LETTERS: The 'water buffalo' incident, revisited

To the Editor: Hackney accuses Kors of "doctoring the facts to trivialize the incident in a way that appealed to Rush Limbaugh and his audience," and states that the black women plaintiffs "were required by the Student Judicial Charter to refrain from public comment about the case, leaving the field clear for Professor Alan Kors and his allies on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal to shape the story." Hackney has not adduced a single example of a fact which Kors doctored, and Kors' column includes a direct quotation from the section of the Judicial Charter which clearly gave the plaintiffs the right to speak out publicly. In a few "gracious" words, Hackney associates Kors with the extreme right wing and accuses him of intellectual dishonesty. Kors' response consists primarily of a recitation of facts. Is it really ungracious to state that "human relations have improved at Penn" under the current administration or that Hackney's vision of the University was "balkanized and paternalistic"? Different people have different notions of what constitutes graciousness, just as they have different notions of what constitutes sexual relations. I doubt that Eden Jacobowitz, who was tortured by then-University President Hackney's underlings, would join in Beeman's praise of Hackney for his graciousness and restraint. Michael Cohen Professor Emeritus, Physics u To the Editor: Professor Richard Beeman's letter (complains of Professor Alan Kors' treatment of Professor Sheldon Hackney in the newly published The Shadow University. Beeman makes no comment about the substantive issues at the heart of the "water buffalo" discussion. Was Hackney right to limit freedom of speech in a college environment? Was it acceptable to apply this code unequally and selectively? Do black and minority students need a condescending code to protect them from freedoms enjoyed off campus? I was at Penn during the water buffalo catastrophe. I also remember when Greg Pavlik, a DP columnist, was investigated by Hackney's Judicial Inquiry Officer for "racial harassment" because some people thought his weekly columns were offensive. Is this what Beeman refers to when he says "intellectual freedom flourished at Penn" under Hackney's tenure? Students weren't the only victims of Hackney. He imposed mandatory seminars for professors who practiced academic freedom in ways Hackney disapproved of. Where was Beeman when Professor Murray Dolfman was persecuted by Hackney? When 14,000 copies of the DP were stolen and destroyed by disgruntled black students, Hackney did nothing -- and when he did do something he punished a University security guard who had tried to prevent the theft! Allowing the flourishing of censorship is certainly not what comes to mind when thinking of "intellectual freedom." Beeman speaks of Kors' "one-sided interpretation of that period." He is right. There must be another side, and I would love to hear Hackney's comments about the many shameful incidents and events at Penn that he permitted, caused or side-stepped. Those of us who attended Penn during Hackney's tenure remember him as a charming gentleman who loved to greet students and chat. We also remember him as a spineless administrator who paid himself millions of dollars to preside over Penn only to racially segregate it, impose speech restrictions, terrorize professors who fell foul of the politically correct, treat students unequally and then bring shame to our alma mater. The Shadow University is a sad reminder of what happened at Penn and the vigilance necessary to prevent it from occurring again. Thor Halvorssen College '96 The war on drugs To the Editor: Malik Wilson correctly points out in his column ("America's hidden industry," DP, 12/10/98) that there is a considerable racial inequality in the American justice system. But why have seemingly racist policies been permitted to persist and swell for so long? The "war on drugs," while justified as a means of cleansing America of crime, has fostered blatant racial disparities in prison populations. Blacks are unfairly punished for the same drug offenses as whites. Fifty-four percent of blacks convicted of drug offenses get sentenced to prison versus 34 percent of whites convicted of the same offenses. Additionally, laws that punish use of crack much more harshly than use of powder cocaine hit blacks especially hard, since studies have shown crack to be more favored among blacks than whites. The "war on drugs" has clearly been a racially biased crusade against basic human liberties, but few bother to ask the simple question: Why should we imprison anyone, regardless of their skin color, for a decision to put any sort of substance into his or her own body? Many anti-drug proponents claim that drug abuse leads to crime and delinquency. Yet a recent study performed at Columbia University suggests that alcohol is associated with more violent crime than any illegal drug, including crack, cocaine and heroin. In fact, economic pressures are the cause of most drug-related crimes. The "war on drugs" is wasteful of government resources, as well. In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war. The Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion in 1982. In 1998 the Clinton administration requested $17.1 billion. Crime has increased, not decreased. So the "war on drugs" is more than a matter of racial injustice. The "war on drugs" requires a distinction between right and wrong. While it robs some of us of our money, it robs others of their dignity and it robs us all of our freedom. David Jelinek Graduate School of Engineering '02 Co-President, Penn Libertarians Ron Lin College '01 Co-President, Penn Libertarians