Who is Vicky Triponey? And What Does She Have to Do With JoePa?


Update Post 9/2/2012

The September 2007 report on Judicial Affairs, obtained by the Centre Daily Times, recommended changes — which then- President Graham Spanier implemented. They include in general leaving it to directors, advisers or coaches to decide whether students under disciplinary probation should be allowed to participate in sports and clubs rather than putting that in the hands of Student Affairs, which oversees the Office of Student Conduct.

“Involvement in student activities is for the most part a healthy influence on student behavior, and removing such involvement as a way of getting a student’s attention to correct misbehavior is likely to be counterproductive,” the report reads.

Triponey, who left Penn State in 2007 after four years in the job, has been featured in several news stories following the Sandusky scandal, condemning interference from Joe Paterno in disciplinary matters involving football players and agreeing with the idea of a cultural problem. But her stance on who should decide whether athletes in trouble can participate in extracurricular programs — the person in her former position or the club or sport leader — runs counter to the 2007 report, a product of an independent faculty committee.

 

By Gary Leavit–edited by Myke Triebold, with responses from Mike Meachem in italics.  My interest in hosting this website is to be fair and not to create collateral damage from an horrific tragedy in Penn State’s History.  I chose to integrate Mr Meachem’s comments in this posting, as many people will read the article and not go to the comment section.  I wanted his side to have equal time.

Who is Vicky Triponey? And why does she hate Joe Paterno?

Hell hath no fury like a woman spurned. And there is no doubt that Vicky Triponey was spurned by Joe Paterno.

Triponey was hired in 2003 by Graham Spanier after a rocky and controversial stint at the University of Connecticut. Within months of her arrival at Penn State she began a “Reign of Terror” aimed at consolidating power within her Office of Student Affairs and crushing or eliminating anything or anyone that challenged that power.

As to this notion of “consolidating power,” the details of which will be addressed below, be advised that Dr. Triponey’s entire career has been dedicated to the growth and empowerment of students so they may become constructive participants in our society.  The only power monger in this episode is the idol on whose behalf you continue to spew hateful falsehoods

She began by dismantling the Student Organization Appeals Board. This Board, composed of students, faculty and administrators, heard appeals from organizations like the student government and the fraternity council. Triponey became the sole arbiter of of any questions or disputes, with no appeal possible.

Patently false. First, the fraternity and sorority chapters have their own councils that make judgments about their behavior. You should study up on this. Secondly, the initiative was merely to streamline and modernize the process to assure due process in organizational appeals. She has never acted in a way to supplant student decisions with her own. This was an effort to delineate the process between organizational misconduct and individual misconduct and had nothing whatever to do with eliminating anyone’s right of appeal. Indeed, you might want to check with Greek leaders of that era to get some facts about how Dr. Triponey handled these kinds of matters

She then informed the campus radio station, LION 90.7, that all funding would be terminated unless her office was given direct control over programming and content. She famously warned, “the first thing to go will be Radio Free Penn State” — the popular talk show known for its frank criticism of some of the administration’s decisions.

Utterly and completely false. The quote you cite here was never said, if at all, certainly not in the context you cite; your attribution of the sentiment is a lie. The radio station had, at least in part, been funded temporarily with a grant of funds from the Division of Student Affairs. Had that practice been allowed to continue, the radio station would fall within the institutional control of the university and, thus, actually have its content judged against institutional interests. What she told the students was that the radio station would need to be treated differently if it were a university station by dint of funding source. Her initiative here was to change the source of funding from the Division of Student Affairs to student activity fees. The radio station would, indeed, no longer receive money from heaven – that’s true, as it would need to apply for, and justify its need for, funding through the student activity fee process.

Triponey next turned on the Student Supreme Court which was part of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG). For fifty years, the Court effectively registered and oversaw student organizations. Again, she usurped all decision-making power and became the judge and jury herself.

After, essentially dissolving the USG, the student government, and replacing it with an organization under her direct control, she decided it was time to butt heads with Joe Paterno.

In 2007, she pounced on an off-campus incident: Anthony Scirrotto, a safety on the football team, and his girlfriend were accosted and assaulted by three drunken students on a State College street. Two of those attackers were subsequently found guilty of harassment and criminal mischief. Later that evening, Scirrotto and a number of his teammates met up with the attackers at an off-campus apartment party, where a confrontation and fight ensued.

