LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Lauding Rodin's priorities

To the Editor: The priorities of the humanities, democratic issues, scientific research, urban issues, management and leadership and information technology have all been advocated extensively prior to, but most specifically in, SCUE's 1995 White Paper on Undergraduate Education. Upon this fundamental of interdisciplinary and holistic learning, our suggestions to provide each Penn graduate with the requisite tools for individual and societal utility match exactly with those arriving out of the mission of the 21st Century Project and Rodin's new academic priorities. In our white paper, we suggest that these academic priorities should not only be a signature of the University but a signature of the University's education -- an original distinction sorely lacking in our currently fragmented curriculum. Continuing this discussion of institutional redefinition without opening the discussion on the primary product of this institution -- the undergraduate degree -- would be irresponsible. SCUE applauds not only the strategic conclusions of the deans, the Academic Planning and Budgeting Committee, and the president and provost, but also the process of development that has, so far, included considerable student input. As Penn continues its reevaluation in positioning, student participation in maximizing Penn's capacities as an institution of learning must not be overlooked. SCUE eagerly anticipates its role in the further shaping, and eventual implementation, of our mutual goals and encourages all undergraduates to participate in the forthcoming discussion on the future of our University. Ben Nelson SCUE Chair Wharton '97 Questioning suit's motives To the Editor: In your article on the lawsuit filed by Salisbury House, Inc. against Professor Paul McDermott, you neglected to report on the impact on the company of halting plans for a home it had planned to build for the mentally ill. What would have been the daily cost to a resident? What caliber of services would the residents have received for their fee? A more carefully and thoughtfully conducted investigation would most certainly have uncovered highly relevant details, which would have made the story seem more an objective, unbiased reporting of the facts and less a one-sided smear campaign inspired by Salisbury House and its legal counsel. Jill Stoltzfus Education Doctoral Student n To the Editor: I am writing to express my shock, dismay and disappointment at your inflammatory and one-sided article "Lawsuit charges GSE prof violated civil rights" (DP, 10/1/96), in which the impeccable character of Professor Paul McDermott and his wife Andrea was called into question. As a mentor and a colleague over the past five years, McDermott has never demonstrated anything but the highest of ethical and moral standards in his dealing with others. His concern for the welfare of students, staff, faculty and clients, as well as that of his department, school and the University, has always been clear. McDermott's earnest commitment to educate others to be critical thinkers and advocates for speaking the truth has never wavered. His personal integrity has encouraged others to strive for the same level of excellence in their professional careers and personal lives. McDermott is a modest individual who is unlikely to call attention to his significant accomplishments. Perhaps the DP could have noted his ongoing leadership as chair of the Psychology in Education division of the Graduate School of Education, or his 1982 honorary degree from the University, or his being named a Diplomate of the American Board of Assessment Psychology, one of the highest honors in the profession? Your biased and unfair article highlighted the ridiculous and slanderous allegations set forth by attorney Edmond Tiryak. I am appalled by the lack of balanced, impartial journalism on the DP's part. McDermott and the University community deserve better. Tiryak's skills would better serve the mentally ill adults he claims to champion if he argued for their right to appropriate treatment with adequate monitoring and supervision. The proposed Salisbury House facility would not have had a psychiatrist, a psychologist or even a psychiatric nurse in residence! Furthermore, the manner in which Salisbury House representatives obfuscated important information regarding the proposed facility and attempted to keep the community less that fully informed leads me to seriously question the company's intentions. Salisbury House's suit against the McDermotts smacks of intimidation, slander and greed. And if Tiryak represents the kind of attorney this University produces, I am ashamed to be a fellow Penn graduate. Barbara Schaefer Graduate School of Education '96 Be proactive on crime To the Editor: There has been an unfortunate wave of crime in University City this month. Equal in size has been the ensuing wave of outrage and disgust from the members of the Penn community. While I count myself among the concerned, I question the approach most every student has taken to this problem. Every day, the editorial page is packed with protesting students crying out for University President Judith Rodin, Public Safety Managing Director Thomas Seamon and the Penn Police to remove the fear that grips the lives of helpless students. With enraged students demonstrating, signing petitions and waving fists across campus, there might be a better approach. We live in a depressed area with a consistently high crime rate. This was the case when each one of us applied to Penn. If you thought you would be 100 percent safe here, you got suckered. If safety was one of your primary concerns, you should have attended UVa, BYU, Kutztown or some such out-of-the-way school. Penn students are quick to condemn, quick to demand and quick to muster up all their anger and assign blame to anyone but themselves. I am not saying any of the recent victims of crime were at fault for being assaulted. But unless you want cops stationed every 10 feet wherever students may wander, any thief with half a brain could figure out a way to mug you. And if you do want that many cops lining the streets, you are sick. We pay a ridiculous amount of money to attend this institution, but it still is not enough to cover that kind of protection. Positive action on the part of students, in cooperation with the administration, would be much more effective than wallowing in self-pity and issuing ultimatums. Sadly, the only positive student action that I know of has been taken by the InterFraternity Council, with its Greek safe houses plan. If you are angry with Penn, inform potential applicants that they take their lives in their hands by coming here. If you cannot take the possibility of being approached, there are plenty of good schools around that accept Penn credit. The administration can only do so much, short of creating a police state, and setting foot off campus will always involve risks. Dan Sulzinsky College '97