Penn State president addresses community after board approves 7 campus closures
Bendapudi said they've received more than 500 letters and emails about how the campuses have positively impacted lives, and acknowledged that the decision and change can feel deeply personal and difficult. She said she's confident that they'll focus their resources where Penn State can have the most lasting impact.
'I recognize, believe me, I do, that the past several weeks, indeed months, have caused heightened concern and uncertainty. I want you to know that I hear you and I see you and I care deeply about every student, faculty member, staff member, donor, alum and community stakeholder impacted by this moment. As we move through this period of change over the next two years, I want to be crystal clear about one thing: our people come first,' Bendapudi said during the livestream, which lasted about 15 minutes.
While many trustees praised Bendapudi's forward-thinking approach and leadership in the past months while campus closures were under consideration, other trustees and community members have voiced concerns over lack of transparency and decisions made without consideration of all stakeholders.
'I would advocate that we wait until we have more information and more answers,' trustee Jay Paterno said during the board meeting. 'This is by far the most important vote any of us as trustees will have made, are going to make, and likely the most important vote we will ever make. Not having all the information should concern us.'
Teams of university leaders are creating transition plans with students, faculty and staff in mind, Bendapudi said, to mitigate and minimize the negative impacts. They don't have all of the answers yet but some information has been, and will continue to be, posted to the Penn State Roadmap, she said.
Penn State is firmly committed to honoring tenure and contracts for faculty members, Bendapudi said, and leadership is working to establish 'priority hiring consideration' for open positions across the university system for staff members.
Students who begin at a closing campus will have the opportunity to complete their degree at Penn State, and each impacted student will have personalized guidance and advising through the process.
'The two-year closure timeline at these campuses will allow students currently enrolled — and those enrolling for the fall 2025 semester — time to complete or make significant progress toward their degrees. With two academic years before closure, associate's degree students will have the opportunity to complete their programs,' a news release from the university states.
With the board's approval to close DuBois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York campuses following the spring 2027 semester, Penn State's campus ecosystem will include 13 campuses along with the Penn State College of Medicine, Penn State Dickinson Law, World Campus, Penn College of Technology and University Park.
Bendapudi stressed Penn State will continue to have an active presence across Pennsylvania. Additionally, Penn State Extension has a presence in every Pennsylvania county, and they'll continue to invest in the Invent Penn State launch boxes. And even with campuses closing, Penn State will continue to have the largest campus ecosystem of any land grant university.
Looking ahead, the university will work with local, state and federal elected officials, business and community leaders, donors and alumni to 'reimagine' what is best for those communities.
'The future use of these locations may or may not involve Penn State directly, but we will play a convening role to help catalyze possibilities that benefit the surrounding regions,' a news release states.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
6 days ago
- USA Today
Penn State's poll rankings point to college football parity
Without definitive explicit evidence, the US LBM coaches poll and preseason AP Poll have both revealed their thoughts on parity in college football. Penn State could certainly be at the center of this case study. After being considered a potential candidate for the no. 1 overall ranking in both polls, the voting systems and discussions surrounding how deep college football is this season may have altered their preseason perception. At least enough to anger fans and cause debate among analysts on whether or not the topic of parity has gained real momentum within the college football landscape. Consider the fact that the Nittany Lions were just two first-place votes behind the Texas Longhorns in the AP poll but still lost out to them because of the overall point system. While the Longhorns garnered 1,552 overall points, the Nittany Lions only had 1547 points, coming up just sort in a system that proves that there are so many votes that can go around to the best teams. In the coaches poll, at least the discrepancy was larger as first-ranked Texas garnered 28 first place votes to second-ranked Ohio State's 20, but the AP poll had the benefit of time on its side. This begs the question: would both polls have looked similar had they come out around the same time? Penn State's ranking certainly lends itself to more intrigue surrounding that question. After all, being perhaps the most experienced of the top 5 teams in both polls, would it not make more sense that given more time for decision-making, voters believed in them more for the AP poll over the coaches poll? Or is it just because the AP poll has more room for more votes, therefore inflating ANY team's chance of higher rankings and more votes? Penn State are not the only team that may have either benefitted or have been slighted once the AP poll came around. Consider the Big 12 where because of their highly spilt vote share, Arizona State found themselves outside of the top 10. Meanwhile, teams such as Michigan or South Carolina, who have a lot of faith from pundits, yet still have more questions than answers in their squad, have benefitted highly from the split committee, remaining squarely in the top 15. Overall, while many teams can make the case that parity will be the key to this college football season, Penn State's tenuous rankings tell the average fan a lot about how what many consider the best team in college football can both fall victim to and benefit from baffled voters. While fans may be displeased now, there may be a myriad number of chances for the Nittany Lions to prove themselves on the field. What these preseason poll rankings most importantly offer us is a chance for this college football season to be much more unpredictable than previously imagined.
