LETTERS: Wednesday, March 22, 2000

To the Editor: I am in agreement with most of Kim's column. It is true that it is "virtually impossible to draw any meaningful distinction between right and left in the U.S." Unlike Kim, however, I am not convinced that the only option for "stubborn believers in world peace and social justice" is to lay paralyzed at the fringes of the American political scene. Seemingly in response to Kim's column, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader spoke at Penn on Wednesday, March 8. Nader pointed out that liberalism does not have to die with the advent of money politics and transnational corporate rule. The Green Party ideals of social justice, ecology, nonviolence and grassroots democracy have won in over 60 local and state elections over the last few years. If Nader gets 5 percent of the vote in November, the Green Party will receive federal funds and be able to compete for airtime with the parties of big business. With a new chapter of the Green Party recently started at Penn, this is the perfect time to send the message that we, as college students, are not ready to sell out yet. (Penn for Bradley supporters: Are you listening?) This is an historic opportunity to finally make a meaningful vote. Liberalism may be down, but it's not out. Lincoln Ellis College '03 To the Editor: A recent editorial ("Embracing a new medium," DP, 3/9/00) on commercial notes companies betrays some of the misconceptions on this recent invasion into our educational system. The issues surrounding notes companies are not primarily a matter of rights (copyright versus free speech), but relate to the educational problems that are involved. In that context, it is unwise to portray the matter as just a posting of notes on the Internet. The crux of the matter is all about who is in control of the distribution of notes and with what kind of intent. There is a huge difference between, on the one hand, a business enterprise paying for notes without permission and, on the other, professors who post their own notes and lecture materials as part of their teaching. Also, totally obscured by a focus on rights are the many commercial aspects of notes businesses. The notes companies are financed by millions of dollars and are trying to expand and monopolize the market. For instance, Versity.com has received $11.2 million in financing, while StudentU.com operates on some $6 million. No wonder that the CEO of one notes company called education a "commercial enterprise." Market expansions lead into other college-related sites. StudentU.com, for example, formed the Uzone and subsequently bought out the publisher of a college magazine in Los Angeles. WhataboutU.com acquired two notes companies for an undisclosed amount of cash and equity stake in the new company and plans to launch a Web site of college notes. Furthermore, company spokesmen have been spreading false information in the press. For instance, I read in an article ("Professors voice concerns over online note firm," DP, 3/6/00) that a representative of Versity.com said that Yale University was the first school to demand that notes be removed from their site. That is simply not true. Princeton, the University of California at Los Angeles and other schools have done so as well. Thus, it is clear that the essential question is not just about embracing a new model of teaching, but whether, as instructors and students, we will remain committed to teaching and learning, or just be buying and selling a commodity. Mathieu Deflem Professor of Sociology Purdue University