I am not going to spend a great deal of energy correcting your grossly inaccurate depiction of the incident at the Meridian apartments other than to say there were more than 12 players, as many as two dozen allegedly, beating the living crap out of two guys, one of whom ended up in the hospital. This occurred some 45 minutes after these two young men confronted and verbally assaulted Scioritto and his girlfriend. This attack was pre-mediated and organized. Some of the players invaded the apartment; some stood in the hall keeping watch while the other group of thugs engaged in TV-like violence by breaking a bottle of beer over one of the victims’ head among other things. The only point I will concede here is that the episode did indeed start and stop off campus, which I think is your point in underscoring that it began on a “State College” street.

In a series of emails to Dr. Spanier, Triponey insisted that she alone had the responsibility to discipline the players involved and indicated that suspension or expulsion was called for. Joe Paterno pointed out that since the incidents were off-campus and everyone involved was facing criminal trials, it was necessary to wait for DUE PROCESS to take its course and that in the meantime he would, as always, determine team discipline.

 The gist of the e-mails was to defend the integrity of the student judicial process, something to which all students are subject. In addition, the Code of Student Conduct that was in place at that time and well before Dr. Triponey’s arrival at Penn State (like the vast majority of other colleges and universities in America) applied to student conduct even off campus. What this means, of course, is that it does not matter where all this took place; the student judicial process would still play a role. If these guys were members of the Chess Club, they would be subject to this process. But football players, by the grace of your idol, were to be treated differently. No conclusion regarding expulsion had been reached at the time of those e-mails. Indeed, those decisions were to be made by a hearing board that would include students. Dr. Triponey would serve as appeals officer in the event the student would choose to appeal. This is the student version of “due process.”

Ultimately, all charges against Scirroto were dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to misdemeanor trespass resulting in a fine of $500 and 25 hours of community service.

Joe used the incident as a teaching moment, sentencing the WHOLE TEAM to a season of after-game stadium cleanup duty. When Triponey protested and insisted that she alone should determine the fate of the players, Joe said he really didn’t think she understood teenagers very well, having never had children of her own.

More importantly, Dr. Triponey never insisted that she alone had responsibility for discipline.  The essence of her view is that student athletes in this situation are subject to three forms of discipline: (1) as citizens of the larger society / community, they are accountable to the law and criminal courts; (2) as citizens of the university community they are accountable to the Student Code of Conduct and its processes, and; (3) as athletes they are accountable to team rules and the coach. The only person insisting that he and he alone handle the discipline of these thugs was your idol. He even said so in an e-mail to Dr. Spanier. This was covered in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The “stadium clean-up duty” lasted all of two weeks (see the Centre Daily Times). And, oh by the way, if the coach was so interested as you claim in “due process” why were the innocent players – those who did not engage in this particular episode of thuggery  — punished along with the guilty? Common athletic punishment ? Sure. Due process? Not at all. Please. As to the remark Joe made on the radio. . . well, that was simply an act of condescension that was both incorrect and in poor taste. Dr. Triponey’s scholarship is in student development. To suggest she knows nothing about student discipline belies the fact that, at the time, she had 25 years of experience and a national reputation for working effectively with college students. Not only did she understand discipline, she understood how to help them grow as citizens:

That set her off on another round of emails and threats. By this time she had made so many enemies on campus and was creating so much turmoil, that Dr. Spanier asked for her resignation, acknowledging the mistake he had made four years earlier.

The coach,  Athletic Director and Dr. Spanier continually, and inappropriately, interfered with the established student judicial processes, attempting to replace the determination to be made by a student discipline board with their judgment – in effect denying students a voice – by negotiating sanctions acceptable to your idol. Dr. Triponey attempted to defend the process without regard to what the outcome might be. Dr. Spanier, 5 months after the Meridian episode did indeed ask for her resignation. He never did, however, “acknowledge” hiring her was a mistake. He did indicate she was not fitting in with “the Penn State way.”

Now, with Joe gone and Spanier sidelined, Triponey gets to play her “I told you so” card in a very receptive media environment, obscuring the plain truth that absolutely nothing she did or didn’t do in her disastrous tenure at Penn State had any relationship whatsoever to the Sandusky affair and it’s aftermath.

