LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Conflicting views on crime, campus security

To the Editor: Still, it is a disturbing and dangerous affirmation of the status quo to claim that no viable short-term solutions are available; they are, and moreover they aren't hostage to some utopian vision of a long term urban "solution." Why do we not learn from Penn's urban sisters, many of which (Chicago, USC, Columbia, Yale) are in worse slums than ours? Obviously because it suits our leaders to pretend that we remain in the isolated, pseudo-suburban setting that prevailed here in decades past. More ominously, Penn must now plan for the possibility of an imminent resumption of Philadelphia's overall decay because Mayor Rendell, President Clinton's Number 1 fundraiser, is probably after a job in Washington. Can anyone doubt that once he is gone our city will again fall into hands as incompetent as those running Camden? When it does, what contingency plans does Penn have in place? Spencer Martin Finance Graduate Student u To the Editor: After reading "Major safety overhaul to begin" (DP, 10/10/96), we were outraged. Why can't the administration address problems that actually exist? Every time crime increases between 40th and 43rd streets, the University vows to increase security between 34th and 39th streets. All the crimes that have occurred in September didn't take place in the High Rises. Doesn't anyone get it? Does the University really need to spend $3 million of our money on biometrics? How many police officers could Penn hire for $3 million? Enough to patrol the area west of 40th Street, where the crime actually occurs, wouldn't you think? For all the talk since the shooting of Patrick Leroy, a patrolling police officer west of 40th Street at night is still an all-too-infrequent sight. We wish we could believe this misapplication of resources is the result of a simple misperception on the part of the administration. However, the facts presented in your article lead us to believe administrators have ulterior motives. It seems the administration cares more about creating a facade of safety for pre-frosh and parents than they do about the actual safety of current students. Admissions will likely suffer this year because of the crime scare, and the University has every right to be concerned. However, the University's primary responsibility has to be to students who are here now, on and off campus. Adam Cook College '99 David Arnett Wharton '99 u To the Editor: Guest columnist Alex Berkett had the right idea ("Solving the problem of campus crime," DP, 10/21/96) when he wrote that "The long term solution is the only viable solution." Since the 1950s, the University has been grappling with low-income areas surrounding campus. The 1960s saw the University take an antagonistic approach, purchasing houses, evicting residents, bulldozing homes and building parking lots (among other things) that moved the poverty to someone else's backyard. In 1985, after the murder of a student in the Grad Towers, the University increased the police department's budget by 30 percent and nearly doubled the number of police officers. The increased expenditure, administrators felt, would lead to an appreciable difference in campus safety. But if the current trend continues, we will be spending much more for public safety and getting much less. If increasing patrols, expanding Escort, and fixing blue light phones is the primary way we combat crime, we will never ameliorate the root causes that have so far seemed unconquerable. I commend the student and faculty groups who constantly work to build the university-community relationship and provide much-needed services to West Philadelphia. However, a few groups cannot overcome the lack of education and jobs. There needs to be an overarching University commitment to address rapid urban decline. What can the University do? The dialogue must begin. Discussion between faculty, administrators, students, community leaders and government officials must focus on what programs are needed, what we can do and how we can work together. The School of Education can work on feasible ways to mend Philadelphia's dilapidated school system, for example, while the Wharton School can work to bring businesses to the area. We can and must use our intellectual resources to tackle these issues. Hillary Aisenstein UA Facilities Committee College '99