LETTERS: Innocent until proven guilty

To the Editor: In our three-year history, Penn Watch has never seen any University Police officer use any excessive force toward students in working to resolve often confrontational situations. University Police officers have especially shown great restraint with the recent increase in the incidences of drunken and abusive members of the Penn community and the way they treat officers. In fact, in the most recent of episodes, while members of Penn Watch were on duty, uniformed police officers were violently beaten in the line of duty. Since that time, numerous articles, columns, and letters have focused on University Police action. However, each of these have presented only opinions as to the night's events, many of which are from biased parties directly involved with the episode. The fact that an investigation is still ongoing should serve to deter rash, one sided conclusions as to the full nature of October 30. Fighting this battle back and forth in the media with anecdotal stories serves neither the suspects involved, the University Police, nor the University community as a whole. Police officers, including the University Police, put their lives on the line for us, and the least we can do is to respect the work they do. And although it might be true that some officers don't always treat students with extensive kindness, this is a far cry from claiming that officers are using excessive force. Furthermore, comments such as "students should have no sympathy for attacked officers" and "we should rise up against cops" serve only to undermine our own credibility as a student population who are served by these officers. We would like to call on University community members to stop making finger pointed accusations of abuse based on innuendo, rumor and incomplete knowledge of all the facts. We also call on the University community to stop drawing broad conclusions based on opinions regarding one component of the full night's activities. Lastly, we would like to call on the University community to stop and await a proper investigation to resolve the events which really took place. Shane Lipson Engineering '98 Penn Watch Chief (5 signatures of Penn Watch board follow) Not a personal attack To the Editor: I am writing to take issue with one aspect of The Daily Pennsylvanian's otherwise excellent coverage of the Trammell Crow situation. In the DP article on last week's special University Council meeting ["Council urges Trustees to nix outsourcing," DP, 11/6/97], the article said that Physical Plant employee Rich Cipollone "leveled a series of personal attacks at Executive Vice President John Fry." As objective reportage, this statement is highly suspect. To my ears, Cipollone did not attack Fry personally. Rather, he called on Fry to be accountable for the manner in which he has executed the duties of his job. Too often administrators and others equate calls to accountability with incivility. This misperception is exemplified by the DP's kneejerk assertion that Cipollone's statements constituted a "personal attack," and by the DP's assumption in a news analysis ["Council pulls together for productive session," DP, 11/7/97] that courtesy is the sole measure of the productiveness of public discourse. Often it is advisable to speak positively and focus on problem-solving. But sometimes solutions cannot be formulated until we demand that those in power make themselves accountable to those they are supposed to serve. This was a major reason why Council passed the resolution requesting a special committee on the consultative process. It is an unfortunate and unspoken fact that Penn's staff are not considered members of the campus community the way students, faculty and upper-level administrators are. In speaking up at Council, Cipollone showed courage, challenging us to take the rhetoric of community and inclusion seriously, and to listen to what he had to say. I find it unfortunate that the first and perhaps only time he got to speak before Council, his words were framed in a misleading manner, and their import was lost as a consequence. Matthew Ruben SAS doctoral student No Veterans' Day coverage To the Editor: I was disturbed by The Daily Pennsylvanian's complete lack of coverage of Veterans' Day. There were two separate ceremonies involving Penn students conducted on November 11. Neither of these were covered. Additionally, there are veterans of World War II, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia and Bosnia who have left the service and now attend class and/or work at Penn. There was no mention of them either. In the past the DP has had good coverage of national and community events such as Take Back the Night, AIDS Awareness Week, Spring Fling, Greek Community Service Day, Holocaust Remembrance Day and National Coming Out Day. Therefore, I know that the DP was capable of covering this national holiday, had it taken the effort. Yet, for whatever reason, there was no mention of the 16 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have sacrificed so much for the freedoms of this country. Regardless of any personal feelings towards the military or military policies, the DP has no right to punish the individuals who served their country by refusing to recognize them. I am personally upset by the DP's apathy towards the men and women who have given their lives for this nation. Kirstin Schmidt Nursing '98 Public Affairs Officer Army ROTC at Drexel