Last summer, the contentious national debate over COVID-19 vaccine mandates came to University Park when a group of vaccine mandate supporters gathered outside of Old Main along with a handful of counter-protestors. Sadly, the demonstration became physical, with an altercation involving members of our community. Some faculty and students have expressed strong opposition to the University invoking the AC70 tenure revocation process. This included demonstrations and an online petition that was circulated.

I want to be clear that the University has no concern with anyone expressing their support or criticism of any issue. All voices are important to hear.

I realize it can be frustrating when we are unable to share details associated with the implementation of our processes and handling of such matters. However, it is important that our community understands the University’s investigatory and disciplinary proceedings are confidential, to protect due process and provide for other legal protections that are in place to safeguard the interests of the accused, the accuser(s) and others who may be part of the process and making determinations. The University’s responsibility to maintain personnel matters as confidential is derived from the basic tenets of ethical standards.

It also is important to note that the University’s processes include checks and balances. AC70 was created in partnership with faculty and, by policy, the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure consists of two members selected by the administration and three tenured faculty members selected by the elected faculty members of the University Faculty Senate.

I wish to express a concern: Some of the heated rhetoric appearing online and on placards and anonymously distributed flyers is reckless and not reflective of Penn State’s values of respect and responsibility, which call for members of the University community to act responsibly, respect and honor the dignity of each person, and embrace informed discourse.

A recent petition stated that, if the University “does not honor our demand” to expel a student from Penn State, then “it’s up to the students and people of Penn State to take matters into our own hands.” This language is threatening and borders on vigilantism. It has been accompanied by harassing behavior targeting individuals and overt interference with classroom instruction and other educational functions. These malicious and misleading attacks have been deeply troubling at best.

We simply must agree that even if a member of our community chooses to advance their own perspective about an issue in a provocative and offensive way, there can be no place in response for threats to their safety. It is my wish that all members of our community exercise their expressive rights thoughtfully and in an informed manner. But even when the intent is to offend, there is no room for rhetoric and tactics in response that intentionally threaten the welfare of any member of our community. We can all better ourselves and our University by rejecting intimidation and incivility, and instead doing all we can to cultivate a community of respect.