This has nothing to do with “I told you so.” It does, however, speak to the secretive, deceptive culture that prevails in the football program and at the executive level of the university in acting as a shroud for the football program. The Meridian episode, when you look at the real facts (as opposed to the ones you invented), demonstrates how “the Penn State way” operated to impose dichotomous sets of standards: one set of rules for the football program and players – your idol shall decide right and wrong; and one set for everyone else.

Even Louis Freeh ignored her complaints in his biased summary of his investigation. We don’t know if she influenced Mark Emmert. What we do know is that she is a bitter, disgruntled former employee who was spurned by Penn State and Coach Paterno.

The investigation, appropriately, focused narrowly on the Sandusky episode, and thus her interactions with Paterno and Dr. Spanier were relevant only to the pattern and practice of conduct evidenced by their handling of the Meridian episode (and others). Thus, her observations regarding the prevailing culture at Penn State were merely affirmations of what Freeh’s team had already discovered for themselves

And that she believes she understands kids in their late teens and early 20′s better than a man who spent 61 years mentoring them. And who helped raise five of his own kids and 17 grandchildren.

That was never the issue except for the fact that your idol arrogantly — and wrongly — proclaimed it.

That’s who Vicky Triponey is. And that’s why she hates Joe Paterno.

The fact is that Dr. Triponey received a resolution of appreciation from Penn State’s USG at the end of her first year – signed by every member of USG. Later she was named an honorary Nittany Lion mascot by Penn State’s cheer leaders. And later still, she was saluted (chosen by students!) as the honorary Grand Marshall for Penn State’s Homecoming parade. This is hardly the record that you falsely describe. It is the record of someone who has served honorably and effectively in helping students grow and discover themselves and serve their campus community with distinction.

Advertisements

3 comments on “Who is Vicky Triponey? And What Does She Have to Do With JoePa?

  1. To: Gary Levitt
    Myke Triebold
    Susan Newkirk Lewis
    And your readers

    I believe I said somewhere that if any of the people intent on attempting to destroy my wife by circulating vicious lies such as those referenced below did so in their own names, I would respond in kind. Thus I write in what is probably a vain effort to tell the truth should any of you care.

    1. Triponey was hired in 2003 by Graham Spanier after a rocky and controversial stint at the University of Connecticut. Within months of her arrival at Penn State she began a “Reign of Terror” aimed at consolidating power within her Office of Student Affairs and crushing or eliminating anything or anyone that challenged that power.
    Dr. Triponey was hired by Dr. Spanier, true enough. Her “stint” at UConn, however, was anything but “controversial.” The student leaders there would tell you how helpful she was in empowering them to manage the student fee process, helping to put them in a position to actually govern the distribution of their own fees. The newspaper articles on which your peers have relied to spread this particular bit of nonsense are much more balanced than you would lead people to believe. Some familiar with her record have referred to her as a “rock star” regarding her performance at UConn. Suffice it to say she did a great deal to modernize and democratize student governance, establish a civil culture, help grow the football program (Yes, that’s right – the football program), and empower students to make decisions affecting their own futures.
    As to this notion of “consolidating power,” the details of which will be addressed below, be advised that Dr. Triponey’s entire career has been dedicated to the growth and empowerment of students so they may become constructive participants in our society.
    2.She began by dismantling the Student Organization Appeals Board. This Board, composed of students, faculty and administrators, heard appeals from organizations like the student government and the fraternity council. Triponey became the sole arbiter of any questions or disputes, with no appeal possible.
    Patently false. First, the fraternity and sorority chapters have their own councils that make judgments about their behavior. Secondly, the initiative was merely to streamline and modernize the process to assure due process in organizational appeals. She has never acted in a way to supplant student decisions with her own. This was an effort to delineate the process between organizational misconduct and individual misconduct and had nothing whatever to do with eliminating anyone’s right of appeal. Indeed, you might want to check with Greek leaders of that era to get some facts about how Dr. Triponey handled these kinds of matters. But of course you won’t.

    3. She then informed the campus radio station, LION 90.7, that all funding would be terminated unless her office was given direct control over programming and content. She famously warned, “the first thing to go will be Radio Free Penn State” — the popular talk show known for its frank criticism of some of the administration’s decisions.

