EDITORIAL: Reinventing the Wheel

The UA's attempt at reform forThe UA's attempt at reform forthe 21st Century has left theThe UA's attempt at reform forthe 21st Century has left thecampus speechlessThe UA's attempt at reform forthe 21st Century has left thecampus speechless_______________________________ Not only is this a strong and far-reaching plan, it also is quite innovative and will certainly lay a foundation for the next century, just as UA Chairperson Dan Debicella promised. Its drafters must have used a crystal ball. First, we admire the originality of many of the proposals. One idea is to allow students to minor in any school at the University. This idea is brilliant, but unfortunately the University has already taken steps to ensure this becomes a reality well before the next century -- Wharton students can already minor in the College. Furthermore, the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education has already made proposals in this area. Another proposal calls for more classes in dormitories. But again the UA must not have realized that the University already has an Office of Academic Programs in Residence that has been working on this ever since its inception. The creative thinking continues. Debicella and crew call for professors and teaching assistants to be proficient in English. But maybe someone should give the UA a copy of the Policies and Procedures Handbook, which clearly states, "All persons hired on or after July 1, 1991?must be evaluated and certified as having met the University's standard of English fluency." Furthermore, the plan asks the University to encourage the "Penn community to live in West Philadelphia through incentive systems." But the University already offers incentives to stay in West Philadelphia and has for 25 years. The University currently will give faculty members a zero percent interest loan on mortgages and will agree to underwrite a faculty member's mortgage so that he or she does not need a down payment. Continuing the plan's novel trend, the UA also calls for such innovations as the creation of police beats and three eight-hour shifts for officers, performances by "non-University performers" and "midnight madness." Again, these ideas are far from inventive -- the University Police Department already has beats and eight-hour shifts. The UA probably has not heard of the Annenberg Center, and perhaps we must remind them that the last attempt at midnight madness resulted in more students getting hospitalized than getting basketball tickets. The UA's Project 2000 should also be admired for the risks that it takes -- attempting to bend federal laws and remove power from the University's president and provost. The plan calls for the replacement of union workers in Dining Services with work study students. Unfortunately, this is illegal. The UA also wants a "binding referendum [to] be run for any College House plan that the administration proposes." A "binding" referendum is a great suggestion, except only 20 percent of students vote in any campus election, and this type of referendum only slightly undermines the authority of the University's administration. Needless to say, the UA's Project 2000 is a complete failure. It is vague, shows little leadership and hardly lays a foundation for taking the University into the next decade. It is a plan more for the 19th century than the 21st and it is full of broad, obtuse statements that simply rehash the suggestions that students have heard for years. The UA has wasted an entire semester on a childish and useless plan that the administration should not take seriously. The absurdity of the plan that was so highly touted by some UA members is best summarized by Debicella's own comments: "This is the most substantial thing the UA has done this decade." Unfortunately, the plan remains insubstantial and only highlights how inept the UA really is.