LETTERS: Wednesday, April 19, 2000

Police went too farPolice went too farTo the Editor: On Saturday night, I saw a student accidentally move a barricade blocking entrance to Superblock from the corner of 39th and Walnut streets. A police officer rushed over to the student and grabbed him from behind and demanded he replace the barricade. The student obliged, but his housemate asked the police officer to not handle the student in such a manner. The police officer became angry at the student's insistence and arrested him -- and him only-- for disorderly conduct. There was no resistance from either student. The event in retrospect might be minor in comparison to the major party break-ups over Fling weekend, but it shows again how the University Police were too quick to act without considering the fairness of their actions. For the University Police, Fling every year must be a security headache and I applaud their efforts for doing such a great job. Keeping an eye out for so many students' safety and maintaining order in such chaos is a hard task to handle and must be trying on the nerves, especially at the end of the night. But I believe that as people entrusted to enforce the law, the responsibility of the badge must come first. Using discretion and judgment in maintaining order is what distinguishes a police officer from an angry person abusing his power. Dina Yin College '00 To the Editor: The editorial ("More changes on e-privacy") and column ("QueenJudy e-mails DoctorBob") in Monday's DP about the proposed e-mail privacy policy are based on principles with which it is hard to argue. Penn, however, lives in an environment of laws, responsibilities and liabilities, and any policy on this subject represents a balance of forces. I strongly believe that the policy as published now is the best balance we can achieve at the present time. It is important to recognize, moreover, that in the absence of this policy, students, faculty and staff have in fact and in law far less protection than they will have with the policy. University Council Steering Committee Chairman Larry Gross recommended that we enact the policy with the express intent of reviewing its application within two years to see how it can be improved. That was a wise and statesmanlike suggestion and I support it wholeheartedly. James O'Donnell Vice Provost for Information Systems and Computing To the Editor: Andrew Exum's satirical column on the new e-mail invasion policy ("QueenJudy e-mails DoctorBob," DP, 4/17/00) is right on target. He brings out the major flaws in the codification of a policy to read student e-mails. Monday's editorial ("More changes on e-privacy, DP, 4/17/00) also did well to shed more detail on the policy and its provisions. In fact, the only missing link in passing a strict policy which guards our Constitutional right to privacy is student action. It seems, though, that action need not be all that radical or time consuming, which would violate Penn apathy codes, I understand. Consensus exists to make our case as students that e-mail is private and, like any mail, should not be subjected to a special degree of scrutiny simply because of its accessibility. Penn students should take the most simple action -- the action that Barchi himself said would influence this policy -- and comment to the administration. E-mail the provost and express dissatisfaction with the legislation of e-mail spying. Perhaps we can actually make a difference. Write a letter and forward it to your friends -- and to Barchi. Yonaton Rosenzweig College '02 The writer is president of the Penn chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. To the Editor: As a professor of journalism, I have been using the sad and ambiguous Bobby Valentine controversy as a lesson to demonstrate how the media can create news instead of merely report it. Now that all of the facts are seemingly out, it appears that both The Daily Pennsylvanian and the major New York newspapers could have prevented this situation from spinning out of control. While I laud the DP's decision to release excerpts of Valentine's discussion with Penn students, the DP's failure to release the transcripts in a timely manner is borderline negligence. The statements demonstrate how "Brad34's" posts to the Mets Web site were taken out of context. If such tapes were made public at the outset, there would have been no unjust damage to Valentine's reputation. In addition, the lack of patience demonstrated by the New York newspapers allowed this story to blow up. The first breaking story to respond to Brad's post appeared on Friday afternoon in The New York Post. Both Valentine and Matt Wurst, a Penn student who worked for the Mets and attended the speech, claimed that the remarks were taken out of context and meant to entertain the students in attendance. Because the Post and the Daily News could not corroborate their stories, both were vilified in Saturday's papers. Wurst's credibility was questioned while reporters were calling for Valentine's head. Later that day, the reporters were able to speak to other witnesses present and get ahold of Thursday's DP and read the story that justified Valentine's denial of the severity of his remarks. Lies were reported, public opinion was formed and reputations were damaged. If only reporters could uncover all of the facts before stories were written, journalism would be a lot more credible and innocent victims might be spared. Thank you for helping to give my students an invaluable lesson. Thomas Mowbray The writer is a professor of journalism at Cambridge University in Norfolk, England.