LETTERS: Friday, April 21, 2000

PAC's point of viewPAC's point of viewTo the Editor: Penn Six is currently on "probation" for past and present attendance issues only -- not for postering violations -- as was wrongfully indicated in the article. It is the Performing Arts Council's policy to place a group on probation for missing two PAC or subcommittee meetings. The group may petition for reinstatement after completing community service assigned by the PAC Executive Board. A group on probation is still recognized by PAC and retains its ability to perform on campus. The A Cappella Council meeting Monday night was called to address past and present issues regarding Penn Six, including those concerning the Princeton Wildcats. We had the opportunity to hear from both sides and we thoroughly discussed our concerns with the appropriateness of Penn Six's behavior during the Wildcats' performance. After a healthy dialogue, ACK recommended a series of sanctions to PAC. These sanctions were not recommendations for "administrative probation." PAC met Tuesday night and approved the ACK recommended sanctions. We feel we have addressed all the pertinent issues within the performing arts community and do not intend to specifically address SAC on these issues. We felt that Penn Six has shown a sincere desire to comply with the sanctions in order to remain a member of the performing arts community, and that it would be detrimental to lose such a unique group. Cassandra Georges College '01 Abraham Lo College '02 Georges is chairwoman of the Performing Arts Council. Lo is chairman of the A Cappella Council. Defending ULAR To the Editor: In response to the article ("Employees file bias suit against U.," DP, 4/19/00) regarding the University Laboratory Animal Resources employees' suit against the University: I am a former employee of ULAR, now working with the Institute for Human Gene Therapy's Animal Services Unit, and I find that ULAR employees' action against the University is unjustifiable for the following reasons: 1) ULAR's 35 African-American employees claim wage discrimination. I, as a European-American, was paid comparable wages, and in some instances, less wage, than African-American employees of lesser experience, tenure and qualification. 2) The suit claims that African-American persons interested in lab animal medicine can only find work in ULAR. Overlooked is the fact the IGHT Animal Services Unit's technical staff is mostly African-American, and usually paid at a higher wage than ULAR's staff of comparable rank. Also overlooked is the fact that many African-American personnel have left ULAR and found more rewarding, more challenging careers in lab animal medicine outside of ULAR. 3) The suit also claims that training opportunities were not made available for ULAR personnel. Until recently, training opportunities were made available through ULAR's own continuing education program, later overseen by the IACUC. This program offered AALAS certification classes (and even offered to pay exam fees for qualified students), lectures on lab animal medicine and technology, and "wet labs" in lab animal anatomy and related topics in the field of lab animal medicine. These classes were always under-attended as interest in them was always low. ULAR required their employees to accrue a certain amount of continuing education credits during the calendar year, and many employees failed to meet their required credits on an annual basis. If training was found lacking in ULAR employees, it certainly was not due to lack of availability. Scott Klipstein Lab Animal Technician