LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Colleagues defend sued prof

To the Editor: Everyone who knows McDermott knows him to be an ethical, honest, straightforward psychologist of the highest integrity. To impugn his reputation by reporting only one side of this story is to demonstrate a shocking lack of professional ethics. If this is the best your reporter can do, I suggest she undertake a serious evaluation of her career choice. Furthermore, I suggest that she read the Bible for a good introduction to the concept of ethical behavior, read the U.S. Constitution for an introduction to such concepts as due process and innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law and take McDermott's class in psychological assessment, which deals almost exclusively and most thoroughly with the ethics of gathering information and using it to form evaluations about human beings. Maureen Cotterill Administrative Coordinator Psychology in Education Division Graduate School of Education n To the Editor: The article ("Lawsuit charges GSE prof violated civil rights," DP, 10/1/96) implied that Professor Paul McDermott's opposition to Salisbury House Incorporated's proposed home for the mentally ill was a dichotomous issue of his wrong versus the corporation's right. Yet, despite paragraph upon paragraph of lawsuit accusations and one-sided inflammatory diatribe from a corporate attorney, your reporter presented minimal detail on what was more than likely an exceedingly complex community debate. Instead of objective, dispassionate and relevant fact to help readers understand the issue, the article reported a singular vocal opinion and sensationalistic details. One might conclude from the article and the quoted lawyer that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that any right-minded individual could justly question, criticize or oppose any corporation's development of a residence for the mentally ill. The article maligned the reputation of a brilliant, courageous and compassionate scholar who has devoted his life to improving the lives of those who are less capable. McDermott asks questions that most are afraid to ask; he also asks questions some may be afraid to answer. As The Daily Pennsylvanian dabbles amateurishly in the lives of others, remember that the world is full of complex and sometimes conflicting ideas. However, the volume and length of an argument does not guarantee its truth. Neither does an accused's silence guarantee his guilt. Richard Weiss Education Graduate Student n To the Editor: This letter is in response to the story about Professor Paul McDermott ("Lawsuit charges GSE prof violated civil rights," DP, 10/1/96). I know both McDermott and his wife, Andrea. I know that neither of them is capable of any of the hateful, slanderous activities the article describes. It is appalling but not surprising that a reporter, albeit a student, would write an article when only part of the story is known. Had she made a little effort, your reporter would have found out that both of the McDermotts are completely ethical, humane and considerate of others. I am outrage that this type of sensational "journalism" found its way to the front page of the DP. Beth Taylor Administrative Assistant Psychology in Education Division Graduate School of Education n To the Editor: Professor Paul McDermott is charged with civil rights violations for trying to block the placement of a home for the mentally ill in his neighborhood ("Lawsuit charges GSE prof violated civil rights," DP, 10/1/96). One need only know McDermott as a person and hear his perspectives on the mentally ill to appreciate the absurdity and distorted character of these vicious charges. It is painful to see a man of conscience and uncommon character like McDermott maligned in print. And it is shameful that he must face charges of "brutally bizarre" Jekyll and Hyde behavior. He is depicted as educating "Penn kids about mental disabilities" by day and returning home at night to "threaten potential neighbors" with tactics "no different than Klan members running a black family out of a neighborhood." What is not told here is the story of a professional greatly concerned about the shrinking health-care dollar and how it is meted out by managed-care organizations to those who might warehouse the mentally ill at rock-bottom dollar, where the ends of that almighty dollar might justify the means. The civil rights lawyer for the plaintiff, Edmond Tiryak, represents not the mentally ill, but a corporation that might house them for profit in a neighborhood with a school and a day-care center. He attempts to bait the public and inflame opinion when he states, "This is the first time that a distinguished and educated person has used a university name to promote common misconceptions." Such statements, which ring with feigned incredulity, self-righteous indignation and phony consternation, would likely be the tactics of one who attempts to obfuscate what are the relevant and difficult issues in finding proper facilities for the mentally ill. Might the issues here hinge not so much upon the civil rights of potential neighbors, but upon simple profit motives and a contempt for the rights and well-being of others? Unless you have participated in the classroom with McDermott, you cannot know to what extent he feels for those who must depend on mental health professionals for help. They are indeed the true casualties in battles like the legal one which is about to unfold, but not for the reasons that a company like Salisbury House Inc. would like the public to