LETTERS: Response and reaction on-campus assault

To the Editor: There is absolutely no truth to the accusation that the police are attempting to "downplay" this incident. The initial article accurately and professionally reported the facts that were known at the time. It was the police who informed the DP that this incident occurred. The facts that were known at the time were conveyed to the reporter. The police did not minimize the victims' injuries. Any assault involving a weapon -- especially a knife -- is grave. It is because of the victim's courageous reaction that her injuries were not more serious. We immediately notified the DP in order to ensure that the Penn community was aware of the assault. We have not referred to this incident as a sexual assault due to the fact that none of the legal elements of a sexual assault were present. This does not minimize the seriousness of the incident nor does it discount the possibility or probability that the perpetrator intended a sexual assault. As investigators, however, we do not want to limit the range of possible motives or potential suspects without the requisite facts. The perpetrator may have intended a sexual assault, robbery, assault or even worse. Fortunately, because of the courage and ferocity of the victim's reaction, we never found out what his true intentions were. The victim was helped by a fellow student inside Steinberg-Dietrich Hall and taken to the Spectaguard security officers. Police immediately responded and the victim was taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania where Susan Hawkins, director of the Division of Public Safety's Special Services Unit, met her and stayed with her throughout the night. The assigned detective interviewed her as University and Philadelphia Police detectives processed the crime scene. The victim was understandably shaken and upset, and additional details of the incident emerged in subsequent interviews. We understand that the victim not only suffered physical injuries, but also psychological trauma, and Hawkins continues to work closely with her. This assault took place in the heart of this campus. We are personally and professionally outraged that this incident occurred. The investigation is proceeding with great intensity. We have increased uniform and plainclothes patrols throughout the entire campus in order to prevent further victimization by this perpetrator. At the same time, the University Police detective unit and Special Services investigators and the Philadelphia Police Department are working around the clock in order to identify and apprehend the person responsible for this crime. Maureen Rush Chief of Police Division of Public Safety u To the Editor: The article "Student assaulted in Wharton bldg.," appearing in The Daily Pennsylvanian on Monday, November 9, 1998, merely touched upon a more serious issue affecting the entire student body: Student safety in 24-hour University facilities is lacking. In an unfortunate incident where a student was assaulted and hospitalized, we saw the consequences of inadequate security in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall. As students who frequent this building after hours, we would like to bring forth a few key points that call into question the effectiveness of the security measures in the building, a 24-hour student facility. Points of Entry. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. ("after-hours"), Spectaguards are to inspect each entrant's PennCard to verify that the entrant is affiliated with the University. In reality, the main entrance is not always attended, and PennCards -- when flashed -- are not carefully inspected. Windows and doors are often propped open and unalarmed, making it possible for anyone to enter the building without passing through main-entrance security. Security Inside the Building. Guards rarely, if ever, make routine checks of all areas of the building, and PennCards are never checked while walking through the halls or studying in the classrooms. However, while in the computer labs, which house the school's considerable investment in technology, students are regularly asked to present PennCards. This leads us to question the priorities of the guards or rather, the priorities of those who issue their directives. It should be unquestionable that student safety is the number one priority. Alarms. Students are not given sufficient information regarding assault alarm usage procedures, nor are they notified of any regular testing to ensure that alarms function properly. In addition, there is no way to differentiate the alarms in the bathrooms from the alarms activated by the doors, leading to further delay in locating the source of an alert. In the event that the alarm sounds, response is variable -- slow to none. Quality of Response. Should any security breach occur, we question the procedures in place to deal with the situation. The following should be standard and effective responses from guards: 1) to ensure the assailant's arrest, 2) to secure the crime scene, 3) to contact the Penn Police and 4) to treat the victim. Given our past experiences and observations of the Spectaguards, we find it highly unlikely that these procedures are in place. After reviewing these above points, we again return to the issue that student safety in 24-hour University facilities is lacking. The article published on Monday does not do justice to the gravity of the situation. Because of the lack of security, a student was attacked in a campus bathroom. She suffered knife-inflicted wounds and was subsequently hospitalized. This cannot happen again; we must demand change. We offer the following recommendations to improve security in 24-hour student facilities: · The presence of a security guard at main entrances at all times after-hours. · The installation of PennCard readers in front entrances for after-hours use. · The requirement of security guards to frequently patrol all areas of the buildings. · The improvement of security systems to allow for instant detection of the alert location. · The implementation of a policy for routine testing of all alarms. · The activation of alarms at all doors not intended as points of exit or entry. · The continual evaluation of security policy and implementation. We challenge the University to take action on the above issues and recommendations. We trust that the DP will pursue continued coverage of the University's response in the interest of student safety. Ken Hoskin Wharton '00 Delta Sigma Pi Melissa Lau Wharton '99 Delta Sigma Pi Alicia Syrett Wharton '99 Delta Sigma Pi Penn and diversity To the Editor: I am writing to respond to an article published on Wednesday, November 4, which reported on the initiatives that University officials are taking to meet the needs of Asian students ("U. urged to recruit more Asian Americans," The Daily Pennsylvanian). I applaud Penn President Judith Rodin's administration for becoming more aware of the gross under-representation of Asians on both the faculty and staff. However, some of her comments regarding the University's commitments are suspiciously unclear. In the statement she released to the DP, Rodin suggests that the University has created two new Asian staff positions to remedy the problem identified. This is false. The new hires are replacements for positions created long before the study. Rodin's administration has yet to warrant any new commitments to the community. In my point of view, the education provided by University of Pennsylvania poorly reflects the diversity that is its student body. In a rapidly integrating world, we have not the luxury to wallow in traditional practices and ignore needed reforms. All students, regardless of background, are negatively affected by such apathy. For future students, and ourselves, we collectively bear the responsibility to push this institution to take on a more active role in implementing changes that foster diversity, equal opportunity and progress. Jeffrey Shih College '99