Letters to the Editor

Supporting the Catholics

To the Editor:

Last week, Dan Gomez attacked Democrats ("Fighting Catholicism at virtually every turn," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 9/8/03) as anti-Catholic for blocking Bush's nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Gomez is simply jumping on the conservative bandwagon of depicting Democrats as anti-Catholic, anti-Hispanic or anti-woman for opposing the judicial nominations of people from these minority groups -- groups that have long supported the Democratic Party.

It would be hard to deny that the decision to filibuster was political. Pryor is one of the most conservative of Bush's nominees, having expressed contempt for the Violence Against Women Act, Roe v. Wade, Miranda rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and echoed the controversial words of Sen. Rick Santorum regarding Lawrence v. Texas.

Regardless of the politics involved, to throw religion into the mix is shameful, especially in a time when religious tensions are running high. Nor does it make much sense to denounce Democrats as anti-Catholic when several are Catholic themselves (including three members of the Judiciary Committee and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle). Daschle has reminded Republicans that they publicly questioned John Kennedy's independence from the pope in 1960, as they are now claiming Democrats are doing to Pryor.

To say that Pryor won't get his judgeship because of his religion is foolish. He won't get the job because he has repeatedly shown himself to break with the consensus of mainstream America. Pryor would use a seat on the circuit court to undermine a century's progress on issues of individual rights, as he has worked to do as Alabama's attorney general. The sources of Pryor's beliefs are irrelevant because it is the beliefs themselves that are dangerous to the courts and to our freedom.

Matt Berns

College '06

Misplaced criticism

To the Editor:

I have enjoyed reading The Daily Pennsylvanian for over 25 years and consider it the finest college newspaper in the nation. It has always had a singular weakness, however. Its senior editorial writers, having endured the "insults" of four years of being treated like actual reporters, receiving the same snubs and rejections any good reporter receives, decide it is payback time. This has reached a low point in lack of candor and outright maliciousness in Amy Potter's unpleasant attack on Steve Bilsky ("The straw that breaks the AD's back," DP, 9/11/03).

Potter begins her screed by discussing the recent reverse discrimination case lost by the University. While there is plenty of criticism to go around for what occurred in the case, Potter really had no interest in the case -- rather, she simply wants to punish Bilsky because he was not sufficiently responsive to her requests for interviews while she was a sportswriter. She then goes on to suggest that Bilsky is not qualified to be athletic director and got his job solely because he was a fine player at Penn. Perhaps being the athletic director at George Washington University previously may have also qualified him for the position.

Similarly, Potter is miffed because Bilsky would not give her an interview about Ivy League policies for athletics and she was forced to ask Judith Rodin to explain them to her. Was it unintentional to omit that these policies were passed by the Ivy League presidents and it would have been unseemly for Bilsky to undercut his own president by discussing them?

For the record, Steve Bilsky has done a fabulous job as Penn's AD -- from fundraising (his primary duty, when it comes down to it) and rehabilitating the entire physical plant of the Athletic Department, to hiring competent coaches who connect to the athletes and to winning championships while maintaining academic integrity. This is his job -- not making Potter's job easier.

Jonathan Bart College '78

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.