Witnesses: U. guilty of racism, inequity

The Mayor's Scholarship trial began yesterday with an eight-hour procession of witnesses for the plaintiffs, who leveled accusations of racism and inequity in the University's recruitment and treatment of Philadelphia students. The long-awaited Common Pleas Court trial is supposed to settle a lawsuit filed in October 1991 against the University over the number of scholarships the University is required to distribute annually to Philadelphia students. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 scholarships a year for a total of 500 at a time. The University, however, maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land. Both Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney for the plaintiff Tom Gilhool and Arthur Makadon, the attorney for the University, said that their respective arguments would focus on the interpretation of the city ordinance which defines the Mayor's Scholarship. Although Gilhool had previously stated that PILCOP would be focusing on the words of the ordinance, almost all of those who testified had no authority on the subject of the actual ordinance, but spoke of their own personal experiences and problems with the University. Former Director of Minority Recruitment Carol Black and former financial aid and admissions officer William Adams testified against the University, saying that the University was racist and inconsiderate in its recruiting efforts. "The University was not aware that there were good students in places where they had not previously looked," Adams said. Guidance counselors, teachers and principals from Philadelphia high schools testified about scholarship practices and their impact on children's learning, saying that there was a lack of evidence that the University took any interest in recruiting from their respective schools. "The University is a jewel in the crown of the city," Girls' High School principal Marian Street said. "We are very disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to hear from recruiters [from the University]." And several witnesses testified to a climate at the University which is, and was, wrought with racial conflict. This, they claimed, made the 1977 revision of the Mayor's Scholarships program necessary. Lorenzo Sheppard, pastor of Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church, alleged that the University was and is waging a deliberate campaign of expansion and removal of neighborhood families in West Philadelphia. "The University is a very powerful institution, and it usually gets what it wants," Sheppard said. "And the attitudinal aspects of the University as they concern minorities have not changed. In fact, it has gotten worse." But nearly a quarter of the testimony focused specifically on the wording of the ordinance. Gilhool called the words of the ordinance "clear and explicit." "Public bodies should choose their words as they mean them," Gilhool said. "Or else, no person's word would be reliable and chaos would ensue." He said the plaintiff's argument would deal with aspects of the case such as the direct evolution of the contrast between the words of earlier ordinances as compared with that of 1977. But Makadon's opening statement illustrated the fundamental difference between the two sides in the suit. " 'Annually' means that each year, the University will make a new decision [on who should receive financial aid]," Makadon said. Makadon stated that the ordinance "quantifies the amount of aid the University is obligated to provide." He added that if the University had truly quadrupled its Mayor's Scholarship commitment, it would have been publicized. "If the city administration under [former Philadelphia mayor Frank] Rizzo had . . . quadrupled the amount of financial aid it was legally required to give, I could see him chortling with the president of the University, talking about how committed he is to financial aid," Makadon said. "[But there was] nary a word -- ever." Michael Pratt, the attorney for the city, made a brief opening statement expressing the city's siding with the University in the lawsuit. The case was thrown out of Common Pleas Court last April because the plaintiffs did not name the city and the mayor as co-defendants with the University. "What did the University and city intend with the 1977 ordinance?" Pratt asked. "What the city extracted from the University . . . was the promise of 125 scholarships." And at the end of the day, former City Solicitor Sheldon Albert testified on the nature of the 1977 ordinances. Throughout the day, testimonies were punctuated by Makadon's objections, which were most often sustained by Judge Nelson Diaz. Lawyers from both sides said that the first day in court held no real surprises. "This is basically what we expected," PILCOP lawyer Michael Churchill said. "The witnesses made it vivid in terms of what was going on, and helped to recreate atmosphere which helps make it evident why the city and the University would take the action they did." "I didn't really have a set view of what it was going to be like," University General Counsel Shelley Green said. "We'll see what the next day brings."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.