LETTERS: College House changes not what students want

To the Editor: For the record, neither the students, staff or faculty were consulted, in any manner shape or form, prior to the merger with Van Pelt College House into a new administrative entity -- Gregory College House. Since this merger amounts to an effective loss of autonomy for MLCH, I find the use of the word "empowerment," which is generally understood to signify the possession of authority to determine one's own fate, to be quite puzzling. Surely, if the students, staff and faculty, quoted by David Brownlee and Al Filreis as "passionately" caring about their house, were truly "empowered" they would have had some say in the fate of their house. Quite to the contrary, the decision to merge the two houses came from above, and was hoisted on the students, staff and faculty of MLCH, without the possibility for negotiation. It seems to me that this represents a case of "disempowerment," a situation in which authority to determine ones fate is taken away. The official "justification" for the merger amounted to nothing more than a comical use of voodoo statistics. Furthermore, the use of the word "empowerment" in respect to recruitment for the 1998-99 year is also farcical for a number of reasons. The staff of MLCH is not empowered to recruit students. Rather, it is part of the staff job description; it is a requirement. Ironically, the success of the MLCH recruiting drive, an effort in which students, by their own initiative -- and on their own free time -- laudably visited virtually every applicable foreign language class room, was due in no small part to the threat that the house would be closed. Clearly, this does not represent a case of "empowerment" on the students' part, but rather, a reaction to coercion. Hopefully Gregory College House will thrive because of the strength of the two programs which comprise its whole. "Empowerment," however, had and will have absolutely nothing to do with this change of events. David Miller MLCH administrative fellow u To the Editor: It was nice for Al Filreis and David Brownlee to speak of how MLCH was empowered to recruit and how we set a record in retention. What they neglected to tell you was that the empowerment we felt was a drastic attempt to salvage our house. Because of the wonderful new college plan, MLCH was in threat of being consumed by Van Pelt. It would have, through time, lost its program and status as the only credit-bearing residential environment. Through an agreement with residential services, we had to increase our numbers in order to save MLCH. We had to prove that MLCH was not a "drain" on residential living. So, yes, we were empowered, but there is a need to clarify what that means in this context. Michael Rogan House Council President College/Wharton '00 u To the Editor: I am a first-time resident advisor in Community House. I have lived here in Community House since my freshman year, and have enjoyed it ever since. I love this house for its sense of community, its great friendliness and the people who work here. The people who work here are the ones that bring the house together. They set the stage and provide us, the students, a person to turn to in times of need and someone to look up to. Without those people, the house would not be as successful as it has been. Diana Koros is the best there is for Community House. She knows what she's doing and knows who to talk to. Her time here at Community House has made the house a place of friendship and a place of desire to many students. Without her leadership and constant care, the house would not have been such a great place to live. She makes sure that things are taken care of and she tries to make everyone happy. From personal experience, she helped me stay in Community House last year when the Housing Department placed me in a double with a freshman when I specifically requested a single. During the first semester, she helped me find a single within the house and made sure that I was happy with where I lived. She went out of her way to make sure that I wanted to live there and that had other options available. I was happy that she helped me and didn't leave me to fend for myself as the Housing Department left me to do. I know that Koros has not done anything wrong, to my acknowledgement, and that her dismissal is something of a complete surprise to many, if not all, students in Community House. It is disappointing to myself, returning residential advisors and upcoming RAs that we must have to, basically, teach a new assistant dean for residence how to run the show and what can be done. If I didn't love this position so much, I would leave it because of Koros' dismissal. I love to work with fellow students and help them out, but if can't do my job because I have to help out the ADR with something else, it takes away from the whole aspect of being an RA. To the administration, please reconsider what has been done to a loving and caring person. Koros did not deserve to be dismissed nor did any of the people working with her deserve the loss of Koros. Without her in Community House, I don't think that the house would be any better, it would just be worse. Koros deserves the best she can get, which is her current position as the assistant dean for residence of Community House. Karen Baldomero Nursing '99 Inflammatory ad To the Editor In light of the advertisement published by the Penn Arab Student Society in yesterday's DP, we would like to offer our sympathy on behalf of the Penn Hillel community toward the victims of Deir Yassin. However, we feel that the venue in which the advertisement was placed in the newspaper was entirely inappropriate. The timing of publication and the use of language in the advertisement were insensitive to yesterday's theme -- when Jews all over the world commemorated Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. The selection of