Retirement policy discriminatory

The University announced Nov. 16 it was forming a committee to search for a new athletics director. The man who holds the position, Clarence Doninger, is being forced to retire because of a mandatory retirement policy at age 65 for executives and high policy makers within the University.\nDoninger doesn't want to go. "There's no way I'm ready to retire. I may be 'retired,'" he told the IDS March 31. The mandatory retirement can be waived by the University president, but that exception is rarely used, the article said.\nIt is unfortunate that Doninger must retire against his will simply because he's had another birthday. It is even more unfortunate that the University enacts a policy that discriminates against its administrators because of their age. A person certainly does not lose the ability to perform his or her job simply because of a 65th birthday.\nExamples of those who have been successful at an older age are numerous. Herman B Wells held the position of University chancellor until his death, at age 97. His contributions to this University are without number, and his effectiveness and worth as a figurehead of IU did not diminish with age. Sen. Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, holds the position of president pro tempore of the Senate at age 98. Mahatma Gandhi was active in spreading his message of peace and unity for India until his assassination at the age of 79, while Nelson Mandela was in his 70s when he delivered the nation of South Africa from apartheid. Anna Mary Robertson, also known as Grandma Moses, produced some of her most famous works in her 80s, and Mother Teresa continued to spread her message and influence until her death in her late 80s. Many of our own nation's presidents have been in their 60s -- and older -- during their time in the Oval Office, including, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Benjamin Franklin was in his early 80s when he smoothed tensions at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, helping to form the foundation of our nation's government. \nNobody can question that people older than 65 have played a key role in nearly every field and in every aspect of our lives; it is clear that age does not determine one's level of ability or the impact one can have on the world. It is unfair to base someone's ability to do a job on an arbitrary number such as age. \nPeople age differently, and while one 65-year-old executive might be well past his peak ability, another of the same age might have years of productive work ahead of him. If the University requires these administrators and policy makers to retire, it might be losing valuable human resources.\nEvery University employee should be evaluated on his or her job performance, not on the year he or she was born. For the University to establish and follow policies stating those who are older must retire, despite their wishes or their abilities, it is equivalent to the the University discriminating on the basis of age. It might be legal, but it isn't right.