LETTERS: Tuesday, April 18, 2000

Leave Bobby V. alone Leave Bobby V. aloneTo the Editor: I have always been a huge Met fan, although I have never really been a big supporter of Valentine's. However, his enthusiasm and refreshing honesty won me over. Rather than give the typical politician's politically correct answer to every possible controversial question, Valentine offered his opinions on the stated assumption that what he said would not leave the room. Unfortunately, one Penn student decided to post his words on the Mets' Web site anyway. Valentine gets criticized enough for many of the things he says; he should not have to worry about his remarks being misinterpreted by one student looking for attention. Having attended the session, I know that the overall feeling of most of what he said about his team was overwhelmingly positive. Douglas Silversten Wharton '00 To the Editor: Thank-you for your balanced editorial on e-privacy ("More changes on e-privacy," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 4/17/00). I am encouraged by and applaud your coverage of this issue, especially since when I last tried to have such a policy enacted (in 1996) there was no such interest. With respect to searches of students' e-mail, the current proposed policy defines standards (what can trigger a search), provisions for authorization (who can give permission for one) and notification. As you note, the explicit and strong standards and the comprehensive notification provision are improvements made as the policy moved through University Council and the authorization provision has been tightened, too. Although they contain modifiers like "upon a good faith belief" and "as soon as practicable," these are eminently reasonable and have a clear meaning, while protecting the University from frivolous litigation. The standards, authorization and notification requirements are also synergistic. Not only is the threshold set at a high level, but a senior University official must agree that it has been met, and notification ensures that the subject can question and/or publicize these decisions if (s)he believes them to have been capricious or unjustified. The proposed policy confers strong protection, compares favorably with those of our peers, and I believe will serve all categories of the University community well. Martin Pring Professor of Physiology The writer is chairman of University Council's Committee on Communications. To the Editor: I would like to address a comment that was made in the April 13 "Word on the Walk." As a black Penn student, I was surprised by a comment made in response to the question, "What are you planning to do during Spring Fling?" The question provoked many funny and interesting remarks but the comment that disturbed me was, "Black folks don't do Fling," made by another black Penn student. I understand that this particular student and her friends might not have participated in the Fling events, but she should not speak for all black students at Penn. Personally, I participated in as many of these activities as I could and had a great time. There were a variety of bands performing and activities taking place so everyone might find something that interested them. Besides the fact that this comment grouped all black people on Penn's campus into one group, it perpetuates racism. By lumping all black people into one group who do not participate in one of the biggest social events at Penn, it makes us all appear to be segregating ourselves from the non-black community. Lysandra Gibbs Wharton '03