    Utterly and completely false. The quote you cite here was never said, if at all, certainly not in the context you cite; your attribution of the sentiment is a lie. The radio station had, at least in part, been funded temporarily with a grant of funds from the Division of Student Affairs. Had that practice been allowed to continue, the radio station would fall within the institutional control of the university and, thus, actually have its content judged against institutional interests. What she told the students was that the radio station would need to be treated differently if it were a university station by dint of funding source. Her initiative here was to change the source of funding from the Division of Student Affairs to student activity fees. The radio station would, indeed, no longer receive manna from heaven – that’s true, as it would need to apply for, and justify its need for, funding through the student activity fee process. But the student fee-source of funding would assure the station could continue as a student entity. Accountable to —- students!!! Thus, the “free speech” you assert she was trying to squelch was something she was, in fact, attempting to preserve, irrespective of the content.

    4. Triponey next turned on the Student Supreme Court which was part of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG). For fifty years, the Court effectively registered and oversaw student organizations. Again, she usurped all decision-making power and became the judge and jury herself.

    The issue here is a student organization’s right to exist. The first amendment of the US Constitution assures all citizens the right of “association,” meaning they can create whatever groups, committees, political parties, etc. that they want. Simply put, the Student Supreme Court was dilatory in delaying approval of a religious organization and got the university sued. The Student Supreme Court was, in effect, attempting to judge and to deny some student organizations the right to exist. Heaven only knows what criteria they were using to exercise such judgment, but no matter what standard they chose, it was incorrect simply because it had no right to deny the existence of an organization. Dr. Triponey ended this noxious practice by replacing it with a registration system, a non-judgmental, ministerial process that did reside in the Division of Student Affairs. This was a modernization process that brought PSU into compliance with existing US constitutional requirements. All a student group would need to do is register. To be recognized as a “registered” student organization made a group eligible to use facilities and to apply for student fee support. This, by the way, is the practice at virtually every college and university in the United States.

    5. After, essentially dissolving the USG, the student government, and replacing it with an organization under her direct control, she decided it was time to butt heads with Joe Paterno.

    Again, complete fiction. She did not “dissolve” USG. Nor was what evolved “under her direct control.” A young man named Galen Foulk ran for USG President twice; was elected the first time and re-elected the second. His explicit platform both times was the reform of the ineffectual USG. Following his second election, he managed to have, in effect, a plebiscite to ask the students if USG should be replaced with something else. The result was overwhelmingly positive. He and a group of student leaders then crafted a plan and put that plan to a vote of the students. It was adopted. It was then, with 4 elections reflecting the student voice affirming the need to change, Dr. Triponey recommended to Dr. Spanier that the new organization be recognized as the official student government.

    6. In 2007, she pounced on an off-campus incident: Anthony Scirrotto, a safety on the football team, and his girlfriend were accosted and assaulted by three drunken students on a State College street. Two of those attackers were subsequently found guilty of harassment and criminal mischief. Later that evening, Scirrotto and a number of his teammates met up with the attackers at an off-campus apartment party, where a confrontation and fight ensued.

    I am not going to spend a great deal of energy correcting your grossly inaccurate depiction of the incident at the Meridian apartments other than to say there were more than 12 players, as many as two dozen allegedly, beating the living crap out of two guys, one of whom ended up in the hospital. This occurred some 45 minutes after these two young men confronted and verbally assaulted Scioritto and his girlfriend. This attack was pre-mediated and organized. Some of the players invaded the apartment; some stood in the hall keeping watch while the other group of thugs engaged in TV-like violence by breaking a bottle of beer over one of the victims’ head among other things. The only point I will concede here is that the episode did indeed start and stop off campus, which I think is your point in underscoring that it began on a “State College” street. The fact that more players were not charged and convicted is not evidence of the innocence of the players so much as it is a testament to the fact that the players were coached to take the Fifth Amendment at a preliminary hearing and a weak-kneed prosecutor who failed to use his power to grant immunity and compel testimony.

    7. In a series of emails to Dr. Spanier, Triponey insisted that she alone had the responsibility to discipline the players involved and indicated that suspension or expulsion was called for. Joe Paterno pointed out that since the incidents were off-campus and everyone involved was facing criminal trials, it was necessary to wait for DUE PROCESS to take its course and that in the meantime he would, as always, determine team discipline.