CBS News
09-08-2025
- CBS News
Pa. state lawmakers push to launch study to turn Penn State Fayette into military college
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania want to launch a study to potentially turn the Penn State Fayette County campus into a senior military college. Republican State Representative Charity Grimm Krupa represents the region and is the elected official proposing the study. Rep. Grimm Krupa said the goal is to make use of the facility after Penn State announced the closure of the branch campus. She said that no plans are currently being drawn up until lawmakers are convinced that it would benefit the community and the students. "My understanding is that there are only six military colleges across the nation, and there's no reason that Pennsylvania can't be home of one of those, and make it ultra successful," Rep. Grimm Krupa said. "I want to make sure that before we invest any taxpayer dollars in this, that it's a good idea and can be successful." A member of the Penn State Fayette advisory board said that there have been no discussions about turning the campus into a military facility. They are, however, pushing for the campus to be owned and operated by Fayette County. The campus is set to close in 2027.
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Yahoo
Big Ten commish makes it clear: When it comes to College Football Playoff expansion, his No. 1 priority is inventory
Remember all the thrilling games of the 2024-25 College Football Playoff? Texas' two-overtime victory against Arizona State in the Peach Bowl! Notre Dame's walkoff field goal to defeat Penn State in the Orange Bowl! And … and … hey, how about that Peach Bowl? The sad truth about the debut of the expanded College Football Playoff was that from a competitive standpoint, it was pretty much a wet firework. Only two of the 11 games — those two above — finished with a one-possession margin of victory. Five of the games were decided by a margin of two touchdowns or more, and three were 20-plus-point blowouts. (Thanks for stopping by, SMU, Tennessee and Oregon.) More, in other words, didn't come anywhere near better. Yes, these were college football playoff games … but more importantly, they were inventory created to meet demand. And if people are going to buy as much of the product as you put on the shelves, what's the incentive to limit that product? Why worry about quality when quantity is your overall goal? College power conference leaders know this, which is why they're angling so hard for representation in the CFP's bracket — now at 12, almost certain to expand to 16. If — no, let's be honest, when — that expansion comes, most conferences favor a 5+11 bracket. That would comprise five conference champions, 11 at-large teams, and would seem to be as meritocratic as possible: Play well and you're in. (Win those winnable games, Alabama.) But meritocracy isn't the endgame here, aristocracy is. And so now you have Tony Petitti, Big Ten commissioner, backing a '4-4-2-2-1-3' idea, which would give the Big Ten and the SEC four automatic bids apiece, the Big 12 and the ACC two apiece, and the remaining conferences a single bid, with three more at-larges. (It's like one of those ridiculous old word problems — 'If the Big Ten gets four automatic berths in the playoffs, and the SEC gets four automatic berths … how can they screw the ACC and the Big 12 out of three more?') 'At the end of the day, I think there's been a lot of concern about how [the playoff selections] are made. I focus on that piece,' Petitti explained. 'How are we differentiating from teams that don't have head-to-head play, teams that don't play common schedules across leagues that do different things? I think that's a really hard, tall order.' It's quite the rhetorical trick Pettiti is playing there, saying that because his conference is so big, you can't adequately determine strength by head-to-head matchups alone. And whose fault is that? It wasn't the selection committee that expanded the Big 'Ten' to 18 teams. Petitti isn't interested in creating a more equitable playoff, or in creating the conditions for better competition. He wants to pack the bracket with his schools, damn the optics or the on-field results. (Worth noting: the talent dropped off fast in the Big Ten after the top four last year. Would Iowa or Illinois, with their 6-3 conference records, be more deserving of an at-large spot than a whole range of other options? No.) Petitti understands that there are spots that need to be filled — both now and in the 16-team playoff to come — and he wants those guaranteed for his conference, not subject to the whims of a playoff selection committee. But guaranteed bids are the very antithesis of 'settle it on the field,' and run counter to literally every 'you gotta earn it!' mantra preached by every coach from the beginning of time. It's no surprise why the ACC and Big 12 hate the idea, and it's also no surprise what's driving the Big Ten's push to claim as much inventory as possible. We're not exactly breaking news here to note that money trumps tradition at every single level of college sports now. Tradition only has value for universities, and especially for broadcast partners, to the extent it can be monetized. Yes, it's wonderful that you can hum along to your alma mater's fight song … but maybe you can kick in a few bucks to the ol' athletic capital campaign while you're at it? That rivalry you enjoyed your entire life … well, your rival just didn't have deep enough pockets to join a new conference. Shame to lose that, really, but how about a replacement conference game against a school from halfway across the country? That's almost as good, right? Tradition has no place in the College Football Playoff. This is about inventory, plain and simple, and every business wants to create enough inventory to meet demand. Except here, instead of cereal boxes on a grocery shelf or burgers on a restaurant warming tray, the inventory in question is college football playoff games. Broadcasters want more inventory because each playoff game is a highly monetizable asset. Universities want more inventory because each nationally televised game means more exposure, more alumni goodwill, more broadcast dollars. Fans might want more inventory because … well, more football is good football, right? Yeah, not so much. Sure, there's always the chance that a Cinderella will knock out a Goliath, to mix literary metaphors, but given the wide variance between college football haves and have-lesses, the more likely outcome is what we saw last year: the big dogs carving right through the happy-to-be-here teams. You know the best way to ensure competitive playoff games? Narrow the field down to the best four and let them have at it. Wild idea, right? We're never going back there, meaning college football fans are now living a truth that plagues everything from pizza to music to Marvel movies: As quantity goes up, quality goes down.
