COLUMN: A needed voice on the Walk

From Karen Pasternack's, "Effective Immediately," Fall '98 From Karen Pasternack's, "Effective Immediately," Fall '98When someone she trusted raped her, where is a safe place? The Penn Women's Center. When she tires of being voiceless in her department and invisible in the classroom, where is a safe place? The Penn Women's Center. Sometimes the world does not seem to be a very place, if you are a woman." There were no divisions within the crowd lingering in front of the building, only a sense of camaraderie as we looked back on the accomplishments of the last quarter-century. Days later, in his column "Just how far have we come?" Steve Schorr used these accomplishments as evidence that Penn may no longer need the Women's Center -- especially on Locust Walk. I wish desperately that I could agree with him, that it would only take 25 years to undo and redefine all the hatred and violence against women that is a dark thread woven into the fabric of our society and our university. He is certainly right that we have come a long way. During Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to the University last October, she pointed out the myriad choices available to women in 1998, possibilities that past generations of women were never allowed. Listening to her made me realize how often I take these achievements for granted. I became increasingly aware that women have only begun to tap into the power available in this society. And while we should be proud of our advancements, we need to remember that women are heading into the 21st century with an overwhelming number of urgent problems. Schorr is also right to note that times have changed for women at Penn since the Women's Center opened in 1973 after a series of rapes received inappropriate administrative responses. The center has encountered a variety of explosive situations over the years. And some of these moments have revealed its flaws. But no organization as complex as this one can claim perfection. Rather, the benchmark of benefits should be in progress, and the Women's Center is definitely developing rapidly. According to its director, Elie DiLapi, it touched the lives of over 15,000 people last year through its dedication to a diversity of causes regarding issues of gender, discrimination and minorities. Further fault in Schorr's argument lies in that he completely overlooks the center's conceptual framework. It is not about the victimization of white women to the exclusion of all others. It stands for the acceptance of people of all sexes, races and sexual orientations, actively coming together to strengthen the University and West Philadelphia community through tolerance and support. In DiLapi's words, it is "a place of connection for people who may not have found a home elsewhere at Penn." In fact, services to individuals actually comprise only a quarter of the center's traditional work, which is comprised of crisis intervention, counseling and victim support. Additionally, the center offers seminars on women's perspectives on a variety of issues, such as "Women, War and Peace." It has also established a mechanism to track patterns as they emerge on the campus. For example, Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape (STAAR) developed when collected stories of date rape scenarios proved the need for student activism in this arena. Schorr does briefly mention the final portion of the Women's Center's responsibilities, which encompasses the groups that work out of the center. Penn's Eagerly Awaited Radical Ladies (PEARL) and Generation XX are among the most active of the many groups that use the space of the center. Criticizing these groups' radical mission statements, Schorr's conservative response, answers its own questions as to why women's avant garde publications benefit from the support of the center. The basis for Schorr's argument for why we don't need the Women's Center on the Walk revolves around DiLapi, whom he depicts as an autocratic ruler whose sole purpose in running the center is to take revenge on fraternities. Calling attention to DiLapi as the ringleader of some master plan to thwart the fraternity system is nothing more than a weak attempt at scapegoating, especially considering that the Women's Center assumed its place on the Walk only after the Theta XI fraternity was removed as a result of its own unrelated actions. Perhaps Schorr is not wrong when he notes that a center for men's health is lacking from the Walk. But that issue should be addressed separately. The fact remains that there are certain extremely serious issues that men will never completely understand nor have to face in their lifetimes. And in a university environment, these situations do not exist in isolation. For instance, if a woman is in an abusive relationship, her performance in the classroom may suffer. A center with a supportive and anti-discriminatory voice has the power to infiltrate and effect the mechanics of the University system, assisting her recovery and ultimately effecting the well-being of the student population. Schorr can call himself anything he wants, be it a feminist or an international spy. But if we stick to the evidence, we see that while he was busy labeling the Women's Center as outdated in his column last Friday, The New York Times op-ed page discussed sexual harassment in the government and the premeditated killing of four females by two pre-teen boys in Arkansas. But don't rely solely on my words to convince you that the Penn Women's Center should not be taken for granted. If you are still skeptical, look beyond the ink on this page and head to College Green Wednesday for "Take Back the Night."