LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Public Service Advocates

To the Editor: All of us know students, both past and present who have been victims of crime while at Penn. We also remember the frequent editorials written by your staff imploring the Police Department and administration to increase their efforts at preventing crime on and around campus. While we recognize your efforts, it is now time for the DP to do more. We realize that allowing one public service advertisement can be the first step down the slippery slope of more and more requests; however, in light of the rash of horrible incidents which have occurred on and around campus recently, the DP must recognize the importance of informing the Penn community of ways to protect itself from crime. Indeed, it seems clear that if even one crime is prevented, the benefits of printing the public safety announcement greatly outweigh the potential costs of setting a "bad precedent". We are convinced that setting such a "bad precedent" is the best precedent the DP could set for itself as the voice of the students of the University of Pennsylvania. STANLEY ROWE Wharton '94 EMIL WOODS '94 Wharton '94 8 signatures follow To the Editor: We are writing to enthusiastically applaud Dan Schorr's column ("Might and Right" DP, 10/21/94). We feel that Schorr exposed Randi Feigenbaum's and The Daily Pennsylvanian's blatant abuse of power. Granted, Feigenbaum followed the code of journalistic ethics to the letter of the law when she mercilessly ignored UA candidate Steven Schorr's desperate pleas of freshman ignorance and innocence, and did not withhold his name from an article. As she is quoted by Dan Schorr, "The NEC does not have any laws for the DP... it's not a 'gag rule' on us." However, we feel that the 'gag rule' should have been self-implemented by a higher authority -- morality! It is obvious from Feigenbaum's actions, both her attempted manipulation of the candidates she interviewed and her stubborn refusal to withhold Steven Schorr's and Cheryl Harmelin's names, that morality was not a factor in the decision-making process. Though we find this lack of morality deplorable, we cannot objectively fault Feigenbaum for her ethics. But we are perplexed that dear Randi, the shining pillar of the law, has personally broken a rule when she was quoted several times in Schorr's column. Schorr writes, "Only the Executive Editor should speak publicly on behalf of the DP." Feigenbaum has broken this rule. Steven Schorr's punishment for unknowingly breaking a rule was to be stripped of his UA candidacy -- and eventual membership. Our only question is this: "What punishment will Feigenbaum (with her self-proclaimed knowledge of journalistic ethics) receive for breaking a rule similar to the one that she so vigorously upheld?" A seemingly fair punishment would be to remove Feigenbaum from the DP staff until the spring semester when Steven Schorr is once again eligible for candidacy. This suspension would prove to us that the DP does not implement a double-standard by loosely interpreting the rules for their staff members and strictly interpreting them for the general student body. We are only afraid the DP will once again abuse its power to protect its own. We challenge the DP to bring equality to this situation. SUNNY PAI College '97 MOSHE WEINBERGER Wharton '96