Cal U’s football problems |

Cal U’s football problems

The California University of Pennsylvania football program has obvious, serious problems. The reported suggestion that interim Cal U President Geraldine Jones was wrong to cancel the game against Gannon is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong.

The first obligation of Cal U and its administration must be to the students. A clear message had to be sent to all, especially the football team, that something very wrong allegedly took place that will not be tolerated.

Permitting the team to practice and play the following weekend would have diluted any words of condemnation.

It has also been suggested that the study of the football program is a mere “dog and pony show.” It might not be the action desired, but is exactly the right action by an interim president, who prepares the school for various changes that a fully commissioned president may make. Serious changes in a university’s culture and actions should only be made by a person who expects to be around to manage the consequences.

The problem is that Ms. Jones has done such a good job and been retained as acting president and interim president for so long that she is expected to act like a president with a full commission.

The remedy for this problem is for the State System of Higher Education Board of Governors to admit Cal U needs a “real” president but is not ready for more change. Very simply, Jones should be fully commissioned as the “real” president.

B. Kirk Holman

California, Pa.

The writer, a former California University of Pennsylvania student, and his family have funded or endowed scholarships there; he is the father of a Cal U alumnus and his mother was a Cal U professor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.