LETTERS: Free speech has its limits

To the Editor: Though the supplement by no means necessarily reflects the views of the DP, you have nonetheless associated your paper with part of a movement that calls doctors murderers and promotes single-minded fundamentalist views which operate under the guise of free speech. The advertisement's description of the "abortofacient nature" of contraceptives, along with its promotion of abstinence with the declaration to "save the marital act for marriage," comes closer to preaching than any sort of well-reasoned argument. Certain claims, for example, "pro-abortionists... have been exploiting the problems of rape and incest victims, confusing the public and promoting abortion for their own social engineering goals," are downright scary. The advertisement is propaganda, not literature provoking any sort of rational debate. Such material is an insult to an open-minded university community; and, I am sorry to say, your inclusion of it has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for the integrity of your newspaper. John Dodson College '99 Internet broadcasts To the Editor: Bravo, Eric Moskowitz! ("Information superhighway robbery," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 2/17/99). I must say that as a diehard Quaker fan I am very disappointed that in order to follow my beloved Red and Blue I have to subscribe to a special Internet service. I've often wondered why Cornell and Princeton put their games on broadcast.com while Penn, with the premiere sports program in the Ivy League, doesn't provide this service to its many alumni living outside the Philadelphia area. I recently visited the athletic department's Web site and discovered the pay service. While the price isn't outrageous, it is more than I want to spend on a radio broadcast -- over the Internet, at that. I hope the administration and athletic department will reconsider providing football and basketball game broadcasts free of charge; I'm sure I'm not the only alum interested in following the (I hope) the Quakers' return to the Big Dance! Matthew Schwartz College '92 To the Editor: I just wanted to congratulate Penn for staying out of the recent hub-bub regarding sweatshops and the production of Penn apparel. The fact of the matter is that a reduction in the use of sweatshops will probably result in increased prices for all Penn related merchandise. I am happy that our school has the good sense to acknowledge the trade-offs that exist when any decision is made. The shifting of manufacturing our merchandise from lower priced facilities to more expensive factories will result in every purchaser bearing the burden for what some perceive as injustices. I would much rather see goods bear stickers reflecting whether or not sweatshop labor was used to produce certain merchandise. In that way, those that feel strongly about sweatshop abuses, can exercise their right to not purchase such goods while those of us that do not share the same moral outrage, can purchase merchandise without incurring the higher costs that will inevitably occur. Michael Bressler Wharton/SEAS '99 To the Editor: I am writing in regards to the article entitled "Mayer slated for undergrad living" (DP, 2/22/99). This article represents a source of confusion and frustration for myself, as well as other members of the Stouffer College House community. David Brownlee is quoted as saying that Mayer Hall has "a definite possibility for becoming the new Stouffer" when the existing structure is torn down. This statement seems to be in direct contradiction with the sentiments of Dr. Brownlee and University administrator Doug Berger, as expressed in a November 9, 1998 meeting with Stouffer residents. At this meeting, both Dr. Brownlee and Mr. Berger seemed to give assurances that the University was committed to building a new house for the Stouffer community, even if the location of that house would not be at 38th and Spruce. This most recent statement by Dr. Brownlee seems to suggest that Stouffer's community will either be forced into the Mayer structure (which has physical differences with Stouffer -- long hall ways and apartments -- that prevent it from fostering community in the same way as our building) or will need to look for alternative living arrangements on campus. This prospect, which would threaten the very continuation of our community, comes in direct conflict with the University's supposed commitment to helping the Stouffer community maintain itself, and flourish in the future. Once again, the University has left Stouffer residents confused and alarmed with its handling of the Stouffer situation. Eric Lomazoff College '01