and nobody played in the Fiesta Bowl who was not eligible to play, nor will they this year.
REPORTER: Andy, do you feel like this report exonerates Ohio State or will create some skepticism out there? Because five months and basically nothing was found, and the New York Times, some of its problems notwithstanding, still remains largely a credible — has a reputation as a credible news source.
MR. GEIGER: I will say the same thing that Provost Snyder was saying, that the report speaks for itself and the process was, in my view, impeccable. And the people that were involved in the process, almost none of whom I know, were diligent and thorough and serious about their duties.
REPORTER: Andy, do you know, was Maurice Clarett, who was apparently the root of much of the New York Times story, through the teaching assistant, also through the professor, was he ever interviewed?
MR. GEIGER: I can’t answer that, Rusty, for the same reason other questions were not able to be answered.
REPORTER: Are there any changes, from your side of things, that will be made as a result of this report or this investigation?
MR. GEIGER: We have already added a staff member at SASSO. We’ll consider more. I will expand a little bit on what Professor Platz said with regard to the relationship between athletics, the office of academic affairs, and SASSO. The budget support for SASSO comes from athletics. We will probably and hopefully relinquish salary setting and any straight-line relationship with the staff of SASSO so that there is absolutely no perception or reality of pressure on counselors at SASSO with regard to the eligibility of student athletes. Attached to the report that you will get is the handbook for tutors and the processes we use in selecting tutors, vetting tutors, and the kind of interactions that they have with the kind of students that they tutor. It’s rigorous, has always been rigorous, and I think it will be enlightening for you.
REPORTER: Andy, can you give your personal feelings at this point? Is it relief? How do you feel now that this is over?
MR. GEIGER: Well, I don’t feel relief, because I never felt that we were doing things incorrectly. I feel delighted that good people who work for this University can know, from an impeccable committee of their peers, that we are operating the athletic activities of the University in accordance with the mission of the University and the core purpose of this place, and I feel very, very good about that.
REPORTER: Andy, follow-up on what you were saying earlier. In other words, SASSO might end up falling under the purview of the University and not the athletic department, they would answer to them, not you?
MR. GEIGER: Yeah, I think more than they do now, and I think that’s a very good thing as far as I’m concerned. I have never been a person that worries very much about turf. I worry about how effective we are at what it is we’re supposed to do. I don’t feel the recommendation is an affront to anybody in the athletic department. I simply think it’s an appropriate relationship for SASSO and it has my support.
REPORTER: Andy, is the athletic department at this point still considering the possibility of petitioning for Maurice Clarett’s reinstatement pending his progress, according to some guidelines?
MR. GEIGER: That has to do with the other issue. There’s not a connection between this report today —
REPORTER: I understand.
MR. GEIGER: — and that issue. And as I have said previously, we’ll decide when and if we request his reinstatement as a student athlete at Ohio State.
REPORTER: And is there — Coach Tressel indicated the other day that spring practice would be an appropriate time to look at that. Is March 1st an appropriate date?
MR. GEIGER: I don’t think I want to get into a date certain. I want to see what kind of progress we make.
REPORTER: But you would not eliminate that possibility?
MR. GEIGER: I would not eliminate it. I would not go either way on it. I’m not commenting on it.
REPORTER: Is that still possible? Do you still see possibilities that Maurice Clarett could be playing for Ohio State next season?
MR. GEIGER: I think it’s a possibility.
REPORTER: Can you say, Andy, how academically he has progressed?
MR. GEIGER: I’m not allowed to comment on that for FERPA reasons. Thank you. you.
