I personally would prefer that these decisions be made based on competency rather than arbitrary age limits. This is especially true as everyone is aging, and t

I personally would prefer that these decisions be made based on competency rather than arbitrary age limits. This is especially true as everyone is aging, and the "meaning" of a certain age is changing dramatically. (I'd say this of air traffic controllers also, although I see where you're coming from — I imagine you could have a standard set of tests they need to take regularly? I'm not sure I know enough about it to say confidently.) I don't know the details of the case, and maybe she should step down. However, the article mentions that doctors' evaluations of her competency were submitted. It sounds a bit like an argument over whose expert testimony should be relevant, and I could easily see a situation where someone wants her gone for political reasons ("political" in a broad sense, including "office politics"), and starts demanding that she have a particular evaluation done by a particular professional. If you were going through a divorce and your ex demanded you be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist of their choosing, would you comply? I've seen ageism be leveraged for political reasons with people I know, and it's corrupt, pure and simple. It's not any different from arguing against someone because of their ethnicity or gender. At some point people can't do their job as well anymore and maybe she's at that point. But after reading the article, I wasn't really so sure. I could just as easily see it being the case that someone assumes she should step down because "clearly she's too old at 96", has some resentments about her being there for other reasons, and then leverages the former to achieve satisfaction with regard to the latter.