Letters: Alumni candidate changes don’t go far enough; Childless people are not worth less

Alumni candidate changes don’t go far enough

I may get burned at the stake as a heretic or at least tossed out of the Penn State Alumni Association, but the idea of screening alumni candidates for the board of trustees sounds like a good idea to me. In fact, I wonder if it goes far enough.

To recap, the board voted, 24-8, to have a subcommittee evaluate alumni candidates for the board and determine which ones had the necessary qualifications to serve. The qualifications could change from election to election so one year the board could be looking for fiscal experts and another year health experts. And so on.

I used to think that having elected alumni trustees was a good idea, especially after living in New Mexico where the state universities’ regents are appointed by the governor. But then came the firing of President Spanier and Coach Paterno and the election became an expensive, one-issue campaign. Road signs and yard signs flourished. There was no room for nuance.

Incumbents would campaign for reelection by bragging that they voted against a tuition increase, perhaps reliving their days as students those many decades ago.

Funding the university seemed to be secondary to a campaign slogan.

As I was writing this, my thoughts shifted and I came to a different conclusion. Rather than being upset by the board’s vote, I came to realize that it did not go far enough.

Maybe just eliminating the alumni trustee bloc altogether is the best way to go.

Childless people are not worth less

Who hasn’t heard JD Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment? The Republican candidate for vice president has repeatedly expressed contempt for women without children, once referring to them as “childless sociopaths.”

In a 2021 interview with fellow misogynist Tucker Carlson, Vance suggested that “childless” people should pay more in taxes than those who “actually have kids” and therefore “a more direct stake in the future of this country.”

What?!

“Childless” Americans contribute more to the economy than those with children — and they already pay higher income taxes because they don’t receive the federal Child Tax Credit.

“Childless” Americans pay the same school taxes as those with children, but do not receive any direct benefits (although everyone benefits from an educated populace).

“Childless” Americans actually pay for other people’s children when their tax dollars support subsidized health care, free school lunches, expanded broadband access, and much more.

Contrary to Vance’s assertions, well-educated people who leave the workforce to raise children create a financial drag on the economy. Consider that women’s declining participation in the workforce during the pandemic cost the U.S. economy $650B annually.

Highly-trained professionals, many of whom received government-funded training, who choose to stay home with their children use tax dollars to attain their success, but don’t provide the societal benefit expected from the public investment.

Vance’s narrow, self-centered argument that mothers are more valuable than non-mothers reeks of misogyny — and reveals both his intolerance and his misunderstanding of the American economy.