To every Penn Stater following the news emanating from our Board of Trustees over the last five or six months—ever since the Sandusky scandal broke—it seems as though the Board is not at all conducting itself as expected. Many have therefore wondered why the Board now seems so alien—and at times even antagonistic—to what we think about Penn State.  In this set of articles, I offer an explanation of how the Board evolved its present attitudes.

Getting Some Perspective

Try to recall the ways our Board was thought of as late as six months ago—before the events of November 5-9.

First, from the standpoint of the Penn State community: For more than a century-and-a-half—from 1855 to 2011 (156 years, to be exact)—the record of our Board of Trustees appeared to be superb. It oversaw the growth of Penn State from its humble beginnings as the Farmers’ High School, to become a highly prestigious research University of almost 100,000 students. This cannot be viewed as anything less than an impressive achievement, and we are all darn proud of it.

Second, from the perspective of outsiders: To trustees and regents of other universities, Penn State’s Board was one of the most respected in the country. Unlike many other state universities, whose regents are all political appointees, our Board membership is directly elected by alumni, as well as from the agricultural, business, and industry sectors, in addition to the governor and many members of his cabinet. To those on the outside, many considered the structure of our Board—as well as its record of achievement—to be enviable.

Then in four days, from November 5-9—and in the days and months since—our Board threw all this away. It now inspires not respect, but frustration, anger, and mistrust. There is a strong feeling that all of its current members should resign. An unprecedented number of alumni—86—are running for the first three open spots in order to replace them. Many more will be vying to replace the rest in the future. Where before, regents and trustees of other state universities envied our Board’s members, few would want to be in their shoes now.

How did this happen?

New Forms of Power

Let me state up front what I think the problem of our Board is and what it is not. First, what it is not.

I do not believe that the major problem is trustees trying to get rich off of it. While many financial peccadillos have undoubtedly occurred (e.g., The Village at Penn State) I doubt that the key to the problems of the current Board will be found by following money trails. Indeed, the amount of money contributed by individual Trustees probably exceeds any amount that was made off the University. (For example, Trustee Bill Schreyer personally contributed $58 million, and Lloyd Huck $40 million—and these are just two examples)

Nor do I think that the problem of the current Board is structural, i.e., little will be gained by redesigning the Board. Although certainly the way the business and industry Trustees are elected is a sham, as former Trustee Robert Horst has so eloquently exposed. See here and here, and here. Nevertheless, with the exception noted, the problem lies not in the structure but in the character of the people—no matter what the structure is.

Instead, I believe the problem lies in the temptations of power. The amount of power that actually resides at the level of the Trustees, if it is allowed to go to individual Trustee’s heads, is really something almost beyond imagining. It is also involves newer forms of power. Rather than looking for money trails, I suggest looking at the trails left by Trustees amassing contacts and influence, and the feelings of importance they get when others defer to them.

In what follows, I shall be explaining what I mean in terms of two developments that have occurred at Penn State since the 1980s: First, the growth of money-raising; and second, the growth of research. But to discuss these, I must make three things absolutely clear.

Three Caveats

First, I am not against fundraising or against research. Each of these is not only good but necessary, and both have been achievements of which our Board and every Penn Stater can justly be proud. Rather, I am talking about how these two developments have affected the character of the Board and its individual members—and that has not always been good.

Second, these developments need not have affected Board members negatively. They have had negative effects only because the leadership of the Board has been tempted by the allures of power.

Third, these two developments are not the only ones that have been occasions of members of our Board to be affected in a negative way. Last January, in Part IV of my “Reflections of a Former Trustee,” I described a third issue—the centralization of power in the president. Nor are these the only ones. But in this article, I shall address only two factors: the growth of money-raising, and research.

How Money-Raising Affected the Board

This may be hard to believe—after 28 years of intense and successful fundraising by Penn Sate—but prior to the 1970s, Penn State did not engage in private money-raising.

I vividly recall a meeting in 1964 with McKay Donkin, vice president for finance, who explained that Penn State did not have, and never intended to have, an endowment. “Penn State did not ask for, and indeed would refuse to accept contributions,” he said. Rather, he said, Penn State relies solely on the state appropriation and tuition. Why? Because “We are The State University!” (During this time, one never said “Pennsylvania State University” without a very strong The in front of it and another strong emphasis on State.)

Penn State’s first foray into fundraising was conceived in the 1980s because of the great increase in educational philanthropy. Other universities were raking in money hand over fist. It was simply silly for Penn State to continue to refuse to ask for contributions.

The “Campaign for Penn State” was kicked off in 1984 under the chairmanship of Bill Schreyer, with an initial goal of raising $350 million. Penn Staters responded so generously that the goal was not only quickly achieved, but raised to $500 million. I was elected to the Board in 1988, and vividly recall attending the formal University convocation, gala ball, and fireworks display celebrating the successful conclusion of our first fundraising campaign. All Penn Staters were very proud of this achievement.

Our concerned here is not with the fundraising campaign itself, but with its effects on the Board—and these were drastic. But to understand what they were, we have to know what the Board was before.

The Board’s Role prior to the 1970s

For the first century or so of Penn State—from 1855 till approximately the 1970s—the Board of Trustees really had very little to do. Fundamentally, it held title to the real estate and appointed presidents, who then presided—more like a chairperson than a president—over a collection of dynamic and creative segments of the community, including a quite independent and rather strong-minded faculty and student body. Penn State grew dramatically during this period, but without having or needing much central direction.

During this period, to be a Trustee was mostly an honorary position. Trustees’ duties embraced little more than approving budgets, land purchases, and building plans; and occasionally opening new campuses. Board members had little involvement with the actual administration of the University. For example, up the 1950s, often the biggest issue was the annual fight over where to buy coal for the University’s central heating plant. (Penn Central was very jealous of its contract, which produced some very amusing stories.)

Board members were also expected to help with the state appropriation. But since the Board included the governor and five members of his cabinet, there was rarely any difficulty getting the appropriation passed.

The Changed Role of Trustees

With the advent of fundraising, however, the role of Board members suddenly changed. Far from the Board being simply a title holder, with membership on it mostly honorary, members of the Board were now called upon to use all their contacts (and develop many more), in order to raise money. Suddenly, they were asked to become very active and devote considerable time.

This especially changed the status of the business and industry Trustees. For three reasons, they suddenly acquired a new and dominant importance they never had before.

