LETTERS: Don't let renovations kill Stouffer community

To the Editor: At the heart of the University's new college house system is an attempt to build small, close-knit communities. By dividing campus into smaller houses with distinct cultures, we have seen this idea promoted and publicized as a core of future student life. Stouffer College House, even before the institution of the new system, was a college house in and of itself. It was a community well before the University decided to focus on community as a theme of on-campus housing. More importantly, though, it is a prime example of everything positive that can arise from community living. One hundred thirty-one residents of Stouffer, coupled with graduate associates, our house dean and our faculty fellow and master families, will all repeat this message loud and clear. A proposed demolition of the Stouffer Triangle becomes not only a physical act of destruction by the University, but also a cultural one that destroys a community. It seems that the University, in attempting to promote its goals of building and maintaining community, has ultimately contradicted itself in considering the demolition of one. Rebuilding infrastructure is a fine project for the University to promote -- but simply eliminating Stouffer altogether, and a community in the process, is the kind of institutional change that cannot be summarized with $300 million dollars. What we have found in Stouffer is priceless. Eric Lomazoff College '01 u To the Editor: More than my personal sadness at this announcement, however, I am angry and disappointed in the administration and those in charge of this decision. Are the goals of the college house system simply catch phrases and buzz words? Community and diversity -- these things strengthen the college experience and strengthen us as people. These things already exist at Stouffer College House. The University changed policies to foster these important benefits in college houses and have altered room selection policies accordingly. These policies encourage all students, but especially freshmen, to stay on campus and in one college house. Yet almost half of our residents are freshmen, and these changes will directly affect them. The message sent to them is that our community is obviously not important. This is where the University is terribly mistaken. Members of our community are of every year, in a wide variety of schools and majors, from different backgrounds and are on athletic teams, in musical groups, in all sorts of University groups and work beyond the Penn's boundaries in the larger community. To take away our house, our home, would be to directly cheat not only us but the University itself. It is on these grounds that I strongly advise the administration and parties involved to rethink their decision to demolishing Stouffer and furthermore to pledge to aid in our own efforts of making Stouffer and Penn a better place for everyone to live. Lisa Campbell College '99 To care about kids To the Editor: Mary Harris' feature article on the University City New School ("School's Out?" 34th Street, 10/29/98) is right on target. Penn's plan to erect a public Pre-K-8 institution at 42nd and Spruce streets threatens the existence of not only the University City New School, but also the two childcare centers currently at the proposed site -- the Parent Infant Center and the University-sponsored Penn Children's Center. Although the University espouses its "commitment" to both childcare centers, no proposal for their relocation or incorporation into the new school structure has been forthcoming. For the University to make a highly public announcement marketing plans for a controversial school without any prior arrangements for the survival of the pre-existing institutions raises serious doubts about the sincerity of its "commitment." No less, the proclamation by the administration comes less than one year before groundbreaking for the new school. In a space-starved campus such as Penn, relocating two daycare centers that require large play areas, specially-designed facilities and equipment, and sophisticated security systems within that time frame borders on the absurd. An honest and dedicated commitment by the University would have had blueprints for a relocation site, timetable for redesigning the facility and a transition period -- all developed and prepared for implementation before any schemes to take over the sites of three children-oriented educational facilities were announced. Months after its publicity statement on the school project, the administration -- other than the rhetoric of its on-going "commitment" -- remains strangely silent on any measures to keep the children's centers alive. No possible relocation sites have been disclosed. No timetable has been established. And no concrete information has been disseminated to convince worried parents that they will not have to scramble to find another daycare center at the 11th hour. As one troubled parent put it, "Based upon the lack of information from the University, I can only conclude that the [Penn Children's] Center is not an important issue." No controversy exists regarding the importance of early childhood development. Very few institutions in the Philadelphia area provide the quality of childcare that the Penn Children's Center and Parent Infant Center do. Yet it is these highly valued institutions whose very existence is being jeopardized. Despite the University's affirmations that the Centers "provide child care services that are invaluable to the community," and that it "shares the widespread enthusiasm for the high quality of these services," the lack of any detailed pre-announcement planing, continuing inaction on relocation plans and inexplicable reticence, can only be interpreted as a lack of earnest commitment. Elementary school education is important, but for the University to experiment with the conception of a new public grade school by sacrificing two of the finest childcare centers (and a private elementary school) in the region sends a chilling and distressing message to the local and University communities about its priorities and sense of commitment. David Chang Assistant Prof., School of Medicine Respecting our athletes To the Editor: Thank you to Lauren Dickie for her column that appeared on October 28 ("Being fair to Penn athletes in print," The Daily Pennsylvanian), and for proving that just because one plays a sport at Penn, it does not mean that one is a meathead. Dickie's guest column is not only very well written, it is also very necessary. I couldn't agree more that it is time that we gave some respect to our athletes. Too many students are too wrapped up in themselves to appreciate the endless hours our athletes dedicate to their sports for the good of the Penn community. Too many times I have heard students say things like, "Did our sucky football team finally win a game?" or "It's the Ivy League, of course we lost." Maybe if students showed up at the games our teams would do better. I agree that the DP columnists give Penn athletes little respect and regard them as another one of the many things about Penn to criticize. Many students have little or no contact with Penn athletes, or even attend the games. Students don't realize that athletes are no different than the rest of the Penn community, except perhaps they are a little more well-rounded and better adjusted to life than the students who are concerned only with whether or not they are toting the right designer handbag. Before any of you open your mouth or pick up your pen to criticize, maybe you should attend a football game or a soccer match to at least see what you are criticizing. Maybe you should go to the locker room after the game to see how much those student athletes are hurting -- mentally and physically -- after a loss. Or maybe you should just have a little respect for your fellow students. Amanda Johnson College '99