I would like to set the record straight about the recent articles and editorials published in the Collegian concerning the university's evaluation of its diversity plan.

The Office of Educational Equity is responsible for coordinating the university's diversity evaluation process. This is a mid-plan assessment of the university's strategic plan titled, "A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: 1998-2003" (see http://www.equity.psu.edu/framework/). The evaluation process is also referenced in the agreement signed between the university administration and student members of "the Village" involved in last year's student protest (http://www.psu.edu/ur/2001/diversityplan.html). The recently submitted diversity plans are in the draft phase of the evaluation process. Our goal is to evaluate each unit's draft, meet with the unit heads to discuss their strengths and weaknesses, clarify misunderstandings and include the evaluation feedback in the final mid-plan evaluation process. Once the evaluation is completed, both the revised plans and the reports from the evaluation teams will be posted on our Web site as an open document.

We wanted to include students in the evaluation process as well. To that end, we asked the president of USG to appoint six student members to serve on one of the four evaluation teams. The evaluation teams are represented by members of the Commission for Women; Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity; Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equity; University Faculty Senate; Forum on Black Affairs; Commonwealth College; Black Caucus; Undergraduate Student Government; and representatives from other Penn State locations.

At our first meeting with the evaluation teams on Jan. 9, Provost Erickson and I reviewed the evaluation process and stressed the confidential nature of the plans until the diversity updates and evaluations are posted on the Web. A few days later, Rob Michaels, USG student member of one of the review teams, called my office to say that the USG Diversity Committee was having trouble understanding why they could not have copies of all the diversity plan updates. told Rob that I was willing to meet with them to discuss their concerns. He seemed pleased with my response to his questions during our telephone conversation.

At 8 p.m. on Thursday, I attended the USG Senate Diversity Committee meeting in the HUB-Robeson Center. When I arrived, no one mentioned that a Collegian reporter would be writing a story about the meeting. Erica Zarra, the Collegian reporter, did not identify herself.

Contrary to last Friday's article and recent editorial, my comments to the committee were not vague. I explained the evaluation process and that students were involved. The USG Senate Diversity Committee wanted to see all the diversity plan updates before they were revised in a final draft. I suggested they wait until they see the final product before making final judgments. I then attempted to get them thinking about what they should be doing in terms of diversity. They told me they were not interested in my kind of diversity. I asked them to define diversity and they said they had a definition, but since the plans were not open to them, I could not see their definition.

I asked them, "Given our student population, do you see a problem with having an all white diversity committee?" They said they were diverse, "One of us is from Texas." I understand one of the Diversity Committee's major efforts to help the campus climate this year will be to fund an Irish Cultural Festival for Spring Semester.

The USG Senate Diversity Committee claimed that it sent e-mails to all the minority groups to solicit members and it was not its members' fault if none of them wanted to be part of the diversity committee. Sitting off to the side of this meeting was the director of USG's Office of Diversity. She is not considered a member of their committee. It is my understanding that other students of color have tried to participate on the Senate Diversity Committee, but due to the attitudes of some of the committee members, they declined to make a commitment to the group.

I am not suggesting that all these students think alike or that they do not have the right to be active in any organization they choose. There was one young woman on the committee who mentioned that a class she was taking provided wonderful opportunities for open discussion about diversity issues. I do wonder, however, how this particular group of students can work towards tolerance and understanding of others.

The meeting with the Senate Diversity Committee lasted for more than an hour and a half. I gave the group book references, which suggested that students in general were worse at communicating about diversity now than they were 15 years ago. I also pointed out that K through 12 grades are nationally more segregated now than at any other time since the 1970s. The average white student comes from a K though 12 school system that is between 80 to 90 percent white, and the average African American or Latino student comes from a K through 12 school system that is mostly students of color. I asked the committee to think about developing plans to provide our students with forums to discuss differences. I find it troubling that the reporter missed all of that in her article.

At the meeting I said that "this particular white group did not appear to be good at discussing diversity," and that is what I still believe. I am sorry and I apologize to all those who were offended by what the Collegian reported.

For the record, my wife, Carla, and I have been married for 23 years. She is white and of Dutch German heritage, and we have three wonderful children. Let me make clear that an awareness of diversity and the ability to discuss it have nothing to do with your genetic make up.

People of color do not have an extra gene that allows them to understand diversity and women are not genetically endowed with tolerance; these are learned skills. All of us can and need to talk and learn about each other's histories and why we believe what we believe. It is a shame that those individuals with set political agendas, in the media and elsewhere, present stories without balance looking only for sensationalism.