LETTERS: Another space for student use

To the Editor: As the owners of 27,000 square feet in the heart of the campus we will be glad to ask our Student Advisory Board to work with any group of Penn students who wants to plan non-alcoholic weekend parties at Penn. The building's history from its initial groundbreaking in 1929 has been to provide safe space and hospitality on campus. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics and secular humanists have all been welcomed in these walls, as have various racial and ethnic groups. Here's the challenge: Our auditorium holds over 300 people and is available for much of the fall semester. If you really want central space on campus to make some community happen, all you have to do is summon the courage to walk into a building with the name Christian on it. Beverly Dale Executive Director Christian Association The realities of testing To the Editor: As the campus liaison to Penn's HIV testing site at 4019 Irving Street and also the advisor to FLASH (the campus safer-sex peer education group), I am writing in response to Stephanie Cooperman's column, which argued for mandatory HIV testing on campus ("Stemming the AIDS epidemic," DP, 9/11/98). While I appreciate Cooperman's concern about HIV prevention at Penn, I do not see mandatory testing as a realistic way to improve prevention efforts. Most Penn students know that a person infected by HIV may test negative for weeks or even months after being infected. Antibodies to the virus -- which are what the HIV test is actually designed to detect -- take time to develop and therefore testing is not always accurate if done shortly after the time of infection. I think there are better ways to use scarce public-health dollars than to spend most of them on large-scale testing. (The real cost of each HIV test ranges from $30 to $75, depending on the type of test and related lab fees.) Another reason to oppose mandatory testing can be found at the start of Cooperman's column. Even in this day and age, people violate the privacy and trust of their HIV-positive friends by telling others; and self-described liberals think that moving out on an HIV-positive roommate is a realistic way to reduce the risk of infection. Clearly we need to do more preventive education that addresses attitudes about HIV and informs students about the behaviors which truly put them at risk. Sharing a room with an HIV-positive person carries no risk of infection. Sharing razors under any circumstance is foolish, since blood-borne pathogens come in many varieties and pose many kinds of health risks. Penn is fortunate to have a free and totally anonymous HIV testing site, which is staffed by professionals from Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives. The Dental School has generously provided space for this program. An appointment is preferred, but you can walk in without one and be seen if the schedule is not totally booked. In the (fortunate) absence of mandatory HIV testing, Penn students can get testing, counseling and preventive education when they decide they need these services. Kurt Conklin Office of Health Education Not so much a choice To the Editor: As I read the letter written by Seth Finck ("Alcohol and Personal Choice," DP, 9/10/98) I found myself in agreement with his stated viewpoint -- that is until I read the paragraph about the "personal responsibility" that Scott Krueger had. To be sure, no one alleges that Krueger did not personally ingest the alcohol which would ultimately cause his unpleasant death. But Finck neglects to consider the circumstances behind the drinking episode. Krueger was a freshman at MIT who had just joined a social fraternity. When that fact is revealed, a suspicion of potential hazing is raised. Clearly he should have realized that underaged drinking is illegal. Perhaps he also knew that "consuming too much alcohol could have killed him." In Pennsylvania, hazing is illegal; it is also a violation of University policy, which adheres to the Anti-Hazing Law of Pennsylvania in defining "hazing" to include "any activity? upon which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with or continued membership in an organization is directly or indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be 'forced' activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding." The facts in the Krueger case indicate that he was drinking large amounts of alcohol at a fraternity-sanctioned event prior to being taken to the hospital. Therefore, if Massachusetts had an anti-hazing law similar to Pennsylvania's, or if Krueger had been a student at Penn, his "choice" would not have mattered in assigning responsibility for his death. To be sure, Mr. Krueger may very well have "chosen" to drink irresponsibly that fateful night -- but his fraternity would also share and bear the burden of responsibility (criminally and in campus disciplinary proceedings) for his tragic and preventable death. Neal Rajmaira Associate Director Office of Student Conduct