    Again, your characterization of what Dr. Triponey said and did during this time is completely false. The gist of the e-mails was to defend the integrity of the student judicial process, something to which all students are subject. In addition, the Code of Student Conduct that was in place at that time and well before Dr. Triponey’s arrival at Penn State (like the vast majority of other colleges and universities in America) applied to student conduct even off campus. What this means, of course, is that it does not matter where all this took place; the student judicial process would still play a role. If these guys were members of the Chess Club, they would be subject to this process. But football players were to be treated differently. No conclusion regarding expulsion had been reached at the time of those e-mails. Indeed, those decisions were to be made by a hearing board that would include students. Dr. Triponey would serve as appeals officer in the event the student would choose to appeal. This is the student version of “due process.” And there is no need to wait for the criminal process to be complete, as the student discipline process has no bearing on the criminal prosecution and likewise the criminal prosecution has no bearing on student discipline. They are separate matters.

    More importantly, Dr. Triponey never insisted that she alone had responsibility for discipline. The essence of her view is that student athletes in this situation are subject to three forms of discipline: (1) as citizens of the larger society / community, they are accountable to the law and criminal courts; (2) as citizens of the university community they are accountable to the Student Code of Conduct and its processes, and; (3) as athletes they are accountable to team rules and the coach. The only person insisting that he and he alone handle the discipline of these thugs was Joe Paterno. He even said so in an e-mail to Dr. Spanier. This was covered in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

    8. Joe used the incident as a teaching moment, sentencing the WHOLE TEAM to a season of after-game stadium cleanup duty. When Triponey protested and insisted that she alone should determine the fate of the players, Joe said he really didn’t think she understood teenagers very well, having never had children of her own. (Ouch!)

    Not quite. The “stadium clean-up duty” lasted all of two weeks (see the Centre Daily Times). And, if the coach was so interested as you claim in “due process” why were the innocent players – those who did not engage in this particular episode of thuggery — punished along with the guilty? Common athletic punishment ? Sure. Due process? Not at all. Please. As to the remark the your Paterno made on the radio. . . well, that was simply an act of condescension that was both incorrect and in poor taste. Dr. Triponey’s scholarship is in student development. To suggest she knows nothing about student discipline belies the fact that, at the time, she had 25 years of experience and a national reputation for working effectively with college students. Not only did she understand discipline, she understood how to help them grow as citizens.

    9. That set her off on another round of emails and threats. By this time she had made so many enemies on campus and was creating so much turmoil, that Dr. Spanier asked for her resignation, acknowledging the mistake he had made four years earlier.

    Again, you are more than a bit off base here. The coach, Tim Curley and Dr. Spanier continually, and inappropriately, interfered with the established student judicial processes, attempting to replace the determination to be made by a student discipline board with their judgment – in effect denying students a voice – by negotiating sanctions acceptable to Paterno. Dr. Triponey attempted to defend the process without regard to what the outcome might be. Dr. Spanier, 5 months after the Meridian episode did indeed ask for her resignation. He never did, however, “acknowledge” hiring her was a mistake. He did indicate she was not fitting in with “the Penn State way.”

    10. Now, with Joe gone and Spanier sidelined, Triponey gets to play her “I told you so” card in a very receptive media environment, obscuring the plain truth that absolutely nothing she did or didn’t do in her disastrous tenure at Penn State had any relationship whatsoever to the Sandusky affair and it’s aftermath.

    Again disingenuous at the least. This has nothing to do with “I told you so.” It does, however, speak to the secretive, deceptive culture that prevails in the football program and at the executive level of the university in acting as a shroud for the football program. The Meridian episode, when you look at the real facts (as opposed to the ones you invented), demonstrates how “the Penn State way” operated to impose dichotomous sets of standards: one set of rules for the football program and players – Joe shall decide right and wrong; and one set for everyone else. This chapter highlights how protecting the guilty at the expense of the innocent was an integral part of protecting the image of “the Grand Experiment.” It thus, delineates how it would be possible for the same set of actors to treat a monster “humanely” while ignoring the value of children’s lives.

    11. Even Louis Freeh ignored her complaints in his biased summary of his investigation. We don’t know if she influenced Mark Emmert. What we do know is that she is a bitter, disgruntled former employee who was spurned by Penn State and Coach Paterno.

