LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Workers deserve respect

To the Editor: Such negativism and blatant condemnation of hundreds of hard-working and conscientious employees?must be check- mated by the essential workers offering their best to keep the campus functioning for the good of the whole. It seems Robbins should change his major from History to Ethics and Logic -- or, better still, change to another university. For Robbins to blame the administrators because he claims they won't listen to him begs the question of his own hidden agenda. Surely an apology is in order from Robbins so as to repair the harm and hurt done to the scores of dedicated laborers on campus?. Robbins's lengthy opinion piece about his negative perception of the ugly appearance of the campus and its dorms begs a rebuttal from those offended by his hidden agenda attempt to fire scores of essential workers through a college house system?. It seems Robbins? took on a personal crusade to print an opinion column for all the faculty and students and employees to get irritated by the unsubstantiated allegations that services at his university are at an all-time low, be it security, housekeeping or mail services. Students move on, while the services are still produced by devoted and long-working employees?. Robbins needs a reality check and should face those he accuses as incompetent by a journalistic response. Would a "college house" be more immaculate by forcing students into a dual role as learning scholars and housekeepers? Many students have praised the dedication of the Teamster workers and others through the years, Robbins has his head in the sand in his neophyte effort to be a problem solver. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when thinking he can better the expert administrators, who are far more qualified to settle grievances on the campus?. Robbins, bottom line, put yourself in the shoes of the mail service employees, the Teamster union housekeepers, the security guards and the administrators of the University of Pennsylvania before you crusade your negative attacks on them. Rev. Joseph Turner, MSW Labor Consultant Taking responsibility To the Editor: Could someone please answer the following question, because I am sure I cannot: At what age are we expected to take responsibility for our actions? In the wake of the raid on Alpha Phi's crush party at Sfuzzi last Thursday ("Police raid Alpha Phi date party," DP, 2/19/96), the sorority's social chair, Caroline Chait, seems to imply that we require authoritative control at least until we graduate from college. In response to the raid, Chait uttered a scathing condemnation of the restaurant. Why? Because "they obviously didn't card hard enough." Chait also stated that "It was a registered party, and everything was by the rules. I think it was definitely on the fault of Sfuzzi." Maybe it hasn't occurred to her, but if two sisters and a pledge were arrested for underage drinking, then everything was not quite "by the rules." Certainly the restaurant is legally responsible for not serving alcohol to minors, but everyone knows ways around that. Can one truly hold a bouncer accountable for failing to recognize a great fake ID? And even if bartenders are checking for hand stamps, what keeps an underage drinker from having a friend buy alcohol for them? A restaurant or bar can do everything in its power to stop underage drinking, but responsibility ultimately lies with the individual. I know that the people arrested were well aware of the law, and this fact remains: If you are going to break the law, you must understand the risks and accept responsibility for your actions. It is ridiculous to celebrate success in duping the bouncers and bartenders and the next moment condemn them for not having spotted your fake ID. While Chait is right in saying that the sorority as a whole is not responsible for what happened, she is entirely wrong in thrusting all blame on Sfuzzi. The individuals are at fault for failing to adhere to the law, and now they must face the consequences. Finally, Chait recommends that the Greek community essentially boycott Sfuzzi. Instead of feeling sorry for herself because her evening was spoiled, maybe she should consider Sfuzzi's point of view: When a Greek or any other organization holds a party at an establishment, the members of that organization have the obligation to respect that establishment's rules. The actions of the Alpha Phi sisters not only risk harming Sfuzzi's reputation, but they should also make that restaurant wary of allowing any other similarly irresponsible Greeks to abuse its trust. Geoffrey Munger College '96 Historical comparison To the Editor: I am writing in response to Dave Crystal's column ("The ties that bind," DP, 2/15/96). As an African American (which is how WE choose to define ourselves), I have serious issues with both The Daily Pennsylvanian and Crystal. I must first address the O.J. verdict. In America, a man is "supposed" to be considered "innocent until proven guilty?" Simpson was proven innocent (or more correctly, "not guilty"). In terms of people rejoicing or being distraught, most of the people I came into contact with really didn't care about the case on a personal level. I was curious to see whether or not the prosecution would prove its case -- namely, how any man could kill two people with a knife, but I guess that I'll never know. I ask all who read this letter: Could an old man (late 40s is old compared to us) kill both you and your companion on any given night with a knife? I don't think so, no matter shape he was ONCE in. What are you doing while he is killing your companion? Waiting your turn? Anyway, I remember DP photographers lurking in DuBois College House looking for strong reactions (of any kind) and leaving without finding any. The media chose to polarize the issue along racial lines, and Crystal is just following in the grand old tradition. I guess that he is the 1996 incarnation of Gregory Pavlik, with much less journalistic talent. A "poor man's" Pavlik, if you will. Crystal, to say that the belief that "whites went into Africa and enslaved blacks" is a Farrakhanist belief is an exercise in denial of the highest order. Why do you think that they were there? I suppose that you think that while whites were in Africa, they were just offered slaves and they took them to be polite guests? You seem to be surprised that African Americans found your first column to be an offensive piece of writing, but then you come back using the term "Negro." It is obvious that your sole intent was to offend, and I would like to congratulate you. As opposed to your grade in Professor Antonio McDaniel's class, you've finally done something right. Karriem Lateef College '96