believe. Emmanuel Angel Education Graduate Student Editor's Note: McDermott's wife referred all questions about the lawsuit to an attorney, who did not return repeated phone calls. What to do about crime To the Editor: I would like to defend University Police Captain John Richardson's comments about women screaming when threatened by criminals, as quoted in the story "Four more U. students robbed near campus" (DP, 9/24/96). Although I do not agree with the way he phrased his statements, I must agree with the premise: women are quite vocal. Do you know any men who scream when in a terrifying situation? I don't, though I am sure there are some out there. Is there something, wrong with that? So why is there something wrong with the fact that women scream? I am a woman and I scream, and I have been in a situation where a gun has been brandished at my head with malice where I did not scream, but I am not sure I would not scream if I were in the situation again. So what if Richardson's comment was a little offensive? The truth is often offensive. I am sure there are women out there who would handle the situation appropriately, so why all the fuss over a comment made by a cop? He didn't say he would stop protecting women, did he? Who cares if women scream or not, the comment has nothing to do woth equality. Besides, isn't it the crime we should be upset about? Women are often the targets of criminal activity, but they are not the only ones. Give Richardson a break. His comments were not on the PC level of a '90s mentality, but most women don't seem to be too PC when it comes to male bashing. Or is it only OK for women to be sexist? Every time a man voices an opinion that does not shed light favorably on a woman, he is labeled a sexist. Maybe Richardson is a sexist -- he's probably a beer drinking, overeating, football-obsessed, union man who did not receive an illustrious education at our fine institution, but this is just my opinion and none of these qualities are bad ones -- but he is entitled to his own professional opinion. Cindy Dunlap College '98 n To the Editor: The recent rash of crime on campus has justifiably caused tremendous uproar. But these terrifying incidents are made even worse by the insulting way various University administrators have handled them. After yet another student was robbed at gunpoint, in the story "Three more armed robberies occur near Penn campus" (DP, 10/1/96), Director of Police Operations Maureen Rush described the new events as "unbelievable." She then had the temerity to say, "These are just very frisky robbers." Frankly, I am appalled. Is Rush making fun of us? Or did she say this in good faith? I'm not sure which option is worse. How do we expect to solve the alarming crime problem on this campus when the people whose responsibility it is to protect us are saying, "Hey, what can we do, these robbers are just real frisky!" It is in the University's best interest to stop this crime wave immediately. If it continues, applications are sure to drop sharply. This is beside the fact that it is Penn's legal responsibility to ensure safety on campus. I'm surprised that not one of the victims has sued Penn for negligence. And why aren't the security booths on campus manned 24 hours a day? As I walked back from the high rises two nights ago, I went down Locust Walk, took a left on 37th Street and went all the way to Chestnut. During this whole time, I saw not one security guard! This is just an example of the pathetic and insulting actions administrators have taken to "stop crime." Let's get real and start dealing with this issue seriously. I don't care if the police force has to be double d, and I don't care how much it costs. Rush should do whatever must be done, without insulting the intelligence of Penn students by telling us she is doing something and then going saying something like "These are just very frisky robbers." Mark Barak Wharton '99 n To the Editor: Perhaps we should add a target-shooting class to the general requirement and give each new student a complimentary gun instead of the usual T-shirt. Or the University could actually deal with the safety problem on campus. I am not talking about a mockery "kiosk" -- yeah, those were a stellar idea. Those kiosks were a real help over the past three weeks. What was the idea behind the kiosks, anyway? Were empty, unmanned, dark wood structures supposed to scare away potential attackers? Four years ago, I adamantly argued to my parents on behalf of Penn's safety as I chose to enroll. Then, as my TA was shot and killed, my roommate mugged, my friends beaten, I realized I, too, had been duped. I feel for the new students who are told how the campus has such tight security that even James Bond couldn't break in. Well, the problem is not the Quad or the library. It is the entire area just one block off campus where upperclassmen live. I cannot believe the University has shown such a lack of concern for its student body. I can't help wondering how many kids have to be mugged, beaten, held up or shot before the University deems it worthwhile to secure our safety. There have been a zillion letters and phone calls begging for some measure of security for us. Seriously, what will it take? If we knew, we could better organize a strategy. I tell every bright, qualified prospective student who calls me with questions about Penn that there are a number of other excellent schools where they will not have to fear for their lives. Who cares about great classes and professors if you are scared to leave your house and walk to school? Dara Reiner College '97