Stephen Glassman
Chairman
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

Dear Mr. Glassman:

I am writing to express my considerable concern over the unfortunate and unfounded statements that are attributed to you in today's Centre Daily Times. The assertions that you are reported to have made simply do not comport with the facts. Because your characterization of Penn State has been placed into public discourse, I am obligated to respond.

On your own web page, a review of the past 10 years of full Commission hearings reveals none pertaining to Penn State. Yet you are quoted as saying that complaints at Penn State are "wide ranging" and that the Commission's staff will examine whether "there's a cultural or systemic approach that we ought to be addressing."

Such statements undermine the confidence we work so hard to engender in our institution's efforts through our extensive programs in Human Resources, Educational Equity, Affirmative Action, and Student Affairs. As President, I have promoted an agenda that is deeply committed to justice, equity and eradication of hate and bias.

Penn State's record with regard to human relations is, in fact, stellar. Penn State is one of the largest employers in the Commonwealth. An analysis of your data would suggest that we are among the least cited large employers in the state. As you well know, most of the approximately 40,000 accusations that are received by the Commission each year have a finding of no probable cause.

With regard to Penn State, the facts are that only 56 of about 200,000 complaints to the commission since 2001 touch Penn State, one of the Commonwealth's three largest employers, with nearly 40,000 employees. Yet there have not been any probable cause findings among the 56 complaints, while three complaints resulted in a mutually agreed-upon resolution between the University and the employee.

Penn State is one of the most committed employers in the country when it comes to creating a safe, welcoming and civilized work environment. We are not perfect, and we take action when warranted. This was evidenced by our timely response to a recent highly publicized complaint relating to sexual orientation and harassment.

Members of the University administration are in regular contact with your staff, and we have an excellent working relationship. Your statements certainly don't reflect the cooperation we experience with your staff. We stand ready to meet with your staff to review our commitment, compliance efforts, training programs, reporting mechanisms, complaint management, and system of checks and balances. But we simply cannot stand by idly when a public official makes statements that are unsupported by the data.

You gave the impression that the Commission is going to investigate a complaint that a newspaper has seen fit to feature but that in fact your Commission staff has already investigated and found the complaint to have insufficient merit to issue a probable cause finding.

I thought it important to set the record straight on this important matter, since I know that you and I have the utmost commitment to fairness and due process while at the same time sharing an uncompromising determination to the principles and practice of non-discrimination, equity, opportunity, and the eradication of prejudice based on personal characteristics.