Tuesday, Jan. 20, 1998
Picking trustee tough job for governor
This is in response to Friday's editorial concerning the selection of the student trustee. While we agree with many of the statements being made, the need exists to clarify and correct some of what was said.
First, the trustee decision is the governor's to make without
restriction. He is in no way obligated to select a student. Traditionally,
though, the governor has been generous enough to make one of his
appointees a student.
This is done to insure that one member of the board provides a
student perspective. It is not done, however, to make the student
trustee a representative of a limited constituency.
Instead, the student trustee, like every other member of the board,
serves the greater constituency of the University. This includes
but is not limited to students, faculty, administrators, staff
and alumni.
Second, the students have not been without a voice at the board
meetings. Representatives from Undergraduate Student Government,
Council of Commonwealth Student Governments and the Graduate Student
Association all attend and do have speaking privileges.
Finally, the length of time that the selection process took should
be viewed in a positive light.
The governor himself took an active role in the decision, rather
than allowing an aide to make the choice. The students of this
University should be proud of the fact that the governor cares
enough about Penn State to take time from his extremely busy schedule
to make this decision.
There were five very qualified candidates, and the choice was,
we are sure, difficult to make. We hope this letter addresses
the concerns that were raised, and that it helps to clarify the
role of the student trustee and the definition of the selection
process.
Nathan Nair
student trustee
Robert Myers
student trustee designate
Loss of Lady cagers should be examined
After reading the series of stories about women leaving our basketball team in recent months, the latest being Courtney Wicks, I am left with a number of questions and concerns about the atmosphere on Penn State's women's basketball team.
Four women have left the team in the past 10 months. These four
are all great athletes who were undoubtedly assets to the team.
My concern is that some of the women have cited problems with
coach Rene Portland as their reason for leaving the team, yet
the administration remains silent and apparently unconcerned at
this pattern.
Director of Athletics Tim Curley stated in Thursday's article
that the athletic department is "fully supportive of the
actions taken by Rene Portland," and they have "the
greatest confidence in (her) as a coach and a positive role model
for young women."
I am curious as to how the athletic department can continue to
support Portland without question.
She may be a winning coach and a prominent member of the community,
but does that mean we should ignore the frequent departure of
good athletes, especially when they name her as their reason for
leaving?
It seems that the events of the last 10 months warrant an investigation.
An investigation would not necessarily harm any trust that has
been established between Portland and the administration. It would
serve to either find the source of the problem or to rule out
the possibility of misconduct.
I have no personal connection to the women's basketball team,
but as a fan and fellow student I think it is necessary to bring
attention to this situation and potential problem.
Regardless of Rene Portland's role and stature in athletics, we
should not hesitate to question her actions when they may be detrimental
to the well-being of our student athletes.
Erin Colton
junior-letters, arts and sciences
