LETTERS: Security suggestions for Rodin

To the Editor: As far as I know she presides using persuasive, not legislative, powers. However, because she trumpeted the instigation of extensive security measures, she is being held accountable for it. To be constructive, I propose that her security system is at fault, because it applied provincial security measures where modern cosmopolitain ones are needed. The specifics of her security proposals are beyond me; however, as an average Penn student, I should be able to see the results of her proposals. Guys in blue uniforms and orange blazers patrol the campus. They inhumanely sit for hours, imprisoned in mushroom-like houses. In fact, I can't quite figure out the purpose of the mushrooms. Assuming that the guards are supposed to be alert, why is Rodin concerned about their comfort? For a campus that is located in a rural college town like Penn State University or Cornell University, I would think this kind of security effectively works to ward off significant crime and danger. Considering the funds the Univeristy collects from student pockets, and the available consumer communication technologies on the market, I would think a technology-based solution would be more effective. A beeper, for example, which would summon security guards to the scene of an emergency, would cost less than $100 (to be safe), a sum that is a infinitesimal fraction of yearly tuition costs. By pressing a button, a student in danger can inform security guards what is going on and where it is happening. I'm assuming students would be responsible enough to use this kind of a service in moderation. This system is demand-driven, so that the suppliers of security learn, in seconds, where security is demanded. It would save the bureaucrats the burden of trying to guess where the security problem is, so that they can stop throwing money at the problem instead of solving it. Certainly, some human security guards are needed to serve the system, but it would be self-regulating because of its implicit economics. This seems to be a more robust solution that is appropriate for a university that is falling victim to urban decay. To take a more drastic step, what about hidden small video cameras in potentially dangerous places? I am aware of the privacy issues raised. I am also aware of Orwell's 1984, with its media-driven totalitarian state, and other potential abuses. In spite of these tradeoffs, I would be willing to feel more safe on campus, in open public spaces such as west of 40th Street, because someone is watching over me when I enter a dangerous part of campus at a dangerous time. Luke Szyrmer College junior An offensive cartoon To the Editor: I am profoundly sorry that Yoni Slonim's insightful, well-researched column on the American Express "Charge Against Hunger" campaign (DP, 1/17/97) had to share a page with the cartoon that pretended to represent it. In the cartoon, a wealthy businessman is handing a lollipop to a child, presumed to be poor based upon the column. Why the artist chose to render the child's image with the classically insulting "pickaninny" hair style (a la Farina), I do not know. Maybe that is just how he views poor people, not only as black, but also as living during the years immediately following the Civil War. I refuse to believe that no one in the office saw the image as offensive, which would mean that they printed it in spite of this awareness. Maybe they honestly did not see it that way. However, given the paper's history of choosing to present itself as a sensationalist rag, I do not put it past the DP to knowingly do such a thing. Free speech, free speech, rah, rah, rah. Of course, the DP, or rather its staff, has every right to print whatever it chooses. But just because one CAN do something does not mean that one MUST. And I would ask, upon what bases do the staff at the DP determine whom it is acceptable to offend? Nicole Maloy Wharton '96