To the Editor: I am deeply concerned about the mandatory meal plan for incoming freshmen. As yet, they have no voice in campus issues, and it is up to us, their upperclassmen "siblings," to stand up for their right to choose when, where and how often they eat. Therefore, I propose that no upperclassman Penn student buy any meal plan for the coming year. Perhaps this will force the powers-that-be at dining to reconsider this preposterous plan. I myself, will not buy a meal plan for the coming year until they have revoked the mandatory freshman plan. I encourage readers to do the same.
Rebecca Davidson College '03
To the Editor: Congratulations, Dining Services! Give yourselves a big pat on the back. By making the idiotic decision to increase the minimum number of declining meals a student can buy from 70 to 160, you have just lost the business of not only myself, but my five housemates as well. As upperclassmen, we frequent the dining halls each night for dinner as a way of catching up with our friends -- what the administration would call "building community." But by presenting us with the impossible task of eating 160 meals in one year, we will all eat dinner at home, at a restaurant or from a food truck. Dining Services, you have failed at both of your supposed goals: fostering community as well as "stabilizing your finances."
Katie Klein College '02
To the Editor: Alex Hurst's real solution to the Social Security problem ("Securitizing for the future," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 4/10/2001) actually suggests the elimination of the system. After selling or borrowing "against their future Social Security benefits," many people would reach old age without income. It is to avoid such a scenario that Social Security forces us to postpone consumption. Hurst believes that we must "put Social Security funds to work for us right now," thus ignoring the founding principle of social insurance. Like any insurance, Social Security should work when the risk that it covers (old age, disability, etc.) arises, not "right now." Social Security privatization, as it is presented nowadays, proposes to transfer the administration of savings from the government to private pension funds. That is a serious idea that deserves attention. It does not consider allowing the individuals to use their savings now. As Hurst reckons, most young Americans do not believe they will collect Social Security benefits. What would then prevent them from squandering those benefits today, if allowed to? In the long run, poverty in old age would skyrocket and the government would have to do something about it. Either let the old and poor starve to death or substitute welfare for Social Security. And then we will have to talk about "welfare reform" again.
Mariano Sana GSFA '04Comments powered by Disqus
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.