publication on this Jewish Day of Mourning seems strangely provocative in light of the fact that the anniversary of Deir Yassin took place on April 9. The use of the title "Remember" also makes a clear allusion to the Jewish cry to preserve the memory of a specific event in history, the Holocaust. We feel the association of the two events, the Holocaust and the incident at Deir Yassin, wrongfully compares the individual acts of a few extremists with the systematic extermination of an entire race of people. In addition, the advertisement made a tacit association of "Zionist militias" with Nazi criminals. We find such a comparison historically inaccurate and strongly offensive. While it is important to discuss the events that took place under the British mandate prior to the founding of the State of Israel and the grave tragedies on both sides, that should be done in a forum outside of the discussion of the Holocaust. It is our hope that in the future, both the Jewish community and the Arab community at Penn can engage each other in meaningful discussion to promote understanding and mutual sensitivity. In the Middle East, as well as in our own microcosm at Penn, only such discussions will yield peace and understanding. Miriam Kiss Israel Committee co-chairperson Matt Engel Israel Committee political chairperson Alex Grinshpun Education Committee Ami Joseph Hillel President Meyer Potashman Hillel Vice President u To the Editor: The "Remember" ad you ran yesterday was truly offensive. The fact that it was run on Holocaust Memorial Day was meant to equate the suffering of the Palestinians with the destruction of European Jewry in World War II. Although Deir Yassin was a crime perpetrated by Zionists, the general suffering of Palestinians since the establishment of Israel has been as much the fault of their own leaders as anyone's; the Palestinians themselves rejected the original partitioning of Palestine in 1947, which would have given them their own state. They were dispossessed because of the intolerance of their own leaders. The fact that you could allow someone to equate those events with the systematic extermination of the Jews in Europe during the war is nauseating. Aaron Geller Engineering '98 u To the Editor: I write in support of the principle behind the "Remember" ad sponsored by the Penn Arab Student Society that ran in yesterday's DP. Despite certain inaccuracies, the ad described the events of 1948, on the whole, in a reasonably accurate way. And it generated a great deal of discussion in the Zionist community. This is a positive development, since it is crucial that students concerned with the Middle East be aware both of the State of Israel's important successes and colossal failures in the area of human rights. Only if the full record is known can steps be taken to improve it. One of these steps should be a formal recognition by the State of Israel that it owes the victims of the massacre a "memorial and a name" -- a "Yad va Shem" in the words of Isaiah 56:5. Fifty years after the massacre of innocent civilians by individuals who were later integrated into the Israel Defense Forces, no formal memorial to the victims stands at the site of the massacre. The site of the massacre is now the Jewish neighborhood of Har Nof; few of its inhabitants know what stood there before. One is reminded of the words of the Soviet poet who wrote about the Kiev ravine where another, more systematic, massacre took place: "No monument stands at Babi Yar?" It was, however, rather insensitive of the ad's sponsors to run it on Holocaust Memorial Day. Despite the historical links between the events of the Holocaust and the events of 1948, they are events with distinct meanings, and they deserve to be memorialized separately. Surely a different day could have been found to run the same ad. Shawn Zelig Aster Asian and Middle Eastern Studies doctoral candidate u To the Editor Please refrain from publishing politically insightful slander in the DP. It serves no other purpose other than to provoke antagonism between Penn's already divided social groups. You should consider acting with more caution as to sensitive issues on a day commemorating the brutal slaughter of one-third of the Jewish population. As to the Penn Lebanese society, if you decide to make a convincing argument as to the massacre of your people at Deir Yassin, consider using correct information. One aspect of the massacre you neglected to mention was the fact that it occurred in the midst of a war, a war instigated by Israel's Arab neighbors. To add credence to your argument, you should also add the context of both Moshe Dayan and Martin Buber's quotation. You will find that they do not befit your propagandistic argument at all. Finally, a piece of advice from a Jew: perhaps a better utilization of your marketing budget might be to concentrate on using your resources for your next pro-Iraqi campaign. Alan Kessler College '98 Hey Day side effects To the Editor: One of the things we like best about Penn is its long-standing history and tradition. We are looking forward to participating in this year's Hey Day festivities and taking part in one of Penn's great traditions. However, we are deeply saddened that the traditional straw hats have been replaced by non-biodegradable styrofoam. The biting of the styrofoam hats will first leave a mess on our campus, and will then sit in a landfill, and not decompose. We abhor the idea that year after year thousands of students are encouraged to buy, bite and spit styrofoam chunks everywhere. Mass University-sponsored littering must stop. While to many this may appear to be a small issue, it is indicative of a larger problem. We as students need to consider the consequences of our actions not only for ourselves and our university, but for the world around us. Please choose to celebrate Hey Day without styrofoam. Emily Hardy and Michelle Weinberg College '99