LETTERS: Thursday, march 23, 2000

To the Editor: · Overall crime: –33% · Robberies/attempted robberies: –64% · Assaults: –35% · Burglaries: –19% · Thefts: –31% So why does the 1999 Department of Education's Campus Crime Statistics reported in yesterday's Daily Pennsylvanian and the most recent Almanac report an increase in crime? On January 1, 1999, the DOE changed the reporting requirements for colleges and universities, significantly expanding the geographic area to which these statistics correspond. The reporting areas have expanded for several reasons: First, federal law now requires institutions to provide statistics for an expanded area beyond the campus property lines. In addition to providing statistics for campus properties, institutions must now include statistics for additional non-campus locations and public properties. Second, as of January 1999, the University's patrol area expanded to include Presbyterian Hospital and the area surrounding it. Additionally, the 1999 report required a much broader interpretation, specifically, reporting of crimes that occurred within and on University properties, City of Philadelphia sidewalks and public streets, retail establishments and property that is "adjacent" and "reasonably contiguous" to University properties. The University took a generous approach in its interpretation of the definitions "adjacent" and "reasonably contiguous." We erred on the side of inclusion to ensure full compliance with the new regulations. Penn, along with other higher education institutions, is awaiting further guidance and interpretation from the DOE regarding these definitions. Basically, comparing the 1997-98 report against the 1999 report would be like comparing apples to oranges. Before 1999, the DOE required schools to report crime occurring on their private property only. Beginning in 1999, schools are required to report crime occurring in a wide public area surrounding their campuses. This change is especially significant to schools in cities. The reporting requirements are radically altered and the criteria expanded. Pending any additional changes, the 1999 report will serve as the benchmark for future DOE reports in determining if campus crime is increasing or decreasing. Thomas Seamon Vice President for Public Safety To the Editor: I think that Ariel Horn's column ("Penn's dirty little secrets," DP, 3/8/00) was misguided in one major respect. Overall, I thought it was a nice column, something that Admissions might hang up in its offices. However, I believe that Ms. Horn made a poor mistake in the second-to-last paragraph of her piece. She writes, after having a revelation about how much she really likes Penn, that "Maybe these brochures weren't lies at all; maybe they were genuine reflections on the community, if amplified and edited to look more appealing." I had never read a more oxymoronic sentence. How can "genuine reflections" be "amplified and edited to look more appealing"? We all know what the University does to pre-frosh. Put simply, it sells the school. Every school will put on its best face -- even, and especially, Penn. What disturbed me was that Ms. Horn started off with a good, albeit regurgitated, point about the typical Penn student's cynicism about this school, then came to a brainwashed conclusion about Penn that didn't really weigh in on the good points and bad points of real life at our school. Troy Madres College '00