First, they often knew some of the richest people in America, and if they did not previously know them, they now had an excuse to meet them. The business and industry Trustees took advantage of this enthusiastically. Being on the Board allowed them to greatly increase their circle of contacts far beyond those they accumulated solely from their business. Further, it enabled them to claim credit for the biggest donors, greatly expanding their own personal influence. This was a win-win situation for them from almost every angle.

Second, running a funding campaign was just another business for the business and industry Trustees. They gradually took over the coordination of the whole University in order to subordinate everything to this coordination. This gradually increased their involvement in the actual running of the University, and allowed them to feel more important than ever.

Finally, of course, the business and industry Trustees, being themselves the richest members of the Board, could personally give huge amounts. That is why, where before there were few, now there are many buildings and programs on campus named after Trustees (such as the Hintz Alumni Center, Schreyer House, Schreyer Honors College, and the Huck Institutes for Life Sciences, to name only a few). These gifts gave them enormous clout with faculty, administrators and students, which quite naturally made them feel more personally powerful and influential. This feeling of power and influence cannot be underestimated, for with it comes many acts of deference.

The Effects of Penn State’s First Money-Raising Campaign

The Campaign for Penn State utterly changed the dynamics the Board. For, while the Campaign for Penn State did an awe-ful lot of good for Penn State—just about every college, program, campus, faculty member, and student has benefited from it—in addition to, or rather as a corollary to all the good it did, it also crowned money as king. The result was that money-raising allowed the Board of Trustees, or more accurately some of the Trustees, to extend their influence down into the University in ways never previously imagined.

This was a kind of power that many of them had not before known. In addition to running their own corporations, they now had a huge University to expand their influence into, and they determined to shape it in their image.

The Effects of Research on the Board

Research has always been important to Penn State. For example, from the time of the Farmers High School, the goal of Penn State was to bring the latest discoveries of science to Pennsylvania’s farmers. Our College of Mines and Mineral Industries was founded to bring vital research results to Pennsylvania’s mining and mineral industries.

However, for the first century of Penn State’s history, research was viewed primarily as “service,” because it was undertaken primarily to be of service to the agricultural, industrial, and business sectors of the Commonwealth. That’s how and why we were The Pennsylvania State University.

Since World War II, however, research has grown enormously in national and international importance. By the 1970s, many faculty, Charles L. Hosler most prominently, argued that the University should expand its research mission.

By the mid-1980s the Trustees agreed, and began turning Penn State into a premier research university as eagerly as they jumped into raising an endowment. Hosler became senior vice-president for research in 1985. Under Hosler’s leadership, research came to dwarf other segments of the University. With more than $804 million in research funding last year, Penn State’s research income was nearly triple the State appropriation.

I am not writing to denigrate research. Indeed, Penn State’s growth in research is a not only great achievement, but it was also necessary for the University’s educational function of preparing students to enter today’s economy. Rather, I recount this to note the effect it has had on the dynamics of our Board, and the extension of the Trustees’ direct, personal involvement into the operations of the University.

This has come about for the following reasons.

First, innovation and scientific discovery are the biggest drivers of the economy. Contact with scientists and innovators is even more valuable than contact with bankers. Not only is money important, but money invested in research is even more important.

Second, while businesspeople run businesses, it is the technological inventors and scientists who are the real movers and shakers. One of the best reasons to be rich and powerful is to be able to associate with such people. This is why they want a bigger role in the operations of the University.

Finally, and most important for our current Trustees, the personal is the political—not in the sense of group politics, such as Democrats vs Republicans or conservatives vs liberals, but personally political in the web of access to contacts, influence, and deference.

For our current Trustees, however, it is actually a slight inversion of the old idea that “the personal is the political.” What that phrase originally meant was that one should become aware of one’s personal needs and feelings, and channel them into broader political movements. For our current Trustees, however, what it means is to impose their personal needs, feelings, and desires on the University.

Why the Board Is the Way It Is

I began this article by noting how our Board of Trustees seems to be conducting itself not at all as most students and alumni expected. What I have tried to sketch is how good intentions and even great achievements have led many Board members—and especially the leadership—to think of themselves as quite different from the rest of us. That is why the Board has so completely enforced a silent uniformity, in which no member has broken out of the mindset to offer the slightest criticism or different view—no matter how great the dissatisfaction of large numbers of alumni.

Indeed, after ten weeks of silence, in which the Board stonewalled all requests for an explanation of why it fired Joe Paterno on November 9, the Board finally explained itself to closed meetings of reporters on January 18 and 19, 2012, but still refused to explain itself to alumni. Sara Ganim summarized the unusual message they had to give in seven short paragraphs at the beginning of her her article  in PennLive, January 19, reporting on what they told her:

Members of Penn State’s board of trustees don’t think they did anything wrong.

They don’t feel they owe anyone an apology, or an explanation directly to alumni.

It’s not their fault they weren’t better informed, they say.

 Under the dire circumstances, they did the best they could have possibly done.

And moving forward, they see no reason to make significant changes to the way they oversee the university.

All of that was said by four members of the board during a 30-minute sit down with The Patriot-News one day after 13 members met with the New York Times and laid out the four days of discussions that eventually led to the firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.

The four trustees said Thursday that they don’t plan to meet with angry alumni calling for a forum to ask them questions about the board’s decisions. Instead, meeting with the press will have to suffice, they said.

There could probably be no better summary and example of all I have attempted to explain. Simply put, our Trustees have long since entered a privileged world where they owe explanations only to themselves.

Another example is the Board’s recent consideration of whether the University should continue to be public—i.e., the State University—or become private. Note, however, why the Board is considering this possibility. It is not for the sake of the University itself, but to prevent the Board having to submit to transparency—open records, right to know, and open budget. The Board feels that it alone has the right to know.

Trustee Paul Silvis is quoted in a recent AP story in the Washington Post (April 1) as stating it perfectly: “’When individuals get on the board, they see things with a different set of eyes, they see what goes on,’ he said.” The Board absolutely adores seeing things differently from everyone else—and thinking that they alone understand what is going on.

Unfortunately, it is one of the side effects of all the good that the Board has achieved that it now considers each issue primarily in terms of what is good for itself, and only secondarily in terms of whether it is good for the University and the people of Pennsylvania.

Restoring the Glory of Old State will require bold action from many people. The drive for reform can be guided through the strong, independent leadership of newly elected Trustees, but ultimately, it must be powered by the ingenuity and determination of Penn State’s alumni and students. In an effort to jump start conversations about our path to renewal, Ben Novak offers his ten-point plan for Restoring Penn State’s Honor, a list of initiatives he will help spearhead if elected to the Board.

