LETTERS: YOUR VIEW Response to Penn's policy

To the Editor: We say this because anyone who has any basic knowledge of U.S. history would know what a failure and grave mistake Prohibition was. No person who had heard about Prohibition could honestly believe that banning alcohol would prevent people from drinking. Unfortunately, we can't be so naive as to think that Judith Rodin, our esteemed president, is ignorant of Prohibition. Rather, we are led to believe that the true problem is that Rodin has no concern whatsoever for the lives of the students of this University. No, it is the ability to avoid lawsuits, improve rankings, profit from retailers and generate alumni donations that motivates Rodin's agenda. Did she consult anyone before removing the food trucks? Did she make any effort to follow the lead of other top universities by increasing financial aid? The answer is, of course, no. Protecting her precious "small" $3 billion endowment is far more important. So why should we believe that she cares what harm the decision to ban alcohol on campus will have on student life? We doubt that being a dry campus will have a negative effect on rankings. Plus, hospitalizations resulting from alcohol and drug abuse at off-campus and unregistered events are much easier to ignore. Students, we urge you not to sit back and watch our rights be taken away. Responsible students who are of age, like most seniors, have every right to get together and have some fun at a bar. The administration has long been looking for an excuse to ban alcohol on campus. Now because of a freak and tragic accident of an alumnus they are revising the entire undergraduate University alcohol policy. Should the lesson from this incident be that we need Big Sister Rodin to keep us in line? We believe that it should teach us all to use our own judgement to make wise decisions and avoid future tragedies. Courtney Grow SEAS '99 Joe Mira College '99 Remember the person To the Editor: As Michael Tobin's cousin, I am shocked at how his death has been treated by many people. The last thing that Mike would have wanted is a political issue stemming from his passing. It broke my heart to see Robert Barchi's quote, which read that this incident was "a sharp reminder of the potential effects of alcohol abuse" ("U. cracking down on alcohol abuse," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/26/99). Though it is perfectly understandable that University officials want to prevent this from happening again, Mike should not be remembered for the way in which he died. He was an incredibly beautiful person inside and out, not a cold example of drinking's consequences! In living his life like he wanted to, he simultaneously made this world better for so many people: his parents, brothers, girlfriend, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends, teammates and more. Students at this point in time should not be force-fed moral lessons on the use of alcohol; rather, they should be reflecting on the amazing things that Mike did with his short existence, and try to do the same. Burying my cousin was the most difficult thing I have ever done. Please do not prolong the sorrow of his family and friends by reminding us of his demise; we would all much prefer to celebrate his life. Shannon Hunt Stating the obvious To the Editor: Before the University can ever come up with an effective alcohol policy it must acknowledge several realities: · Undergraduates, whether 21 or not, will continue to find sources of alcohol. · Blaming fraternities, sororities and drinking establishments for the poor judgment of their patrons is counterproductive. · Drinking alcohol is something that is entirely normal in an adult social setting. The administration must acknowledge that drinking in appropriate quantities is an entirely normal part of being a member of society. It is not something that should be demonized, nor made a big deal of. This will only increase the attraction of alcohol abuse. Furthermore, the University should stop referring to a "victim of alcohol abuse" ("Ensuring students' health and safety," DP, 3/26/99). If a student drinks too much, an unfortunate situation might result; however, it is singularly due to the poor judgment of the individual -- not the bar or fraternity which furnished the drink. The University should be emphasizing that personal responsibility applies, rather than placing the blame on people other than the abusers themselves. The situation at Penn will continue to deteriorate as long as the administration continues to look at alcohol in such an immature way. Tavis Cannell Wharton '99 Jumping to conclusions To the Editor: It is important during this time of reflection for the University community to understand and to be clear on the facts, rather than to become hysterical and jump to irrational conclusions. We must acknowledge two important facts in this case so far. First, no one knows exactly how this tragedy happened. Inventing stories to explain what probably happened is just putting forth a theory. All we can be sure of is that Tobin fell down stairs -- even though we know alcohol was in his system, we don't know what exactly preceded his fall (e.g. did he slip? did he trip? why?). Secondly, no one knows yet exactly how much alcohol was in Tobin's system. It was reported in the DP on Friday ("U. cracking down on alcohol abuse," DP, 3/26/99), that his blood alcohol level was twice the legal driving limit. That is about three to four beers in one hour, and I doubt anyone considers that to be alcohol abuse or "binge" drinking. Until the coroner announces exactly how much alcohol was in his system, it is important that we not classify this as "binge" drinking or alcohol abuse. To do so is to prematurely and unnecessarily dishonor Tobin's memory. Carter Bell College '99 Show some respect To the Editor: I didn't know Michael Tobin. I heard news of his death off-hand, walking through the Quadrangle last Sunday morning, and although I felt a bit solemn, I didn't give it much thought. But this morning, as I was walking into my dormitory, I saw a sign posted on the door exhorting students to attend a march on College Green protesting the administration's decision to temporarily ban alcohol. Penn, how can we possibly be so immature and insensitive when we are supposed to be among the most intelligent students in the nation? The euphemism everyone is using is "the students weren't involved in the decision." Please. Everyone knows the reason we are upset is they (gasp) took away our beer. I'm sorry your formals were canceled. It's a shame that Spring Fling will not be the legendary party it has been in the past. But before you attend the march on the Green, think about how your family would feel if one week after your death, the Penn community came out to demonstrate that they couldn't care less. Jennifer McNamara College '02 Bigger problems To the Editor: Last year, Andrew Exum wrote a column encouraging Penn students to not be so caught up in our own worlds that we miss everything happening outside of our University City home ("Demystifying Philadelphia," DP, 9/15/98). With this advice in mind, I comment on Tuesday's planned protest of the University's new alcohol restrictions. Initially, I was somewhat excited to read the flyer announcing the protest. I've heard a good deal about the pervasive apathy on this campus and I welcomed the possibility of activism. And in this case, I believe such activity is necessary to ensure that student's voices are heard by the administration as they attempt to find a resolution to a very tricky subject. However, after a glance at the morning's Inquirer and a moment of critical reflection, I realized just how trivial this protest is compared to what is happening in the world around us. As I write this, thousands of innocent people are being driven from their homeland and killed. American pilots are being put in harm's way by a president whose paramount concern is his own legacy. And right in our own backyard, children can't get enough food to eat. All of this unfortunately passes us by with a sigh and possibly a twinge of cognitive dissonance or guilt. But you take away our alcohol and it takes us less than a day to begin mobilizing. College students have throughout history displayed the power to change the world for the better through action. What a shame that today we are content to merely fight for the maintenance of our privileges. Peter Gutherie College '99 The real problem To the Editor: It has been argued by "student leaders" and writers on the opinion page of the Daily Pennsylvanian that the best response to the problem of alcohol abuse on our campus needs to be increased responsibility on the part of students and that any action on the part of University administrators seems to be unwanted. It has also been argued by the same people that if the University cracks down on violations of alcohol policies at registered events on Penn's campus, then students would merely drink in an unregulated and unsafe off-campus environment instead Such an action by these students would be totally irresponsible on their part. Thus, those who advance the argument that students would drink in an unsafe and uncontrolled environment believe that students will automatically behave irresponsibly. If you believe that students are inherently irresponsible, then the problem of alcohol abuse cannot be solved by the students themselves and some action is needed by the administration. If you believe, however, that students can be responsible, then why can't the University eliminate drinking on campus? If students can indeed be responsible as the DP has been advocating, then there is no reason to assume that they cannot be responsible in their off-campus drinking as well. Jason Herman College and Wharton '99