LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Accepting Mediocrity

To the Editor: Our school should not fall into this second class, but distressingly, it does. We are a large, bustling Ivy League institution located in a major metropolitan area close to our nation's commercial and political centers. We offer the opportunity to speak to a culturally diverse group of graduates from just about every field imaginable. And, most importantly, we are one of the nation's top ten overall universities, often at the forefront of technological breakthrough, business innovation, artistic brilliance and academic genius. Yet despite all of these attributes, we cannot attract a first-rate graduation speaker. When University spokeswoman Barbara Stevens says she is "thrilled" about the selection of Ms. Alexander, it is easy to see why we lag behind our competitor schools. The University is willing to settle for second best, and thus, it usually is second best. Schools like Harvard, Yale and Princeton do not even consider second-rate speakers; it is a sign of self-degradation. Those schools have no problems devising lists that are purely top-notch and no problems attracting people to speak on their campuses. I'll draw an analogy to sports teams seeking a new head coach. First, a list would be devised and ordered of the best possible coaches. Second, the process of influencing the coach to become part of the team would occur. If these two steps were not done correctly, the team would find itself struggling at the last minute just to find someone, anyone, to fill the position. I suspect that this is what happened to Penn, although administrators will deny it until they are blue in the face. It is obvious that the University failed miserably in one or both of the steps described above -- either the initial list was not good enough or the process of attracting possible speakers to campus was bizarrely unsuccessful. Either way, it is a direct indictment on those who have the most influence around here, namely President Rodin and her staff. The bottom line is that while Ms. Alexander has had a nice acting career and now runs the NEA (whose merits are debatable), she is not Ivy League Commencement speaker material. I feel terribly for the Class of 1995 that their legacy will be partially marred by a ho-hum graduation. Let all of my fellow juniors hold out hope for greatness in 1996's graduation, though, despite the fact that Penn's administration unfortunately seems to accept mediocrity with open arms. Adam Blitz Wharton '96 A Revised Jewish Perspective To the Editor: As a "believing" Jew and, more importantly, as a member of a university community that strives for intellectual honesty, I am deeply disturbed and insulted by the recent editorial of Shawn Klein entitled "A Jewish Perspective" (DP 3/30/95). He states, "how could someone who knows of a fossil record, knows about radioactive isotope-based dating techniques, and understands the fact of evolution still think that God created the Earth in six days a few thousand years ago, in the exact same physical condition it is in today." Unlike Shawn, I am not a BBB major. However, it seems that Shawn does not understand these issues himself. I have never heard the theory of evolution ever been referred to as "fact" in educational circles. The fact is that there are actually many inherent problems, discrepancies and contradictions with the theory of evolution, which is primarily why it is called a theory. Advanced research in gene mutation have posed serious challenges to the "survival of the fittest" hypothesis. While "radioactive-isotope-based" is a large word with an intelligent and truthful ring to it -- don't be misled. The radioactive theory makes assumptions such as a constant, linear rate of decay which is highly questionable and can significantly alter our dating estimates. Finally, a closer look into the creation account proves that the fossil record is not an "insurmountable discrepancy." In the creation story the sun was created on the fourth day, yet the first three periods of creation are also called days (Hebrew: yom). I do know that our understanding of a day means nothing unless it is relative to the sun. Therefore, the first three days mentioned in the bible, or for that matter any day in the creation story, (since the same word is used throughout the creation story) obviously refers to "God" days which could mean, I don't know, possibly millennia? I don't think anyone can know. Furthermore, according to the creation story, God created humans, trees, diamonds and possibly even fossils already in a mature and aged state. Thus, contrary to what Shawn argues, I believe one can be a creationist and also have a "sincere respect for the scientific process and its intrinsic perfect logic." The bottom line is that Shawn seems to have a hard time accepting "individual Jewish laws and stories at face value" yet at the same token seem to accept some scientific "stories" at face value. While Shawn identifies with many positive elements of Judaism, I think he is ignorant of one of the most compelling features of Judaism, namely intellectual scholarship. Now and for the past two-thousand years, probably the most fundamental tenet of Judaism is its emphasis on learning and logic. The Talmud is one of the most intensely logical books I have ever read. The spiritual leaders of the Jewish community have also been the most learned. The late Chassidic rabbi, Menachem Schneerson, received advanced degrees in math and science from the Sorbonne. I find it hard to believe that a religion that so strongly emphasizes intelligent scholarship would "rarely look at the logic of our own beliefs." Jews have been persecuted throughout history as a result of outlandish propaganda and wild theories of Jews presented as facts. Presenting the theory of evolution as fact and flippantly dismissing a whole community of believers (and scholars) as ignorant of "reality" are very harsh and threatening words. I pray that Shawn practices what he has preaches and starts to question whether his "scientific beliefs" are grounded in any reality. Before one comes to the conclusion as to the complete accuracy of the theory of evolution, or to the complete inaccuracy of certain events or stories in the bible, or for that matter any topic discussed in a university setting, it is important to place human bias aside and vigorously and methodically study the facts and theories presented. Eddie Karan Wharton '95 Addams Family Myth To the Editor: The DP reporter, in her April 6 article, "Addams Arts Hall to be built," restates and then partially transforms a long-held Penn myth. For many years, the rumor has been that a building on campus was the inspiration for the house of what cartoonist Charles Addams called his "weird family." Even such publications as Practical Penn make this claim. Both the reporter and Practical Penn state that the mansion in the Addams Family cartoons was modeled after College Hall. There are two reasons why this claim cannot be true: 1) Charles Addams himself said that it was not, and 2) The Addams Family house was of Victorian design, while College Hall is considered to be one of the finest and earliest examples of what is called the Collegiate Gothic style. A letter was written to Addams in the spring of 1964 when the rumor began on campus that Blanchard Hall, which was targeted for demolition to make way for the Dietrich addition to Van Pelt Library, was the model for the Addams Family house. Some had hoped that Blanchard Hall, a large Victorian mansion which the University had purchased some 30 years earlier and which then housed, among others, the Annenberg School for Communications, might be spared if preservationists could claim that it had inspired a famous Penn student. In a letter (on cool New Yorker magazine stationery) dated May 7, 1964, on file in the University Archives, Mr. Addams says that "I'd like to be able to say that it all started with Blanchard Hall but it went back much before. . . ." He did, however, say that "Blanchard was terribly reassuring." In another consolation for Penn, Addams says that he often drew the Addams Family driving a (no longer produced) Franklin automobile. Akiba Covitz Political Science graduate student