Please share them with other Penn Staters and offer your suggestions on how to improve and implement these measures. This will be a necessarily collaborative process. Please contact Ben with your thoughts and input; he is running to represent you!

Ben Novak’s Ten-Point Plan to Restore Penn State’s Honor

1. Restore Joe Paterno’s Honor. The first step to renewal is to restore the honor that was unjustly taken from Penn State’s foremost representatives, Joe and Sue Paterno. I propose that the Board of Trustees: a) shall rescind the dismissal of Joe Paterno; and b) direct the president of the University, to hold a full University Convocation in full academic regalia at which the Board shall formally apologize to Joe and Sue Paterno, and c) at such convocation, the Board shall bestow upon Joe Paterno the title of Emeritus All-Time Penn State Head Football Coach.

2. Repeal Standing Order IX. This order setting forth the governance of the University shall be replaced with a plan for governing the University in a more collegial manner.

3. Source of Independent Information. The Board shall create an independent body to: provide it with information, assess the success of programs, identify problems, encourage whistle blowers, and identify policy alternatives. Such body shall develop a website to keep all members of the University community informed and involved.

4. Reorganize Board of Trustees. I propose that the Board: a)   abolish the positions of industrial trustees, since there are not representative bodies to elect them; b) abolish the positions of emeritus trustees.(If previously serving trustees have knowledge or skills that are valuable, they may be employed  as consultants); c) study the other categories of membership to provide more meaningful participants in the governance and oversight of the University.

5. Reestablish Student Government. The Board shall call upon the student body to organize itself into a responsible participant in University governance.

6. Empower the Faculty Senate. The Board shall call upon the faculty to reorganize itself to more effectively represent, govern, and be accountable for the teaching and academic activities of the University.

7. Organize Research Programs. The Board shall call upon all faculty and employees involved in research to organize a body to effectively represent, govern, and be accountable for the research activities of the University.

8. Downsize Administration. The Board shall direct the president to completely evaluate the administrative apparatus of the University to eliminate useless, redundant, or unnecessary offices; and to reorient the administration to serving the other parts of the University rather than controlling them.

9. Open Meetings and Records. The Board shall direct the University to voluntarily submit to all appropriate laws of the Commonwealth relating to open meetings, open records, and open budgets—regardless of whether the University is otherwise exempted from such laws—but giving due regard to issues of personal privacy.

10. Annual Convocation. The Board shall direct the presidents of the administration, student body, faculty, and research programs to organize and present a formal University convocation in full academic regalia at least once each year in order to reaffirm and recommit the entire University community to the high ideals upon which Penn State is founded.

Introduction

I was elected to the Penn State Board of Trustees more than two decades ago, and served on it as an alumni Trustee for twelve years — from 1988 to 2000. I came onto the Board thinking that it was a deliberative body such as one reads about in civics books. It is not.

It took me years to understand what was really going on. In what follows, I hope to shed some light on the inner workings of the Board, as well as to explain both why the Board remains so secretive, and why it has offered so little public leadership to the University since the Sandusky scandal erupted.

The simple truth is that it is not simply one bad apple that has brought about the humiliating situation we face. Rather, it is the way the Board of Trustees has structured the whole governance of the University that has made this scandal not only possible but almost inevitable.

Ben Novak, ‘65

Part I. Who Runs the Board

To understand how the Board works, one must understand how one set of Trustees runs it. The thirty-two-member Board (actually forty-eight members when one includes the sixteen Emeritus Trustees) consists of four separate groups, which I call the Power Group, the Praetorian Guard, the Emeritus Trustees, and the Sheep — with the latter divided into two subgroups.

The Power Group

The Power Group is a self-selected group of the wealthiest and most powerful members of the Board consisting of from three to five Trustees who consider themselves the real Board. They hire and fire the president; set the salaries of the top administrators (and their retirement packages and benefits); meet or talk with the president frequently; fly around in the president’s plane; attend meetings around the country on behalf of the University; and approve of all the policies the president sets. They do this with little or no input from the majority of Trustees.

While the president of the University is a member of this group, he remains president only so long as this group considers him one of them. Indeed, there is almost no distinction between this first group and the administration itself.

Praetorian Guard

Around this first group are seven to ten other Trustees whom we shall call the Praetorian Guard; they are so-called because, like the original Praetorian Guard of the Roman Emperors, they form the cohort around the Power Group. They are often consulted by the Power Group, always support whatever the Power Group decides, and generally consider themselves to be part of the Power Group although they are not in the president’s company as much.

The Praetorian Guard is mostly made up of the richest members of the Board, but some make it into this group by reason of long association with major components of the University.

Emeritus Trustees

The third group consists of the Emeritus members of the Board, who usually number about a dozen, but presently number sixteen. This is a special club of former Board members who have served at least twelve years on the Board, and are found to be “distinguished,” i.e., rich and compliant. If a member asks too many questions or wonders about following rules, one will not be given Emeritus status, even if one serves twelve years.

Emeritus members cannot vote, but they can speak at meetings, and can serve on all committees, just as though they were still on the Board. Emeritus Trustees are the cheerleaders for the Power Group and the Praetorian Guard. Their age, experience, prestige, and wealth are meant to charm or intimidate all new members to “get with the program.”

(Personal disclosure: although I served on the Board for twelve years, I was not offered Emeritus status, which is too bad because Emeritus members are invited to attend all meetings of the Board even after their terms as Trustee are over — with their travel and hotel costs paid by the University.)

The Influential Ones

These three groups together — the Power Group, Praetorian Guard, and Emeritus Trustees — constitute the Influential Ones. The Chairman of the Board appoints almost all the membership of special committees of the Board from these three groups. Members almost always nominate each other as the Board’s officers; members of the Executive Committee; and presidential selection committee. They approve or disapprove whatever policies the president chooses to implement — or formulate them with him. They are the gatekeepers of all University business.

Sheep

Next come the twenty or so other Trustees who can only be called Sheep. They receive information about meeting agendas a few days before each meeting, and are expected to approve whatever is on them. The Sheep, however, can be subdivided into two subgroups.

Sheep I — Trustees with a Project

The first subset of Sheep are those who come onto the Board with a special project in mind. This might be to set up a new, or expand an existing, program such as in hotel and restaurant management, or to get involved in a particular University area, such as the new colleges of Communications or Information Sciences and Technology.