    Again, wrong. The investigation, appropriately, focused narrowly on the Sandusky episode, and thus her interactions with Paterno and Dr. Spanier were relevant only to the pattern and practice of conduct evidenced by their handling of the Meridian episode (and others). Thus, her observations regarding the prevailing culture at Penn State were merely affirmations of what Freeh’s team had already discovered for themselves based on what, to the objective eye is clear and convincing evidence. Dr. Triponey is neither bitter nor disgruntled.

    12. And that she believes she understands kids in their late teens and early 20′s better than a man who spent 61 years mentoring them. And who helped raise five of his own kids and 17 grandchildren.
    That was never the issue except for the fact that Paterno arrogantly — and wrongly — proclaimed it.

    13. That’s who Vicky Triponey is. And that’s why she hates Joe Paterno.
    As her husband, I can tell you that the person you have described is certainly not Vicky Triponey. You have never met her. Those who have worked with her paint a vastly different picture than the person you describe. She is a caring person who has always had the students’ best interests at heart. This does not mean they always got their way, as understanding limits is a part of maturing. So, yeah, some overly-indulged students and some so-called grown-ups who should know better discovered they don’t always get their way. No surprise that they should lash out in this manner. .

    The vast majority of people who know Dr. Triponey, who have worked with her, appreciate and admire her work. The fact is that Dr. Triponey received a resolution of appreciation from Penn State’s USG at the end of her first year – signed by every member of USG. Later she was named an honorary Nittany Lion mascot by Penn State’s cheer leaders. And later still, she was saluted (chosen by students!) as the honorary Grand Marshall for Penn State’s Homecoming parade. This is hardly the record that you describe. It is the record of someone who has served honorably and effectively in helping students grow and discover themselves and serve their campus community with distinction.

    Michael R. (Mike) Meacham

    • Mr. Meacham, I appreciate the time it took you to respond point by point to this posting. I don’t know where the truth actually lies in all of this sordid affair, and I fear we may never know the whole truth to any of it, with all the prejudgements, and lynch mob mentality on all sides of this tragedy. Those who want to hate the likes of Joe Paterno and Penn State have taken this opportunity do an “I told you so!” We have seen way too much of this. And, you are absolutely correct that those who “idolize” Joe Paterno will continue to do so. Those of us who knew him personally knew there were two sides to Joe–he could be masterful at PR when it was appropriate, and he could be a ranting maniac when someone crossed him. We all have those failings at times. He was not an “idol” to me, but a real person who got up every morning and did his job. He had a wonderful vision for what college football could and should be, and molded many great young men along the way. We also cannot overlook the contributions that he and Sue made to the University during his coaching years and beyond. His “grand experiment” did and is still working–we have the @1 ranked academic record of any major college football program. I cannot look at Beaver Stadium (where I have been going since 1958) and not say “this is the house that Joe Built”–because he did. I cannot look at the contributions he made and say it was all for naught. He definitely left his stamp on the campus. I never intended to insult your wife personally, and I do apologize–it must be very hard for you, her husband, to see her hurt. There have been way too many innocent bystanders hurt already, and will continue to be hurt. What I want is the truth–and when the truth be told, I hope that each guilty party pays the appropriate penalty–and that includes Joe Paterno. As of now, I have seen no actual evidence that he did anything wrong in this–he followed what was Penn State Policy at the time, and I am not defending that policy–just stating that he did what he was supposed to do–and yes, even he admitted he should have done more. Thank you for your point by point response. I hope everyone reads what you have to say.

    • The September 2007 report on Judicial Affairs, obtained by the Centre Daily Times, recommended changes — which then- President Graham Spanier implemented. They include in general leaving it to directors, advisers or coaches to decide whether students under disciplinary probation should be allowed to participate in sports and clubs rather than putting that in the hands of Student Affairs, which oversees the Office of Student Conduct.

      “Involvement in student activities is for the most part a healthy influence on student behavior, and removing such involvement as a way of getting a student’s attention to correct misbehavior is likely to be counterproductive,” the report reads.

      Triponey, who left Penn State in 2007 after four years in the job, has been featured in several news stories following the Sandusky scandal, condemning interference from Joe Paterno in disciplinary matters involving football players and agreeing with the idea of a cultural problem. But her stance on who should decide whether athletes in trouble can participate in extracurricular programs — the person in her former position or the club or sport leader — runs counter to the 2007 report, a product of an independent faculty committee.

      Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/09/02/3320036/study-counters-triponey-claims.html#storylink=cpy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s