This letter is in reference to Greg Scopino's article that appeared in The Daily Collegian (Feb. 5). Mr. Scopino's article contained a few valid points, yet it dishonestly portrayed the disciplinary system as archaic and discriminatory.

In not so many words, Mr. Scopino correctly pointed out that the disciplinary system here at Penn State is less than perfect. I am a member of one of the hearing boards on campus. I see the system form the inside, and I know that it has flaws -- so does practically every other system consisting of rules and regulations. There is no way of getting around this fact.

Mr. Scopino also correctly stated that the University is trying to make some headway with this situation. The recently revised Acts of Intolerance have taken new positions -- wider positions -- on antagonism fueled by prejudice of race, sexual orientation, etc.

Even with these good points, Mr. Scopino unfairly characterized the disciplinary system -- particularly the Student Hearing Board. Again, I am a member of the Student Hearing Board, and I know that the workings of my board are not like those described in the article.

First, the headline of the article is so blatantly misleading that it is ridiculous. The headline states that the "Director defends student hearing boards."

Notwithstanding, the whole basis for the article is a presentation fueled by the decision of another board -- the University Hearing Board, not the Student Hearing Board. This point is not fully brought out in the article, but I am not the slightest bit surprised. This is just another example of the biased nature of the Collegian.

Second, I do not believe that the "University randomly selects students . . ." for the hearing boards. I know that my board goes through a detailed application and selection process.

We have an initial application period followed by several individual interviews. Prospective members then go through a group interview process with five or six other applicants. Then, and only then, do we make our final decision.

This decision is not made by a select few; it is done with the board as a whole. We sit and discuss each applicant, referring to comments and scaled ratings.

I would hardly call this process RANDOM. It is not a process driven by the luck of the draw.

Third, my board goes through a wide recruitment drive each year for prospective members. This year the process is from March 14-23. In this drive, we plan and execute a large publicity program to make more people aware of our existence.

The publicity program this year is one of the largest ever undertaken. A part of this effort is sending letters and applications to student organizations on campus that we feel could benefit from representation on the board.

This letter writing offensive was first carried out last year -- not ONE reply was received from any of the 30 or so organizations that we sent information to.

So, again, it is very unfair of the article and Ms. Hurst -- the student "unfairly disciplined" -- to falsely accuse the disciplinary system, particularly the Student Hearing Board, of disproportionate representation. The opportunities exist Ms. Hurst!

Finally, in response to the fact that there is no predetermined numerical requirements for board members, this is true. Still, in the recruitment drive, my board goes through all possible means to obtain a fairly representative distribution of the University population.

The intent is to avoid representations that could lead to unfair disciplinary action. We are students, too; we are not out to get any one person or group. Our ultimate goal is to get fair distributions so that we an make the most equitable decisions possible.

I hope that this (letter) has laid to rest some of the myths about "the system." I have focused all of my attention to the Student Hearing Board, only because it was to be the topic for this (letter).

I can only urge the Collegian to write future articles fairly depicting the disciplinary system.