These Sheep are utterly dependent on the good will of the president to get anything done. They often spend long hours in meetings with administrators and faculty members working on setting up the funding or parameters of their special interests. These Trustees tell many stories of the bureaucratic hurdles they had to overcome to get anything done. At the end, however, they often have a real feeling of accomplishment. In return for the privilege of doing all these things for Penn State, all they have to do is to unquestioningly rubber-stamp everything the Influential Ones want.

Sheep II — Poor Little Sheep

The second group of Sheep consists of those poor naïve souls, such as I was when first elected, who believe that the Board is actually a deliberative body to guide the University in keeping to its original purposes — who believe that they are called “Trustees” because the care and welfare of the University and its thousands of students and faculty are entrusted into their hands.

This second set of Sheep is bound for nothing but heartache and disappointment. Their opinions will rarely be asked for. Since they are never told much of what is going on, except to receive the meeting agendas a week or so before the meetings, there is little for them to do but to attend the meetings and approve whatever is on the agenda. If they raise any serious question, they are told to meet with the appropriate administrators who will answer their concerns — after the meeting is over.

Example: The Appointment of a President

The Influential Ones never tire of repeating that the appointment of the president of the University is the single most important act the Board does. If there is any doubt, therefore, that the majority of the Trustees are treated as Sheep, consider the appointment of Graham Spanier as president of the University in 1995.

The previous president, Joab Thomas, announced a year before his retirement that he would not be renewing his contract. In the ensuing year, the Board discussed at several meetings, and even had an all-day work session to discuss in generalities, the qualities that they were seeking in the next president. But when it came time to actually consider candidates for the job, the whole process closed.

A search committee of the Board, composed of Influential Ones was appointed by the Board Chairman. From that point on the rest of the Board was excluded from any involvement. Not the slightest word of whom they were considering leaked to the rest of the Board. Eventually the committee of Influential Ones selected Graham Spanier. A week or so before the meeting at which their choice was to be approved, a notice was sent to all Trustees advising them of the selection, and the next day the newspapers were profiling Penn State’s next president.

A day or so before the meeting at which the Board was to vote, I spoke with the Board secretary and asked if the rest of the Board would have any opportunity to meet the nominee before the election. She advised me that nothing like that was planned. I suggested that this was strange, and that at least we ought to be able to say we shook the next president’s hand before we voted for him.

A few hours later, I received a call from the chairman of the Board, who began by cheerfully telling me that the Board secretary had spoken to him of my call, and gee, that was a good idea. So, the chairman wanted to personally inform me that I should be at the meeting site an hour early, since a cocktail hour was now scheduled at which Graham Spanier would be present for all the Trustees to meet him.

At the cocktail hour, the entire Board, a majority of whom, like myself, had never heard of Graham Spanier until a few days before, had an average of barely two minutes each to say hello and shake his hand. Immediately after the cocktail hour, the Board filed into the next room and, as the first order of business, dutifully voted him in as the next president of The Pennsylvania State University.

Baaa.

Part II. How the Board Governs the University: The Prohibition Against Knowledge

As the Sandusky scandal goes on and on, many people wonder what responsibility the Board of Trustees has in all this. The answer lies in how the Board has set up the University to be governed. In a nutshell, the Influential Ones, most of whom are businesspersons, have set it up to be run as a business corporation on the model of Enron, concentrating all the power and information flow in the hands of the president.

To understand how they have done this we must delve into the documents by which they have structured the deal. While the discussion that follows may seem detailed and legalistic, it is simply a situation where the old saying applies: “the devil is in the details.” We shall be concerned here specifically with Standing Order IX entitled “Governance of the University.”

(Anyone may follow the detailed discussion of these Standing Orders by reading them for himself or herself. Simply visit www.psu.edu/trustees and click on “Charter, Bylaws & Standing Orders,” then scroll down to Order IX. Or you can download a copy from my own website here.)

The Board’s Removal of Itself from Responsibility for Policy

Section (1)(a) of Standing Order IX recognizes the Board of Trustees as the “corporate body established by the charter with complete responsibility for the government and welfare of the university.” This means that the Board is responsible for what goes on … but not really.

Section (1)(b), entitled “Guiding Policies” almost completely absolves the Board from any responsibility, because subsection (1)(b)(1) delegates not only the “day-to-day management and control of the University” to the president — which is normal — but also delegates the “establishment of policies.” Thus, the Board effectively removes itself from responsibility for policy; it is delegated to the president. So, if there is a policy that Emeritus Professors can use the showers, then that is no longer the responsibility of the Board — the president did it.

This is why there is never any substantive discussion of policy at Board meetings; all policy-making is delegated away. Down further in Section (1)(c), the Board retains the power to determine the “major goals of the University,” but only to approve the “policies and procedures for implementation of such goals.” Thus all policies come to the Board already fully formulated by the president and the Power Group.

This delegation of policy-making to the chief executive may not seem totally unusual to business Trustees, since many boards of directors of corporations-for-profit do the same. The idea is that a board of directors hires a CEO and says, “the whole corporation is yours to lead; all we expect is that you will produce profits.” This is why CEOs command such high salaries: they are paid to produce results. For the board of a profit-making corporation this makes things easy — all it needs to judge the CEO is look at the profit and loss statement. But for a non-profit institution entrusted with the education and care of thousands of young people it is near to a dereliction of duty.

The Impossibility of Oversight

But it gets worse. Even if the president-CEO is charged with making all policy, the Board could still exercise considerable oversight. But the Influential Ones have set up the flow of information so that it is impossible for a Trustee to get any independent information about how the University is being operated or how its policies are working.

Subsection (1)(b)(2) entitled “Reports and information required” says — and this is deserving of bold letter treatment — “This delegation of authority requires that the Board rely on the judgment and decisions of those who operate under its authority.” In other words, those operating under the authority of the Board do not do so under the direction of the Board, but rather the Board simply hands over the whole institution to whomever they appoint, and relies on their judgment.

Now let us see how Standing Order IX forecloses any meaningful oversight. The next two sentences of Subsection (1)(b)(2) are truly Orwellian. The first says, “However, this reliance of the Board must be based on its continuing awareness of the operations of the University.” But how shall the Board members maintain “continuing awareness”? The following sentence makes this impossible, for it establishes that the president is its sole source of information. It reads, “Therefore, the Board shall receive and consider forthright reports on the affairs of the University by the president or those designated by the president.”

Thus, if the Board wants to know how the president’s policies and procedures are working, the Board has no independent way to find out. Rather, the Board’s very rules require it to ask the president. Not even profit-making corporations are this careless; they require independent verification. Not so for the Penn State Board of Trustees; like the Board of Enron, there are no independent sources of information except the very officers the Board appoints to make the policies in the first place.

