LETTERS" Rappelling accident no joke

To the Editor: I do not know all the facts of that incident, but as a recreational climber I have had many opportunities to rappel, and accidents do happen. Many people seem to think rappelling from a building is somehow out of the ordinary. To the average person it probably is, but to an outward bound enthusiast there is nothing strange about it. I have rappelled down several buildings since I first took up the activity at age 12. Despite every safety precaution, it is a risky sport and can lead to serious injury -- often through no direct fault of the person rappelling. I was especially shocked to read columnist Jason Brenner's callous attack on the abilities of the woman in question ("A year of lunacy in U. City," DP, 11/27/96). Although I have come to expect columns completely devoid of substance from him, there was no excuse for the way the injured woman's character was dragged through the mud. It was especially infuriating considering the fact that Brenner's trite look into her rappelling skill had nothing to do with his column, such as it was. Brenner seems to try very hard to be funny in his columns, but this was simply over the top. It is very sad that Brenner and others who have joined in the assault on this tragic event have nothing better to do than make fun of a very sad accident. Rappelling is a wonderful sport, and it has very practical military applications. When an accident of this kind or any accident in which someone is seriously injured occurs, the appropriate response should be to rally around the victim and lend our suuport. I urge all the members of the Penn community to jump off the pathetic abuse bandwagon and join me in sending positive thoughts and prayers for the quick recovery of the woman involved in this tragic accident. Ian O'Donnell College of General Studies '99 Illogical argument To the Editor: In expressing his outrage at the existence of W.E.B. DuBois College House, columnist Mike Liskey wrote, "By naming the college house after a black individual, the black-only welcome mat was put out for all to see" ("The negative effects of separatism," DP, 11/21/96). By this logic, how could Liskey expect all African Americans to be willing to live only among whites, in buildings named after whites, studying nothing but the doings of Americans of European descent? The choice of some African Americans to live in a house of their own is a logical response to a society that interprets integration as a one-way street. Were DuBois padlocked tomorrow, would white undergraduates suddenly clamor to know more about African American culture? Or would blacks be the ones expected to get with the program of a university that by and large already is a "Western European Cultural House?" Why is DuBois regarded as "for blacks only," in spite of the depth of his scholarship? Why is it only blacks who, in Liskey's words, "need [to] take advantage of Penn's personally enriching diversity" by integrating? Has Liskey peeked his head in DuBois? Once? The very fact that Liskey and so many others writing in the DP recently regard any nod to African Americas with visceral antagonism speaks eloquently for the continued need for a DuBois House where all can learn. Robert Zecker, doctoral student American Civilization