LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Diverse campus needs dialogue

To the Editor: On Monday, January 15, 1996 at the evening celebration, our keynote speaker, Chancellor Julius Chambers, noted that 90 percent of the audience was African American. I wondered what it would take to make the audience more representative of the Penn community. Further pondering made me think that perhaps others might feel uncomfortable about attending events that are established and perhaps seemingly geared to a particular audience. I believe that dialogue with and exposure to different cultures are essential components in creating a civil and pluralistic community. I also think that attending functions that appear to be geared towards others might be intimidating or something we would not normally consider doing. If this is the case, simply saying that we need to dialogue is not enough. Penn has a history of having people of color on campus that we know dates at least as far back as 1755, when two Mohawk Indians began their studies, and in 1882, when the first African American earned an M.D. degree. We have had the ingredients to create arenas to interact with people of different cultures and orientations. Yet I noticed there was little diversity in the various functions I attended throughout this year's celebration. I am therefore extending a personal invitation to Janet Dwyer in the Office of the President and Kurt Conklin in Student Health, two people I have admired from afar. I will ask them to join me in the University's Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative for 1997. It is time to up the ante. In addition to saying that dialogue is important, I hope that everyone will extend a personal invitation to others, because it is just not enough to know that dialogue is important, and then hope that we can reach the array that exists here at Penn. If you know someone professionally, casually or even someone you have admired from afar who is not of your race, gender, sexual orientation and/or religion, extend a personal invitation to him or her to join you in activities that produce dialogue here on campus. Give someone a personal invitation to participate in a forum where dialogue is the focus in 1996, and perhaps they will invite someone else in l997 and beyond because "Every Person Can Make A Difference." Isabel Sampson-Mapp Assistant Director African American Resource Center Econonic realities ignored To the Editor: We would like to address some issues that columnist J. Christopher Robbins failed to account for in his piece "Riding America's rails" (DP, 1/17/96). While much of what Robbins says in his column may be true, his solution of complete privatization seems overly simplistic and misses some key economic realities. Robbins chooses to ignore externalities and the effects they may impose on society completely. These external effects, which cannot be accounted for in terms of dollars and cents, may very well be the reason that the government chooses to subsidize Amtrak. Oftentimes, what is profitable to business is not the optimal and most efficient solution from a societal perspective. No library ever turns a profit, and therefore would not exist if privatized per Robbins's suggestion. Evidently, the government and most knowledgeable individuals feel that the societal benefits from Amtrak, like the benefits from operating a library, weigh heavier than the subsidy to operate it. Some of these societal benefits may be reduced pollution from fewer cars, maximizing the use of infrastructure already in existence (in the form of railways) instead of building new highways, and a decrease in the need for parking lots and other "dead" spaces in and around our crowded cities. Amtrak provides these benefits as well as an affordable transportation option to individuals who cannot afford to own and operate a car. While it might be true that privatization is the most efficient option, any complete analysis of the situation must recognize and account for these external costs. Robbins's column utterly fails to do this. How can Robbins say that privatization is "not just the best option, it's the only option" if he has not considered any other options? Jon-Paul Momsen College and Wharton '96 Jonathan Brightbill Wharton '97 Crystal gets a bum rap To The Editor: In response to freshman Dave Crystal and his column "Language and 'kultcha'" (DP, 1/18/96), it is highly distressing to know that perhaps there are many people out there who think like you do. It is inexcusable to justify the usage of certain, obvious four-letter words as "sometimes good" simply because you believe that "they possess a power held by no other type of word." It is clear to me that you have not taken a freshman seminar, or any other English class for that matter, in order to make such an outrageous statement. If you cannot think of a better way to express your emotions than simply yelling profane obscenities, then, my friend, you are not ready to face the real world. You're fortunate enough to have three more years to hone such a skill. I do agree with you in that music can be an exhilarating channel through which one can air feelings, attitudes and emotions, and that there are many talented artists who succeed in that goal. However, there are also many commercialized and downright crude ones whose product is nothing more than mere horse dung (oops, I guess I could have used a more appropriate "four-letter word" to fully experience the "power of emotional release," according to you, but I won't stoop down to your level). Be it rap, heavy metal, alternative, hard rock, what have you, the excessive use of expletives constitutes nothing more than bad taste and sheer ignorance, and should not be justified nor tolerated because "they may mean different things to different people." My advice to you, Dave, is cut the rhetoric and write about something pressing or interesting, for that matter. Eddy Park College '97