LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Shooting provokes strong community reaction, response

To the Editor: The University's facilities, and the places where its students live, study, shop and work, form a single, compact enclave from Pine Street to Powelton Avenue, from 33rd to 49th streets. Though some students, myself included, live in Center City or further afield, these areas are far beyond the purview of University jurisdiction. In the absence of a defined security perimeter, the only way to protect people within the University's enclave is to maintain a careful watch on each block, each intersection within it. We can get a good approximation of the number of major intersections as follows: seven major east-west streets, multiplied by 17 north-south ones, yields just 119 corners. Let us suppose we wanted to powerfully augment existing police patrols with one nighttime officer for every four corners. Each officer would be responsible solely for monitoring the four blocks that link the four intersections, as well as any minuscule side streets that might lace their territory. Crime would become nearly impossible to carry out without the rapid interference of police officers, several of whom would be within a block or two of any point in the region. The cost of such a program is far less than you might think. Approximately 120 corners, divided by four corners per officer, yields 30 additional officers on duty at any given time. They would work from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m., since I think it's fair to ask people to remain inside after 3 a.m. for their own safety. Even if each officer cost $50 per hour, including benefits, supervision and other ancillary costs, the cost per night would be $12,000. This works out to about 50 cents per person per night. For less than $200 per person per year, we could make the University of Pennsylvania an outstandingly safe campus. Coordinating our police efforts with Drexel University's would cut the price dramatically, as well. The existing state of insecurity at Penn hurts all of us psychologically and, all too often, physically. An atmosphere of intellectual freedom is incompatible with one of personal insecurity. The time has come to consider security measures that are radical only in their simplicity and their efficacy. I look forward to discussions of this proposal, hopefully before the next unnatural commingling of cold steel and warm flesh. Scott Savitz Engineering Graduate Student n To the Editor: In response to your editorial "Shaken to the core" (DP, 9/26/96): I congratulate both Penn and Philadelphia Police for their apprehension of the suspects involved in the recent shooting and robberies. In contrast to the sniveling undergraduates' opinions of the Penn Police, I have been impressed by the almost constant police presence on and around campus. Rarely can I walk more then one block without seeing at least one police car or bicycle officer on patrol. Vigilance cannot be better than this. Choosing to attend Penn brings the risk of being a crime victim. Every student here made the conscious decision to go to school in West Philadelphia. Remember this fact every time you scream and cry about the safety problem. Senior Class Treasurer Rebecca Waranch was quoted as saying, "It's just that my parents are paying a lot of money and I'm very scared at this school." Well, your parents misspent about $100,000 if a safe, cozy college town is what you were after. Money does not guarantee safety. The only way to buy safety is through a bodyguard, and even then it is not guaranteed. Most Penn undergrads are fools. Rodin is not being mugged; she has the right mentality. I am still waiting for a logical explanation as to why the streets on campus are lined with $30,000 Pathfinders and various other vehicles completely inappropriate for West Philadelphia. This screams out naivete and wealth, synonyms for "clueless, waiting to be preyed upon." There are three ways the perception of the "clueless" Penn student can be changed. First, the school could modify its admissions standards to include minimums for height and weight. The ability to fight would be as important a consideration as the ability to think. Second, the school could adopt a dress code prohibiting that slick New York City look. If you all dressed in jeans and t-shirts, you would be less conspicuous. The most effective way to eliminate the impression of the Penn undergrad as an easy target is to protect yourselves. Criminals are not going to commit a crime when there are police in the area.They look around before they act; this is why there are never cops around when a crime occurs. If every student carried a handgun and was properly trained in its use, the student body would lose its reputation as easy targets. We could sponsor a "Shoot the Mugger month" during September, when a disproportionate amount of crime occurs. If one or two muggers were shot, crimes against Penn students would be dramatically reduced. Steve Pokorny Veterinary Medicine '98 n To the Editor: Urban violence has hit the Penn community very close to home and it is understandable to demand more police protection for ourselves. But this is a beggar-my-neighbor policy if it just means diverting resources from other parts of the city. A more useful response in the long run may be to work with community organizations to reduce violence in the city as a whole, through private programs and government action. One University program to build community ties is a voter registration effort over the next week. (The registration deadline for the upcoming general