The Prohibitions Against Any Independent Sources of Information

Further, Standing Order IX positively prohibits Board members from getting information from any other source. Section (4) dealing with Faculty has a subsection (c) entitled “Communication with the Board” that provides: “Official faculty communication to the Board of Trustees shall be made through the president.” Section (5) dealing with Students has the same language in subsection (b): “Official student communication to the Board of Trustees shall be made through the president.” What these two provisions mean is that no one on the faculty, and no student leader, may attempt to provide information to the Trustees except by sending it through the president.

In practice this means that if any faculty member or student leader contacts a Trustee to inform them of what is going on, and that Trustee attempts to check out the information through the president’s office, that faculty member or student will be contacted by the president’s office and reprimanded for violating Standing Order IX. I know: for, early on when I dared to mention the source of my information to the president, that source received such a call. It has also been reported that several student leaders and faculty members over the years have been warned by the president’s office to avoid contacting Trustees.

The same is true if a Trustee wants to investigate anything by talking to an administrative employee. Employees are directed to report to the president’s office before giving information to a Trustee. I have several times walked into administrative offices to request an appointment and watched the frantic calls reporting my presence to the president’s office.

Nor is this prohibition on giving information placed solely on the sources. Standing Order IX actually prohibits individual Trustees from seeking information. Section (1)(f) entitled “Expectations of Members (referring not to what the members of the Board expect, but what is expected of them) specifically provides in subsection (12) that individual Board members shall “Respect established channels to acquire information.” Since the only established channel is through the president’s office…well, you get the point.

Thus in summary, although Subsection (1)(b)(2) majestically proclaims the need for each Board member to maintain “continuing awareness of the operations of the University,” these other sections and subsections make that impossible.

Part III. Why We Hear Nothing from the Trustees: The Silence of the Lambs

Ever since the Sandusky scandal erupted, members of both the University community and the public have been puzzled by the silence of the Trustees. Many find it hard to believe that all thirty-two of the individual Trustees are in favor of firing Joe Paterno, and they naturally wonder why none of them has spoken out. When any other type of governing body is called to deal with a problem, individual members usually offer their ideas as to how it should best be handled. But there has been not one peep from Penn State Board of Trustees members. Why is that?

The answer lies in the rules of the Board, specifically Standing Order IX, which contains without doubt some of the most amazing rules you will ever read governing the conduct of democratically elected representatives.

Section (1)(f)((5), for example, requires that members are expected to: “Speak openly within the Board and publicly support decisions reached by the Board.” While the first part of this sentence — “Speak openly within the Board” — is laudable, the second part — “and support decisions reached by the Board”—is not. What the second part means is that no member of the Board may publicly speak against a decision of the Board once it is adopted. Thus, the silence of the individual members on the Board is guaranteed by the rules of the Board.

To get an idea of how ridiculous this is, imagine that the United States Congress had a rule that once Congress adopted Obamacare, no member of Congress could thereafter speak publicly against it or urge its repeal. Yet, that is exactly what the rule governing individual members of the Penn State Board of Trustees states. One of the constant mantras that I heard repeatedly while on the Board was that the “Board acts as a Board, not as individuals.” What this was meant to enforce is that any dissent from a vote of the majority of the Board is considered speaking against the Board itself.

This rule is further buttressed by two others. Subsection (1)(f)(10) requires the individual Trustee to: “Maintain confidentiality without exception.” Thus individual Trustees are enjoined from ever reciting the arguments he or she disagrees with. Think of the scene of the entire Board sitting as silent as stones behind John Surma as he announced the firing of Joe Paterno—and you will have some idea what this rule means in practice This rule is further employed to get Trustees to agree to unanimity after-the-fact, because even if they oppose an action before its adoption, they are bound to support it after it passes.

Subsection (1)(f)(11) requires that each Trustee shall “Advocate the University’s interests, but shall speak for the Board only when authorized to do so by the Board or the Chair.” This could be interpreted reasonably, but it is not.

How the Influential Ones interpret it is that no Trustee may publicly give his or her idea of what is in the University’s best interest unless he or she first gets the permission of the Board or the chairperson of the Board. Of course, no permission will be given to speak against any action the Board has already taken. Thus, once the Board acts, every individual Trustee is required by the rules to remain silent — which is exactly what the public has seen since the Sandusky scandal erupted.

Part IV. The Root of the Problem: The Centralization of Power with the President

The root problem with the Penn State Board of Trustees arises from the centralization of all the powers of the University into the hands of the president. This occurred in July 1970.

The Old Model: Shared Tripartite Governance

Prior to this, the academic side of the University was governed by a whole plethora of largely independent parts. These consisted of departments, loosely presided over by department heads, who were in turn loosely overseen by deans of the colleges, as well as a variety of relatively independent programs such as Agricultural Extension Services, all largely working independently, though in concert. All of these in turn were very loosely brought together in the Faculty Senate. This was theoretically only one part of the University — the Faculty.

The second part consisted of the student body, roughly organized as the Student Government Association, or the All-University Cabinet, or the Undergraduate Student Government, as it was called at various times. Believe it or not, in many respects and at various times the student government through its chartering powers had slightly more control over its organizations — such as the fifty-six independent fraternity houses, its thirty-three independent sororities, the house governments in the dorms, and the multitude of independent student organizations that existed on and off campus — than the Faculty Senate. Indeed, back then the student body organized more university-wide activities than the faculty did.

The last loosely organized third of the University was the administration, which was supposed to be directly, but was actually only loosely, under the control of the president of the University. I say “supposed to be directly, but was actually only loosely” for three reasons.

First, because there were often conflicting lines of authority. For example, before 1970, the chief administrator in charge of student affairs was the Special Assistant to the President for Student Affairs. But he had no authority to promulgate policy regarding student affairs — that was vested in the Faculty Senate. Thus neither the president of the University or the chief administrative officer had any direct authority over student affairs. The same lack of direct authority held true for many other sectors of the University.

The second reason that the president of the University had only loose control over even his own administration was that nearly all employees in administration could exercise a large degree of discretion in how they handled their responsibilities. For example, Agricultural Extension and most research activities on campus looked primarily to their sources of funding and the communities they served, rather than to the central administration for guidance.

The third reason is that two of the first two communities were like states in the Union, each with their own governor and legislature — the Faculty Senate and its president, and the student government and its president. Each had their its own realm of power and activity separate from the others. Thus, before 1970, the president of the University had limited powers, and power was diffused throughout the community. In other words, the president did not rule the others, but presided over them like a chairman.

