LETTER: Could 'We' Ask More In-Depth Questions?

To the Editor: As a person who has spent significant time working with the homeless, I found the article chock full of ignorant stereotypes and blatant fear-mongering. As a visitor to Penn's campus and a person who holds the exchange of idea in high esteem, I was satisfied to see the DP print a frightening reminder of the blatant elitism which exists in higher education today and is exmplified by the Fogels' use of expressions such as "the less fortunate," "the homeless would_flock," "handouts_manipulate our good nature," and "they have the potential to contribute_to our society." Let me explain my position. After graduating from Dartmouth College in 1991, I worked there for a year coordinating 24 community service programs involving 1,000 students. Now I am in the midst of a trip around the country promoting and championing collegiate community service. After conversations with students from over 50 colleges and universities within the past year, I can state that the types of beliefs held by the Fogels are present all around the country, and indeed in almost every niche of society. Let me take a few examples of Fogel reasoning and read between and beyond their standard lines. The Fogels ask, "But what can we do about the masses of people who insist upon harassing us?" At first I thought this might lead into a paragraph about advertisers and corporate sponsorship. After all, in my stay here in Philadelphia, I have passed by dozens of homeless men and women, and not one single one has said a work to me, much less asked me anything or harassed me. To say that there are masses of people insisting upon harassing me conjures up attacks on my innocence, as if I were peacefully watching an English soccer game and got caught in the middle of massive riots. To say that homeless individuals are "masses" who "insist upon harassing" is a failed attempt to appeal to my fear of others, as is the reference to "the man playing charades with himself." The Fogels state that Penn students impact the surrounding community, regardless of whether they are motivated by "a genuine interest in cleaning Philadelphia's streets, or a desire to make a resum_ look good_" This seems like a simple technique to show two sides to a broad spectrum of motivations for community service. In reality, it indicates the depth of ignorance these two individuals possess. Is "cleaning Philadelphia's streets," thereby equating human beings with garbage, supposed to be noble or to enlist our society? Or in reality is it a sick attempt to make the homeless appear less than human with us? Unforunately, the writers' reference to wondering "about the right of the homeless" answers the previous question: the Fogels aren't really sure if the homeless have the exact same uhuman right of every other person in our society because, well, the homeless obviously don't have the same-sized bank accounts. Nice try, but I think most people smart enough to see through their simpleminded attempt to equate human dignity with financial status. The Fogels claim that homelessness might "never exist if we did not insist on creating a welfare state." To borrow from Ross Perot, that's media myth #568. Perhaps "we" could ask mor in-depth questions, such as: Why were huge numbers of mental institutions shut down by the Reagan Administration with absolutely no regards for the residents during the 1980s? And what is the connection between those acts and the fact that 25 percent of the homeless today are mentally ill? Or, why was federal housing money slashed by 80 percent during the 1980s, while Reagan both instituted the largest tax increase in our nation's history and oversaw the largest peace-time military buildup? Or, is homelessness the real problem, or is it a symptom of a larger problem of widespread poverty which affects 20 percent of our population? And here's one of the more challenging questions for a nation proclaiming to accept the world's poor, huddled masses yearning to be free: Would homelessness exist at the level's it does today if our nation had never formally instituted slavery and _ the Fogels should get ready to deny this _ racism? Would it exist to such a degree if all three branches of the government did not systematically deny individuals their human rights based on the color of their skin, or their gender or their financial status? Ironically, the Fogels write that life would be simpler if they "remained ignorant." They were right to call themselves ignorant. DAVID O'BRIEN Dartmouth '91