LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Please Check Your Facts

To the Editor: Although this number has been cited in several feminist books and women's studies texts, it should be clear that it is implausible to even a casual reader. It is over three times higher than the fatality rate from car accidents for the population as a whole. Christina Hoff Sommers, in her book Who Stole Feminism? notes that the statistic was drawn from a 1985 newsletter of the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association, but was misquoted; in fact it refers to the number of women suffering from eating disorders and not to the number of deaths from these disorders. Sommers notes that the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) estimated that 70 women died from anorexia nervosa in 1990. Even if this number is greatly underestimated and the true number of deaths from all eating disorders is five, ten, or even 100 times the number reported by the NCHS, the number of fatalities from eating disorders does not approach 150,000. The misquoted statistic was perpetuated in books, newspapers and television reports, but in recent months has been widely reported in the national media (including Newsweek, 7/25/94) that it is inaccurate. It took only a five-minute on-line search and a quick trip to Van Pelt library to check this statistic. I was left wondering whether I could believe any of the numbers in Mr. Iorillo's column. Please, next time, check your facts. A strong argument about a serious problem has been undermined yet again by an implausible statistic. The cause would be better served by accurate reporting. Allison Percy Wharton doctoral student Stick to the Rules To the Editor: It was surprisingly strange to find two different references on UTV13 on yesterday's issue of the DP. Marc Tonsetic's column ("I Want my UTV13," DP 4/10/95) was a successful description of what has been affecting UTV13 since its creation in 1974 as the first student-run college TV station in the country. It was very pleasant for me to see that someone finally pointed out that the Penn community is the only one hurt by this policy aimed to restrict the so-called "freedom of speech" (or broadcast, in this case). But this was not the event that brought me to the computer. It was the story on UTV13's "misconduct" that caught my attention because the reporter apparently forgot to explain why shows are suspended. UTV13 is a station managed by students for the exclusive use of students. Throughout my two years of service as vice president I saw many shows be created, each addressing different cultures and issues. The only homogeneous factor across shows was that they all had to stick to a general policy. UTV13 owns equipment with a value that exceeds $150,000. Although students manage every single aspect of show production, rules have to be observed for the benefit of other producers and they apply to everybody to the same extent. Not returning a camera on time, as described in the story, clearly affects people who may have signed that camera out for a street shooting. In addition, misuse of the equipment by careless operators also harms other shows if the equipment is broken. What is asked is respect for the others. If a show does not stick to the rules, they are put on probation or under the supervision of the board. Not being an active member of the board anymore, I am not aware of the details of this particular incident. However, I thought that it was fair to explain that shows are not suspended by a "mean" general manager, as hinted in the article. Lastly, a professional and respectful attitude is clearly not present in the producer's statement about other UTV13 shows: "A lot more people watch this than some of those other stupid shows on there." Well, UTV13 does not need those kinds of people anyway. Emiliano Calemzuk College '95 Former Vice-President, Broadcast Operations, UTV13 Play House Somewhere Else To the Editor: Like many members of the University community, I was horrified by the recent job opportunity listing for a manager for the president's house. Unlike many other folks, however, I was not at all mollified by the president's letter confessing mistakes had been made in wording part of the job description ("Rodin says ad for dog-sitter, kids 'tutor just a 'misunderstanding'" DP 3/14/95). The features of the offering that make it odious remain. The salary range offered is twice as big as my own and rivals or surpasses that of my professional supervisors; it is two thirds or more the size of the income of the average resident of West Philadelphia. The number and variety of duties listed (even if those repudiated by President Rodin are removed) imperialize the household to a puzzling and unnecessary degree. It is certainly an offense to an urban community whose families struggle to maintain their own modest apartments or homes, and to students shoehorned into tiny dorm rooms or crowded, often substandard off-campus digs. This gaff is all the more serious when seen in conjunction with two other recent unfortunate events of a similar nature. Eisenlohr House was recently "renovated," at, I am sure, great cost to the University, only three years after the last major changes to the building. The presidential residence, like the University, is situated in a low income urban area where many people are homeless, more live in substandard housing, where the hungry search garbage cans for food and drink. What was wrong with the last renovation? This past fall Penn spent thousands of dollars inaugurating our new president. It is true that this tasteless, offensive and inappropriate celebration was a tradition begun by our last University leader. However the current administration saw no reason not to continue and amplify the event. Meanwhile, basic University services decline and decay, academic departments are shut down faster than American military bases, and so few new PhDs receive tenure at Penn that it is a wonder that academic careers should have any appeal to young scholars here. And students (remember the students -- they are most of the reason we are all here in the first place) struggle under the burdens of rising educational costs and shrinking job opportunities. The spectacle of the inauguration, like the renovation of Eisenlohr, or the imperialization of the presidential household, is all about appearance, self-congratulation and self advertisement. Such preening has no place in an academic environment, indeed is antithetical to principles of scholarship and pursuit of knowledge. These pretensions are an embarrassment to the University and an affront to the surrounding community, to the students, staff and faculty of Penn. Just as seriously, these incidents cast grave doubt upon President Rodin's ability or resolve to increase efficiency and cut costs while maintaining academic excellence and integrity, good community relations, workplace standards and quality of life. Increasingly they raise suspicions that she and the trustees care most about inflating their own egos and positions at the cost of the University. If Dr. Rodin needs a household manager, let her hire and pay for that employee from her own generous (and I do agree well earned) salary. If the administration wishes to amuse themselves with a presidential palace or a regal inauguration, and good sense will not deter them, let them reimburse the University from their own (considerable, and less clearly well earned) personal incomes. But it would be infinitely better for the future health and reputation of Penn if these insulting, embarrassing and offensive acts were discontinued. The University has much better things to do with its dwindling funds than play house. Penn should act its age and not its shoe size. Frances Hoenigswald Library Clerk, Biddle Law Library