Over most of the University, therefore, the president had little real power, although he had a lot of authority. The difference is this: that while power is exercised from above, authority is given from below. Thus the president of the university could rarely order what he wanted done from on high. But his prestige was such that deans, department heads, program directors, and student leaders tried mightily to get together from below in order to go in the direction the president pointed.

How Governance from Below Works

Prior to 1970, the president’s real prestige and authority did not come from a Standing Order of the Board of Trustees, but rather from the general understanding that we — students, faculty, and administration—were all united in working for the good of the whole institution. This is what held us together and made Penn State so dynamic. It was the source of our great Penn State pride. We did things, not because we were ordered to, but because we wanted to. We were tremendously proud that we all had a part in determining where Penn State was going and what it was aiming to become.

At that time, too, there were a lot of men and women who, although they had no power that you could see on an organization chart, were nevertheless so highly respected that their opinions carried weight far beyond their job descriptions. Penn State was not an organization of mechanical parts back then, but was an organic whole, where the slightest pain in one limb was instantly communicated through the whole body. As a result, there were hundreds of checks and balances throughout the university system. Nobody could get away with much for very long because there were too many people watching. Everything was everybody else’s business because we were all in this together. Everyone kept one eye open for what was best for the University as a whole … and the other eye open for what was not.

Before 1970, a Jerry Sandusky would have been out on his ear at the first whisper of improprieties. This would have occurred at the lowest level and few above would need to know about it. The problem simply would have been gone before anyone had to think about it — and the kids would be — and indeed were — infinitely safer than they are today.

The Change to Power from Above

After 1970, all this began to change. Not suddenly but gradually an entirely new mentality began working itself through the Penn State body. It said: all that matters is who has the power — and this is determined by organization charts. Whole new positions and offices grew up to make regulations telling everybody how to do their jobs. Turfs were no longer decided by what was best for the University, but by who had the power. Revered professors found themselves of no more account than a junior administrator. Countless rules were issued that made no sense to those who had to enforce them, but were ordered from on high.

Let’s now give an example that ties this all together with what is happening now.

Example: A Veritable Epidemic

In the 1990s while I was serving on the Board, several nurses from Ritenour Health Center were upset because they believed that there was a veritable epidemic of venereal disease — herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, AIDS, etc. — on campus. They came to me because all their attempts to get administrators at Ritenour or higher to do something about it had been fruitless.

The problem that I faced was that the nurses were afraid to allow their names to be used because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Therefore, I could not name anyone that administrators could go to in order to confirm what I told them. Nevertheless, I talked about the issue without naming any names with administrators who shrugged their shoulders; and with other Trustees who listened politely and said, “this is the president’s problem, he’s in charge;” or “We can’t talk about this kind of thing at the Board of Trustees level.”

By the 1990s, no one below the president had the power to institute, or even investigate anything, no matter how serious it was, unless his or her immediate superiors knew that the president approved. So, no word ever went out to the students about what some nurses at Ritenour thought was a major health problem.

(Personal confession: Perhaps I should have done more. I don’t know how many students now go through their lives bearing the scars of venereal disease. Maybe I am the Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary of a similar issue in an earlier age; if so, I know exactly how they feel. But I also know that even if I had stood on the rooftops shouting it, it would not have made any difference to administrators — it would only have been shouting into the void.)

The Moral of the Story

The point of this example is to show how the 1970 decision of the Board vesting all power in the president has played out. The moral is simple: Nothing happens anymore at Penn State unless and until the president says so. In this type of atmosphere, it is no wonder that a Jerry Sandusky could haunt the showers for years with no one taking action.

Under the previous system of governance, when someone of the stature and integrity of Joe Paterno reported to the heads of Athletics and Police Services in 2002 that a former emeritus coach was engaged in sexual activities with boys in the showers, these people would have done everything in their power to make sure that the problem was taken care of — and then prayed that the president of the University would never hear of such a disgusting thing!

But no, in a world where only presidential power matters, the only thing that Curley and Schultz did was to tell the president. Then everyone sat around for the next nine years waiting for the president of the University to tell somebody what to do. Since he did not tell them, Curley and Schultz did nothing more with what McQueary told them.

So, the moral of the story in the Sandusky case is the same as it was for when the nurses at Ritenour reported what they believed to be an epidemic: When all power is centralized in the president, Nothing happens anymore at Penn State unless and until the president says so.

Because of this principle of governance, Sandusky could go to the showers with boys for nine more years.

Because of this, two good men, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, are charged as criminals.

Because of this, Joe Paterno, the greatest Penn Stater since Our Founders Strong and Great, has been rudely kicked out of Penn State.

Because of this, the reputation of America’s most famous football coach has been scarred forever.

Because of this, our football program and our University are in shame and disarray.

Because of this, Happy Valley is now sad and distraught.

This is the root of the problem and the key to understanding how this whole humiliating affair has happened. And this, my friends, is the system of governance that the Board of Trustees set in place since 1970.

Part V. The Theater of Board Meetings and Responsibility of Media

No discussion of the ignorance in which the members of the Board are kept would be complete without mentioning the Board’s meetings, which can only be described as dog-and-pony shows.

The meetings are planned solely as a backdrop for publicity aimed at the general public or the Legislature, at which the administration presents whatever good news and statistics they have in order to show that everything is going swimmingly — except that the Legislature is never appropriating enough money. The agenda is tightly packed with housekeeping functions, such as approval of building plans or real estate transactions, and information presentations by various colleges or programs of the University — all telling of great promise or success.

Never, never is anything raised as a problem area in which the Board is invited to give advice or input as to policy. Policy is only presented to the Board for approval after it has been fully formulated by the president together with the Power Group.

The annual budget, for example, is one of the more important things the Board must regularly approve, along with annual increases in tuition and fees and major changes in college or program funding. But this is never on the agenda to be discussed during the year until the proposed budget document, which is quite lengthy and detailed, is sent to the Board a week or so before the July meeting at which it is to be approved.

In this theatre of the absurd, any Trustee who seriously questions what is going on is subtlety placated, cast as a “loose cannon,” or otherwise marginalized. For the majority of the Board who are not permitted to know anything other than what the president tells them, and who are expected to approve whatever is set before them, there is only one word: Baaa.

The Responsibility of Media

What was most disheartening in the past were the press and media. Undoubtedly that is changed today, now that the media senses scandalous stories that attract controversy and readers. But before the Sandusky scandal it was quite different.

