Louis Lombardi
Published July 13, 2010 8:26am EDT - Link To Article

Here in Happy Valley, Penn State recently concluded its investigation into allegations against climate-change scientist Michael Mann. Mann is a proponent of man-made climate change, in which gases from our industrialized society are causing the atmosphere to warm and this warming will adversely impact the Earth and, ultimately, mankind.

Mann used a hockey stick to illustrate the rapid rise in the Earth’s overall temperature. However, while he was using this illustration to show this disturbing trend, there were e-mails between him and other proponents of global warming suggesting that the data behind their scientific theory were being manipulated.

This alleged manipulation created a worldwide uproar, so in response to this controversy, Penn State decided to investigate Mann’s actions in regard to the controversy and to see if he was manipulating the evidence to support his personal beliefs.

Penn State cleared Mann of any wrongdoing. Now, this investigation may be correct in its conclusion but we really do not know because the university was in no position to investigate one of its own or, stated differently, to investigate itself.

Over the years, Mann has brought in millions of dollars for the university through his research. For the university to come to any other conclusion than that he acted appropriately would be an admission that the university has been fleecing those who gave the money.

How would such an admission affect not only future funding but also repaying funds already received? Thus, it is quite apparent what a predicament the university was in and why the university could not investigate Mann — as it was really investigating itself.

The conflict of interest is so apparent that one wonders why the university even bothered to produce this report on its own. It will not satisfy Mann’s critics, as it just seems to be a whitewash.

The better course — and one the university should have chosen — would have been to hire an independent firm to investigate, one with no past or potential future ties to the university. There are many law firms and investigative firms that fit this bill. If this had been done, most fair-minded people would buy the results. Here, all we have is the university proclaiming, “Nothing to see here, keep moving along.” Penn State may be selling this, but is anybody really buying it?

For years many in academia criticized police departments about how they investigated police misconduct claims, saying it was a conflict for these agencies to “investigate” themselves as the agency had a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. With such a conflict, the public would have no confidence in the results. If the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing, it would be seen as the police protecting one of their own.

Due to this clamor, most police departments now have outside independent agencies investigating claims of police misconduct, putting trust into the public’s mind about the fairness of the investigation.

Penn State surely knew of this conflict and the appropriate remedy but decided to do its own investigation instead of hiring an outside agency. This leaves us with one question: Why?

Louis Lombardi is an attorney, former New York City police captain and a community columnist who lives in Patton Township. He can be reached at info@louislombardilaw.com or follow him on his blog at www.obpopulus.wordpress.com.

Permission to post on Land And Water USA:
Thank you for your interest in my article and yes you may post it on your website. I look forward to seeing it up and the debate it generates.
Louis Lombardi