Letters to the Editor

Saying no to co-ed housing

To the Editor:

In endorsing coeducational housing ("Co-ed housing proposal uncertain," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/12/03), the UA has once again shown that it is reckless in its attempts to represent the student body. Co-ed housing creates an unstable, unsafe environment for undergraduate students.

Although the argument for co-ed housing centers on the heterocentrism of the current policy, it is important to consider the negative consequences that co-ed housing would have on heterosexual students, and the tense sexual situations that would arise. Dangerous circumstances arise when irresponsible young men and women have such easy access to each other's residences. A steady increase in on-campus sexual crime at Wesleyan, Brown and Haverford since those schools instituted their co-ed housing policies exemplifies truth in this statement.

It is unrealistic to suppose that couples would not take advantage of a co-ed housing policy. Young people making immature decisions will put themselves into situations that are difficult to escape. What may have seemed like a good idea at the end of freshman year may not seem so appetizing after a summer apart. Broken-up relationships will lead to a muddled housing system, as Housing and Conference Services is forced to relocate the result of its misguided policies.

It is unconscionable that the UA did not consider the broader consequences of such a controversial policy. Its support for co-ed housing highlights a longer-term trend within the UA of being a voice not for Penn's undergraduate students, but for special interests on campus, as evidenced by its monetary support for busing to a pro-affirmative action rally in Washington, D.C. last year. The UA should use more care with such controversial issues.

On a side note, the assertion that "most Penn students were in favor of the housing initiative" is unfounded. I hope the DP is more conscientious in the future.

John Backes College '06

Freshman dining needs work

To the Editor:

There is a struggle we freshmen face on campus. We have already grown accustomed to the routine of campus; our struggle lies not in settling in to campus life, but rather in continuing to survive.

We have all been forced by Aramark to accept a meal plan. Essentially, all our meals have been paid for, be it through Dining Dollars or through meals. So why should freshmen be expected to eat anywhere but campus dining? Why can I not get a meal for myself after 9 p.m.? Aramark has forced me to starve after 9 p.m.

It is unfair for us to have to use the food carts because we technically already own our food by paying for it through the bursar bill. Now that the food carts will be closing down at 6 p.m., our options are even more limited. Seeing as three area food eateries will have even more delayed openings than originally expected, we are stuck.

Thank you, Aramark, for providing the starving freshmen of this university with late-night dining options for four nights for the rest of the semester. Aramark has clearly responded to the surveys concerning campus dining, but not to the right degree. We need more.

If the university intends to force freshmen into spending money on pre-paid meals and Dining Dollars, it needs to find a way to allow us to use said meals and Dining Dollars when we like. Make the dining halls stay open later or find alternatives so that we can get food when we want without having to dip into our pockets.

Ezra Billinkoff College '07

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