LETTERS: Court testimony illustrates truth in Sofield case

To the Editor: Any objective observer of the testimony offered by both sides would conclude that the officers were not credible, playing "dumb" in the face of truth-seeking questions during cross-examination. Meanwhile, the three students who testified, all of whom were eyewitnesses, did not shy away from questions during cross-examination. In fact, Judge James Deleon found them to be so credible that, though many more were scheduled to testify, he said he'd heard enough after only the three spoke, and he rendered his "not guilty" judgment shortly thereafter. It is clear that University officials never engaged in an unbiased investigation of this incident. If they had, it would be obvious that the officers were unclear and contradictory in their depiction of what happened, while the students gave honest accounts of that night's events. In determining there was no police misconduct that night, the University has insulted the integrity of its students. Unbelievably, University officials continue to support a losing proposition. In the article "Judge acquits Sofield of charges in FIJI incident," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 1/29/98) University Police Det. Commander Tom King was quoted as saying, "Just because there was reasonable doubt does not mean there was police misconduct." Of course this is true. Bill Sofield was the one on trial, not the University Police. Still, the evidence brought out in trial did more to impeach the police than Sofield. It was demonstrated that 20 or more officers stormed a residence to arrest an 18-year-old freshman who Deleon found had done "nothing." None of the 40 or more officers who had amassed outside of the house contemplated obtaining a warrant or issuing a summons for Sofield prior to entry. In fact, most of the officers who stormed the house had no idea what they were arresting Sofield for, or even why they were entering. To anyone who believes in the Bill of Rights, this must be police misconduct. I would be surprised if Sofield doesn't file a civil suit against the University and/or the individual officers. He is able to do so at any time before the statute of limitations runs. Also, he has the ability to pursue criminal charges through an independent agency such as the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's office. Either of these actions would be detrimental to the University's reputation. Thus, I am amazed that even after Deleon concluded that "This man shouldn't even be here" in response to the charges brought against Sofield, the University still refuses to admit fault and punish those responsible. Jon Yoder Law '99 Reasons for 'apathy' To the Editor: I am now in the process of applying to other schools and one of the primary reasons is because of the disappointing facilities this school offers. The recreational facilities of a major university should be convenient, up-to-date and accessible to every student. This school is so far away from providing facilities that meet those requirements that it, in effect, discourages students from being physically active. In the column "What facilities are really needed?" (DP, 1/2/98), Josh Callahan's only evidence of student apathy is a lack of students at Franklin Field on one abnormally warm day. What he doesn't mention is the unpleasantness of running outside when it is a typical 40 degrees because there is no indoor track and only three treadmills for over 10,000 students, which students have to pay for nonetheless. With such uncomfortable conditions, only the very motivated pursue daily physical activity. Students who don't exercise regularly become intimidated and turned off when they try running outside or sweat to death in an overheated, outdated and unventilated weight room in the basement to Hutchinson Gymnasium. The dumbbells there are actually bent! The surveys weren't lying: students want new facilities. Working out in a comfortable environment can be quite an enjoyable experience, a place to talk and meet people while developing yourself physically. One of the purposes of college is to help mold your lifestyle, and it is important to develop good physical habits now, so that one can be healthy later in life. On one last note, Tufts University, a small Division III school, currently has a better fitness center than Penn. And it's free too. Darren Lowe College '01 u To the Editor: I was surprised by Josh Callahan's comments about the lack of physical fitness of his fellow classmates in his February 2 article about whether Penn needs a new gym. The author complained about the lack of "overcrowding of the weight area" at the current gym. My perspective is somewhat different as I have never been inside a Penn gym. Instead, I belong to a private gym just off of Rittenhouse Square. Working out, one can always tell when Penn is out of session because then there is no wait for the stair machines. In his article, Callahan argues that although a new gym would be nice, without a visible demand perhaps the administration should think carefully before building such an expensive new facility. I agree that the administration should consider the decision carefully, but I question the way Callahan framed the issues. Where he interprets an uncrowded weight room at Penn as a sign of disinterest in fitness on the part of the student body, I would suggest that the emptiness in the gym reflects a much bigger problem: the absence of Penn graduate students, undergrads, staff and faculty from University City. There will always be those for whom the choice between living in West Philly or somewhere else in the city is an easy one. For those for whom the decision is more difficult, the prospect of a nice, well-equipped gym close to work and home -- as part of a larger package of attractions -- might help sway some to live in West Philadelphia. If the purpose of a new gym is to serve the existing community of users, then perhaps Callahan has a point. If the proposed gym is part of larger plan to enliven the University community and attract professional school students, staff and faculty back to West Philadelphia, then the project would appear to be a valuable and perhaps essential investment. Elizabeth Clewett Center City resident