If a Trustee raised a serious question at a meeting (unless he or she is was member of the Influential Ones) that Trustee would definitely not be sought out afterwards for interviews on his or her issues, and would not even be mentioned in the news releases about the meeting. It is like he or she never said anything — except when the issue had previously been a subject in the media; then the dissenting Trustee was merely grist for the media’s pre-digested mill.

Reporters would go to the press briefing after the meetings, and the president or public relations vice president clearly indicated what they were to cover — and the journalists and media representatives dutifully filed their stories in a manner even more sheep-like than the Sheep on the Board who cast the votes. So, for a single Trustee to take a principled stand contrary to the administration or the Influential Ones was to shout into the void.

Example: The Naming of a University Building

The Board of Trustees once had a written rule that no University building could be named after a living Trustee. Then one of the Power Group gave a very large donation for a particular building, and the agenda for the next Trustees meeting contained a resolution for naming the building after this Trustee, who was still serving on the Board. While I had no particular objection to so naming the building, I felt that it would be an interesting test to see how the Board deals with a clear violation of its own rules. So, I raised a procedural objection, and asked the secretary of the Board to read the rule, which she did.

At that point, the chairperson of the meeting asked for a ruling by the Board’s legal counsel as to relevance. Legal counsel spoke around the bush for some minutes until he dutifully ruled my objection out of order. I knew legal counsel personally; he looked at me sheepishly after his ruling, as though imploring me to understand why he had to do what he had just done. The resolution naming of the building after the living Trustee was then called to a vote and adopted.

During this entire exchange, the press corps looked thoroughly bored, and not a word of what had just transpired appeared in the media. It was a non-event.

The Opportunity for Media

Now, of course, the press and media now have an insatiable desire to cover Penn State. Unfortunately, it has taken charges of pedophilia to get their attention. If the media would only responsibly cover what is going on — as it happens, rather than after a crisis — it is likely that the University and its various parts could be run more responsibly.

I’m hopeful that today, after such a sea change in the landscape of the news media and in its delivery mechanisms, we will see an improvement in how the Board of Trustees and the activities of the administration and its president are covered for all of us on the outside.

Careers can be made — and lives changed, or saved — if young reporters were to adopt a more skeptical and discerning eye toward the seemingly boring details of boring men and women on a boring Board of Trustees, and administrators to whom they’re happy to defer.

Part VI. What is Needed Today

While there are calls for the entire membership of the Board to resign in unison, they are unlikely to do so. Therefore, the loyal Penn State community — students, faculty, alumni, townspeople, and all true friends of Penn State — must band together to replace them. The first goal is electing new Trustees who will speak out both to and for the entire Penn State community.

In just a few days, the Board will be sending out an announcement for the election of three alumni Trustees. Each alumnus and alumna may nominate someone by writing in his or her name on the nomination form and sending it back. It is vital that alumni nominate people dedicated to restoring Penn State’s honor.

In May, the agricultural societies in each county will have the chance to elect two new Trustees. It is imperative that loyal Penn Staters involved in agriculture throughout the state begin now to make sure that two new members who are deeply committed to restoring Penn State’s honor are elected to these positions.

Every loyal Penn Stater has a role to play in helping Penn State recover from this disaster. Keep thinking through the kinds of reforms that will be necessary to enable us to get back on track again. Keep sharing with others in the community the deep love that binds us all to our Alma Mater. Reach out to help one another. Most of all, keep your faith in Penn State shining brighter than ever.

Dr. Novak can be reached by e-mail at ben@bennovak.net.

Steve Garban, President
Board of Trustees
The Pennsylvania State University
205 Old Main
University Park, PA 16802

RE: An Open Letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees

Dear Steve,

The continued stonewalling by the Board of Trustees to the demands of the alumni and students to rescind the firing of Joe Paterno and restore his reputation has reached the point of causing positive harm to the University.

I shall not here recite all the arguments about why the decision to fire Joe Paterno, and the way it was executed, were mistaken. If Board members have been attentive to what is being said within the University community they will have already heard the reasons. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of the alumni and students are convinced by those reasons, and their demands to restore Joe Paterno’s honor—and Penn State’s honor—shall relentlessly grow.

If the Board continues to stonewall, or even attempts to justify its decision, the damage to the University will grow incalculably. Neither the students nor the alumni will ever forget all that Joe and Sue Paterno have done for this University, nor all that they have stood for. If the Board continues on its present course, it is setting itself up for a classic confrontation not only between it and the entire University community, but also between it and everything that Penn State has ever stood for.

Three things are necessary to right the situation. First, a resolution of the Board rescinding its decision; second, a direction to the president of the University to hold a formal University convocation in full academic regalia in order to apologize to Joe and Sue Paterno; and finally, a resolution of the Board restoring Joe Paterno’s honor while at the same time recognizing that a new head coach has been hired. Franco Harris has suggested that Joe Paterno be named Honorary Head Coach for the first four games next fall. I suggest that Joe be given the title of Emeritus All-Time Penn State Head Football Coach.

The first and third of these are clear and need no explanation. The need for a formal University convocation may be less so. A formal convocation will provide the proper academic setting to rivet the attention of the public to where it should be: on the wonderful spirit and loyalty of the alumni and students of this University, and their determination to honor Joe Paterno no matter what the world says.

For the fact is that Joe Paterno’s life and values have been infused into generations of Penn Staters. He embodies the Penn State Spirit and he always will.  Penn Staters will always honor and remain loyal to both him and it.

This is both the reality of Penn State, and the image of the University that the students and alumni want the world to see.

It will take considerable courage for the Board to admit that a mistake has been made. But it has long been part of the Penn State way to forthrightly admit a mistake and move on. Please do not disappoint the Penn State community by failing to display the same forthright courage, so that our great Alma Mater can move on to carrying out its mission of providing excellence in teaching, research, and service.

I respectfully request that the secretary of the Board be directed to forward a copy of this letter to all Board members.

With best personal regards, I remain

For the glory of Old State,

Ben Novak ‘65

Dr. Ben Novak (PSU Class of ’65), who once served on Penn State’s Board of Trustees for twelve years, has decided to come out of retirement to serve Penn State again. Novak was elected as an alumni trustee to serve four three-year terms between 1988 and 2000. Now he wants to return to the Board to help the other new trustees take on the system.

“There is a lot that needs changing at Penn State,” says Novak, “especially on the Board of Trustees. The present leadership of the Board is as disconnected to what is really going on as the Board of Enron was a decade ago.”

