To the Editor: The befuddlement about low voter turnout for Undergraduate Assembly elections ("Student elections face low voter turnout," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 4/3/01) demonstrates just how distant the UA is from the student body and why so few Penn students bothered to vote in the election. Students did not choose to "to put off voting until the last minute," as the article suggests, or suffer the effects of "poor exposure," as UA member Jed Gross argues. Rather, students did not vote because they justifiably do not care about who wins and because the minutes that it might take to vote could be better spent surfing the Web. No matter who serves on the UA, I am sure that we can expect another year full of 5K runs, tree plantings and late evening basketball at the gym. But I, like the majority of Penn students, will be little affected by these initiatives. And for all the polls that suggest that students will take advantage of the new basketball courts at 38th and Spruce, I will take a leap and predict what will happen: low turnout followed by UA confusion as to why. The issues that affect students lives are not free cookies on College Green or cross-campus races, but next year's skyrocketing tuition, the fact that campus parties are forced to close when most students would like to just be going out and the still dismal video rental options on campus. And, on these important issues, the UA is impotent. The University's important matters are not handled by the UA but by the Rodin administration and the Trustees. If the UA wants more students to care about elections, they need to demonstrate that student votes affect real change for student life, not just continue to furrow their brows and plan more posters in the Quad.
Michael Hartman College '02 To the Editor: While I do not decry the recent collaboration between the Penn Orchestra and Beijing opera singer Sun Ping, I am appalled that the University continues its current collaboration and relationship with the People's Republic of China without a critical eye. The P.R.C.ÿcurrently restricts and persecutes persons who are practitioners of Falun Gong, a spritiual practice originating in that country. Falun Gong was once acclaimed by Beijing, only to be openlyÿrepressed at the present time by the government -- a repression that includes police harassment and monitoring, detainment and torture. What is even more incredulous is the existence of government propoganda and lies thatÿattempt to paint practitioners of Falun Gong as a cult and threat. Moreover, the P.R.C. has recentlyÿdetained several scholars for reasons that remain cloudy and without logical justification. Let this be a warning to members of the Penn Orchestra who plan to tour China in May. The P.R.C. continues to exist as a nation characterized by intolerance of dissent, free speech, freedom of religion and other basic rights we take for granted. Before we rush to embrace representatives of the P.R.C. again in the future, let us think critically of what the reality of the situation is in China and rethink our current "open arms" policy.
James Yoo College '01
To the Editor: Once again, the voice of the sanctimonious white male makes a statement decrying the actions of others -- others who have been the victims of oppression in this particular country for centuries. When an institution or organization fails to respond to its constituents -- and the African-American students at Brown are a part of that constituency -- action must follow. In Ben Geldon's recent column ("Keeping open the exchange of ideas," DP, 3/26/01), he discusses the notion that the African-American students who participated in civil disobedience by stealing an entire daily press run of The Brown Daily Herald should be punished for their actions because they disrupted the exchange of free ideas among their fellow colleagues. When the students asked the Herald to display a measure of sensitivity and offer advertising space to the African-American community to respond, the editors denied the request. The acceptance of the offensive David Horowitz ad and -- and the Herald's refusal to offer free space for a counterposition, along with its refusal to merely act in a sensitive manner -- clearly necessited the action of concerned members of the Brown community. The issue would be different if the ad were an article and there was data and evidence to be refuted. However, a 10-point ad printed by the newspaper shows tacit, if not overt, support of the comments made. What is left to do? Take action. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others refused to be bowed and broke the valued laws of the land, they were decried by those just like Geldon as criminals. Yet, when the world -- or in this case the editorial staff of the Herald -- does not listen, action is necessary. Were the actions of the African-American students extreme? No. Should the Brown students who participated in the act of civil disobedience be reprimanded in some way? Yes. Should the Herald be reprimanded for sponsoring hate speech and promulgating racist ideology that is not in the context of academic freedom? Definitely. The act of taking the newspapers was an act of expression, one that has been heralded since this country's founding. Before we castigate those responsible, remember freedom of the press and expression are not licenses to act with impunity.
Simon David Mitchell Law '02
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.