Where is the Quad's mail?

Too many letters, many with cash enclosed, aren't reaching Quadrangle residents. And what does the University have to say for itself? Gordon Rickards, Penn's point man on the issue, asks that students go fill out complaint forms. Rickards also intends to send a letter to parents suggesting that they send future letters to their children at Penn via registered mail. Mr. Rickards, we hope you're joking. We find it entirely unacceptable that you and the University would ask parents to pay the postal service extra money to ensure that letters reach their children safely. What possible reasoning could justify such a proposal? Why can't the University guarantee the safe receipt of mail sent the old-fashioned way? The Quad mail room and the 30th Street Post Office are the only two stops the 200 missing letters have in common. If the problem lies at 30th Street, then the University must lobby the postal service for immediate action on behalf of its students. But until we know that the problem does not lie within the walls of the Quad mail room, Penn has a responsibility to act forcefully and immediately to ensure that the mail reaches students. The failure to react decisively to the latest spate of mail thefts is particularly disturbing because of the troubled history of Penn's mail delivery system. Between 1992 and 1996, Residential Living received some 1,400 reports of lost or damaged mail. In the spring of 1996, an employee was arrested at the central Post Office. Penn officials declared the problem solved. Clearly, that judgment was overly hasty. And, taken with continued complaints about unattended packages and tardy delivery of mail, it suggests a larger problem with the University mail system. Nor does the answer to the latest spate lie in better sorting procedures. Indeed, part of the problem seems to be that someone is already sorting out a particular type of letter -- those with cash enclosed. We respect the need for considered action. But the amount of time Penn has taken to respond remains incomprehensible. Simply put, the inability to solve this problem over the course of the greater part of the academic year is an indication of insufficient effort, not due process. Penn says it has every confidence that mailroom staff are not responsible. Penn is missing the point. Students are not getting their mail. And that is unacceptable.