“The greatest challenge facing the board now is to restore Penn State’s honor. When the Board callously fired Joe Paterno in a late-night telephone call — after Joe’s sixty-one years of outstanding service — they dragged down the honor of Penn State.”

“I know that the vast majority of Penn Staters are sick over this scandal and how it has been allowed to develop. The powers-that-be thought that they could divert attention from their responsibility for this mess by throwing Joe Paterno overboard. But now Penn Staters are realizing the enormity of the injustice the Board has done. Joe and Sue Paterno have been have been the greatest exemplars of the integrity and honor since the Founders themselves. It is our duty to restore Joe and Sue to the highest positions of honor and integrity that Penn State can bestow.”

Beginning Sunday, Jan. 8, Dr. Novak is publishing a series of articles in the Centre Daily Times and on his website. “Reflections of a Former Trustee” is a set of articles showcasing systemic weaknesses in University governance, the responsibilities of the present Board, and what needs to be corrected in order to restore Penn State’s honor. The articles are attached.

In the next week, the Board of Trustees will be sending out nomination forms to Penn State alumni, and Ben is asking that Penn Staters who feel the same to write his name on the form and send it back.

“We will restore and rebuild Penn State’s honor. We will show the honor to Joe and Sue Paterno that they have so mightily earned. We will clean up the mess.”

Restore Penn State’s Honor. Ben Novak for Penn State Trustee.

***

About a decade ago, a movie called The Never-Ending Story appeared. It was about a world of imagination, called “Fantasia,” which was being destroyed by an approaching Nothing. Only one young boy, named Atreu, could save Fantasia and its beautiful Princess. At the end of the story the world of imagination had been lost to the Nothing. The beautiful Princess comes to the boy and says, “This is all that is left of Fantasia — a few grains of sand,” which she puts in the hand of the boy and adds with a smile, “But you can bring it all back.”

The movie is a parable of our time in the form of a children’s story. I often recall it when I think of what is happening to the beautiful world of the university. It inspired this letter.

To a Young Atreu and a Princess:

Please forgive the public nature of this letter. I have never met you, nor have you ever met me. But I know of no other way to reach you, except by placing this message where it might someday find you.

For the matter is urgent: your mother is in danger and she needs you.

Few understand the peril in which your mother finds herself. Those who were charged with caring for her, and protecting her honor, have come to see her solely in terms of wares and charms to sell. They see in her only jobs and paychecks, appropriations and research grants. Instead of a lady, there is only a budget. Instead of a source of wisdom, there is only a source of funding.

And her students, they are the unkindest of all. She is no longer a lady to them but a future job. Instead of coming to the University to find their dearest mother, they seek only to get away from their parents.

Oh the ingratitude! If the University is our Alma Mater, our dear mother, she is the most used and abused lady you shall ever see. She is taken for granted, and she is thought of only as a servant to bring people what they want. As often as she brings her gifts, her students scorn her and turn their backs. They think only of the jobs they will have when they leave her. Though they are in her presence they do not see her.

When they walk to class, they ignore what she whispers to them from the stones and the trees, and they turn deaf ears to her calling. They see only what they need to pass a test or get a job. They treat our mother as a dull servant, useful only to advance ambition.

No one anymore stops to admire this lovely lady, our mother. They do not see her love or her charms, nor hear the stories she longs to tell them.

So, dear Princess, no one brings this beautiful lady flowers anymore. Boys and girls do not sit at her feet and listen to the songs and stories of her maidenhood. They do not care about the loves she gave birth to, nor about the adventures of those who gave their lives for her, not even the stories of the lost loves.

Few, oh so few, come and rest their heads in her bosom anymore and listen to the beat of her heart.

This lovely lady, this fount of honor, our mother, awaits a champion. She awaits the one who will rescue her honor and restore her children to her.

Today this lady bears uncomplainingly the scorn of the those who treat her as only as object to be used. She sees her love marketed, and her charms bought and sold to make her users rich. She sees her children mock her, and those who do not care about her settle into her home and order her about.

Each evening she wanders the campus, listening at the doorways of the lounges of East and West, North and South, of Pollock, and of Simmons, and McElwain and Atherton to hear whether anyone still remembers her. She wanders toward the house that Evan built, and kneels at the grave where her most gallant knight, Atherton, is buried. She read the names engraved around the tops of buildings, remembering the minds that chose those names and the hands that chiseled them in her honor.

She stands before the towering columns of Pattee and reads the words of her servant: “Know thyself,” and the tears well up, and she wonders if she has become only a misty memory in the minds of those who pass by.

She walks to the lawn of Old Main, past the place Old Willow no longer graces, and sees the eyes of her son Osmond looking down without recognition. Then she stands before the halls where her first students studied.

She remembers how much she meant to them, and she cries for the love and the honor she once knew.

There are so few who remember the beauty of this lady, the honor she bestowed, and the warmth she gave when her sons and daughters acknowledged her and gathered around her feet. We who remember are growing old, and we can no longer ease her pain or dry her tears, for the young no longer come to her and she cries for her children.

So she awaits a young boy who will show her honor again. And it must be you, Atreu, for a woman must be honored by men. Just as a man, no matter how rich or powerful he is, who is not honored by women, has no honor at all, so this beautiful lady’s honor can only be rescued by a young man.

And to the young maiden who reads this and hears the sighs of the beautiful lady, then know that you are the Princess. Go to our mother’s side and listen long and lovingly to her voice. For she needs you.

And she shall tell you how to teach boys to honor their mother again. And it shall be through you that the rescuer of our mother shall be led to her.

Few will understand what needs to be done, perhaps none but you. For the import of this messages is meant only for you. When you read it, you will understand, and you will know its meaning, and it will rend your hearts, and tears will come into your eyes for the lost honor of our mother.

Then go climb the Mountain, and wander through the forest until you hear her whispering to you again.

She will hint to you of the stories she used to tell her children, and you will begin to feel her warmth. Faith and courage will be born in you. Then seek out the elders and search through the ancient books in which her memory and her honor are recorded. Then you will be armed to do what must be done to save the lady.

Until a young Atreu and a Princess hear the call, the Nothing will continue to eat away the honor of this lady, and she shall wander the campus alone looking for her lost children.

This is the call of danger. It is the call of peril for the lovely lady, the beautiful woman, our dear mother, Alma Mater. The honor of this beautiful lady can be rescued only by the young.

Sincerely,

Ben Novak, Penn State ’65