election is October 7.) Anyone interested in volunteering is invited to a meeting at 4 p.m. today in the Bowl Room of Houston Hall. Or contact me at crockett@wharton.upenn.edu. Jean Crockett Finance Professor Emerita n To the Editor: "Awesome, Baby!" screamed the DP's lead headline on September 25, announcing Dick Vitale's speech on campus next month. I'm not so sure about that. Wednesday morning, a student was shot. A few days ago, I read about 20 robberies in the last 17 days. Even more disturbing than the number of crimes, however, was their nature. Long gone are the days when you had to walk to 44th and Pine at 4 a.m. to be accosted. This fall, glorious West Philadelphia offers students the opportunity to be robbed, stabbed and shot in the confines of campus. This place is getting scary. What exactly is the University doing about the problem? Whatever it is, it is not good enough. The University wants to purchase the Sheraton. It wants to crack down on partying. It is deferring even more maintenance projects. And best of all, Vitale is coming. Now, I don't propose that the University should cease all activities short of crime prevention, but a new priority alignment is in order. Instead of purchasing the Sheraton, Penn should look into a house on Pine Street or Beige Block in which it could house some kind of security force. Maybe the University should leave the fraternities alone and keep students on campus for social events. Does Penn feel less responsible because it offers Penn Walk and Escort? Many students don't use these services, even if they should. This is not a liability issue, it is a reality issue. And the reality is that this campus is not safe. The University, the students and the police must collectively make crime prevention the focal point of Penn's agenda. If we make crime aversion the serious issue, perhaps our assailants would take us more seriously. Maybe they'd even go elsewhere. That would be "Awesome, Baby." Dave Greenspan College '98 n To the Editor: At Wednesday night's vigil at the Peace Sign, Maureen Rush, director of police operations, stood in front of TV news cameras and told students we have nothing to fear. This is easy for her to say; she gets in her car each night and leaves University City to commute home. Rather than offering concrete proposals to protect those of us who live on and near campus, the best advice Rush had to offer was to be more vigilant of unsavory characters, walk in groups and use Community Walks. These comments do not address students' concerns. The University built a security kiosk at the intersection of 40th and Locust streets, traditionally one of the safest off-campus areas, yet sees no need to staff it at night. Instead of manning the kiosk from noon until 6 p.m., how about keeping an officer stationed there from midnight until 6 a.m. when most crimes occur? Patrick Leroy was shot Wednesday morning only feet from a supposedly safe area. Furthermore, he was walking with two other male friends. I do not want to raise gender stereotypes, but if three men cannot walk together safely on Penn's campus, who can? I understand the University cannot have police officers standing on every corner. However, it would not be unreasonable to staff the kiosks on campus after dark. It is a tragedy that an incident like Wednesday morning's shooting had to happen to get students more concerned about crime. I applaud the Penn Police for quickly apprehending a suspect. However, the neighborhood would be a better place if the police took a more proactive position. The University of Pennsylvania traditionally attracts among the brightest students in the nation. We now also attract commuter criminals who drive in from Delaware to prey on us. It is time for the administration to take action. Benjamin Harris College '97 n To the Editor: As a Penn staff member who lives in the West Philly area, I have been following very carefully the DP's coverage of the rash of recent crimes. I was shocked to read University Police Captain John Richardson's comments last week ("Four more U. students robbed near campus," DP, 9/24/96). Richardson believes the campus community should be relieved that men, not women, have been the main victims of these robberies. There seem to be two reasons for Richardson's relief about this "trend." First, as he so coyly says, "other horrible things aren't happening." In other words, men are less often victims of rape, and these attacks have not been sexual. I agree we should all be grateful that there has been a robbing rather than a raping spree going on. Second, Richardson tells us he would prefer a man to be robbed over a woman because a man "would be able to handle it better because he wouldn't do anything dumb, like scream." Is it really better to have men be robbed than women? What about shot? Is Richardson sitting behind his desk right now, breathing a sigh of relief that it was Patrick Leroy who took that bullet instead of someone named Patricia? Or worse, is he shaking his head sadly because Leroy was "dumb" enough to flee a man with an automatic weapon? And if that is his assessment, does Richardson think Leroy acted "like a girl" when he ran? I don't see any difference in importance between a man and a woman being robbed, threatened, and in Leroy's case, shot. Shouldn't we be just as concerned about the men on this campus as the women? Richardson seems to think we should all be grateful that those pesky robbers haven't figured out who the real victims are. At least they're only shooting the men. I'll walk home tonight feeling much safer. Ann Laurino Junior Research Specialist Biology Department