LETTERS: Not a time for business as usual

To the Editor: I was even more puzzled by the next sentence in the article. "Penn goes out of its way to encourage students to commemorate King." Fiore attempts to prove his case by mentioning the statement submitted to the Almanac which "authorized" release time for staff to attend MLK Day programs. Memos like those seldom reach Penn employees whose ability to attend such programs is completely determined by their supervisor. If you don't believe me, ask the next person who swipes your PennCard what they were "encouraged" to do for MLK Day. Furthermore, the events Fiore lists in his article are organized with little or no University support. The black community at Penn has fought long and hard to even get MLK Day officially recognized at Penn. The African American Resource Center coordinates the activities yearly while the "breakfast and discussion" and the symposium on King are sponsored by Umoja, the United Minorities Council and the Black Graduate and Professional Students Assembly. See a pattern here? And now Fiore wants to claim that all the programs performed with minimal financial backing from Penn -- especially in comparison to Spring Fling, Homecoming, etc. -- indicate that the University is not neglecting, but is in fact honoring, King. I beg to differ. King once stated that America could not address its deep-rooted problems with "business as usual." But that is exactly what happened on Monday. The question was posed in the article: "Where will you be?" while the University commemorates King's day. I'm sure many were in class and many others were asleep -- you know, business as usual. I think a better question is where will you be when the next call goes out to stop business as usual and act on the side of the poor and oppressed -- those who King spoke for. To those who are still asleep, you better wake up before King's dream deferred becomes our living nightmare. Observing MLK Day is an appropriate way to start. Rasool Berry College '99 On accountability To the Editor: In Monday's Daily Pennsylvanian, there was an article headlined, "U. lays off 35 Faculty Club employees," (DP, 01/18/99) because the Faculty Club is being moved to the Inn at Penn, run by DoubleTree Hotels. Vice President for Human Resources Jack Heuer is quoted as saying, "DoubleTree is a new employer so we cannot offer those jobs," and "This is a layoff due to a lack of work because the business enterprise is closing." This obscures the University's responsibility for Faculty Club employees being put on the street. When the University made its contact with DoubleTree, it could have insisted on including in that contract a clause that DoubleTree would give preference in hiring to Faculty Club employees. Such clauses are often included when businesses are transferred. It was the University's failure to include such a provision which is responsible for the mass dismissal of its long time employees. The "lack of work because the enterprise is closing" also glosses over the University's responsibility. It was the decision of the University to close the Faculty Club and move it to the Inn at Penn. That was not an uncontroversial decision, and many of the Faculty Club members and patrons look with uneasiness on what facilities and inexpensive meals DoubleTree will provide. The crucial question is what consideration did the University give to the devastating consequences to its employees when it decided to close the Faculty Club and turn it over to DoubleTree. The University can not now disown responsibility. Clyde Summers Law Professor