Letters: New perspectives needed on BOT; Candidates have record of working for alumni

New perspectives needed on BOT

When my peer Justine Gross tragically died in an off-campus apartment building late last year, the university made no remembrance of Justine’s commitments to academics and philanthropy, except for a short press statement encouraging students to call counseling services. Indeed, far too often, Penn State administrators — unlike others around the nation — have substituted a reminder about available therapy appointments for an introspective analysis about why students are dying or fear a culture of pervasive sexual violence at our campuses. Such callous treatment makes me, and many of my peers, feel like we are seen by Old Main as nothing more than sources of tuition — not as leaders, artists, researchers, or people, but as dollar signs. When we rally for institutional change to end the violence and harassment, we’re called “impatient” while administrators refuse to reconsider the policies that encourage such harm.

We need new perspectives and approaches to governance on the board of trustees to end the administrative culture that views people through market terms. Drs. Farnaz Farhi, Christa Hasenkopf and Ed Smith see students like me as valuable members of our beautiful community. As the Penn State Forward slate for the ongoing alumni trustee election, they’re running with a platform to tackle sexual violence, promote transparent governance, and treat all as people deserving of safety. With them, a university built on compassion and care is possible. Learn how to vote for Farnaz, Christa and Ed at psuforward.org/vote before polls close on May 5 at 9 a.m. Eastern.

Candidates have record of working for alumni

This year’s Penn State board election has two outstanding new candidates on the ballot. Barry Fenchak has long been attending board and committee meetings and providing alumni with detailed summaries and assessments. He has not only highlighted the critical issues, many regarding spending, but offers a clearly written, brilliant analysis for interested alumni. He has the ability to dissect proposed or approved financial spending and identify the hidden flaws. He then generates a detailed, alternative plan for achieving the same end in a more financially efficient plan. The amount of time that he has sacrificed attending meetings, analyzing problems and communicating with the alumni make him a perfect candidate for a seat on the board.

Another outstanding candidate is Maribeth Roman Schmidt. We have already witnessed how she powerfully rallied the alumni to effect change at Penn State via PS4RS. Replacing nine trustees on the board is no small task. She worked tirelessly to promote truth during the scandal that shook Penn State in 2011 and will continue to do so. Maribeth excels in communicating with and motivating people to effect positive change. An excellent writer, she has penned extremely effective press releases, speeches and letters on behalf of alumni who joined her efforts. Maribeth is eager to utilize these skills and more as a Board member. She is smart, confident and eager to give 100% in her new role as trustee.

Both candidates have a proven record of disseminating pertinent information to the alumni. We need more of that!

Politics over qualifications

Ketanji Brown Jackson came to her recent confirmation process with extensive judicial experience as a lawyer, prosecutor and judge. The American Bar Association awarded her their top rating of “Highly Qualified.”

But only three Republican Senators voted in favor of her confirmation. Even Senator Roy Blunt, who had called her “certainly qualified,” voted against her.

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle graduated from law school in 2012, joined the right-wing Federalist Society the same year, clerked for Clarence Thomas, and was nominated to be a United States District Court Judge in 2020, at the age of 33, without ever having tried a case in court. The American Bar Association deemed her to be “Not Qualified.”

All Republican senators voted for her confirmation.

It used to be that judicial nominees were confirmed, or not, in accordance with their qualifications for the position. Now nearly all Republican senators vote for or against a nominee depending on the party affiliation of the President who makes the nomination.