From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99 From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99In their never-ending quest for universal political correctness, Penn administrators have a knack for unabashedly trampling the rights of individuals. They have long maintained that individual rights can be stepped on for the good of the community. "If it could be proven to me that by releasing the names, we would substantially reduce the number of crimes of violence or substantially reduce the incidents of non-forcible sexual offenses, then we'd have something to talk about," said Beeman, who chairs the committee. However, no apparent evidence suggests that students would be safer. In general, judicial systems seek either to deter people from committing crimes in the first place or from committing repeat offenses. But when Penn students act out, it's highly unlikely they're giving any thought to whether their name will be released to the public. With forethought absent in such instances, any deterrence effect is muted. And according to OSC Director Michele Goldfarb, only about 15 to 20 cases reach the hearings stage each year. In the last four years, none of those cases have involved rape. Repeat offenses of any kind are very rare. Given such conditions, any notion of increased safety is merely smoke and mirrors. Goldfarb believes that students who commit the misdeeds are in large part no different from any other Penn student. Perhaps they had a little too much to drink, got caught up in the moment, put a fist threw a window. That certainly does not excuse such activity, but it also doesn't support the notion that public disclosure would increase campus safety. Besides, in the few cases where students have committed sufficiently egregious offenses, OSC has expelled the perpetrators. Nonetheless, proponents of disclosure argue that Penn students are entitled to know whether their hallmates or peers have committed violent or non-forcible sexual offenses. But for what purpose? Since repeat offenses are rare, there is little reason to be wary of those who have committed an isolated act. Knowledge in and of itself is useless with no broader goal. Even if there are rare cases where students would be made safer through knowing the names of student offenders, that does not justify the damning effects of disclosure -- primarily the extreme invasion of privacy. After all, OSC already imposes sanctions upon students found to have committed offenses -- anything from community service to probation and, in extreme cases, expulsion. It is unjust to add the potentially unending punishment of rejection and condemnation by peers. Indeed, it's disconcerting to imagine someone being avoided at all costs by his hallmates simply because he punched in a wall in the heat of a drunken moment -- a scenario that would seem all too plausible under the current proposal. Perhaps a better solution, then, would be an increase in the severity of OSC sanctions. Stiffer punishments could potentially achieve the deterrence and preventative effects advocates of the disclosure proposal seek, while at the same time ensuring that every student's right to privacy is protected. Then, as Beeman states, the University would at least "have something to talk about."
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
