We don't need a nanny
To the Editor:
As a Penn professor, I expect and encourage my students to make their own choices and to take responsibility for them. Yet, the Undergraduate Assembly's decision to look into a campus-wide music subscription service ("UA looks to adopt campus file-sharing network," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/22/04) implies that Penn students are incapable of making their own decisions about something as simple as music consumption.
A fee-based subscription service imposes costs on students while restricting their choice of music and listening method to what the service offers. An opt-in service would put Penn in the dubious role of marketing agent for a music distribution company. Either way, Penn is asked to play a role totally outside of its educational mission, as the UA chairman recognizes.
Music production and consumption, copyrights, fair use, artist rights and which models will encourage cultural growth in a networked age are important questions that the Penn community can make valuable contributions to. More generally, thought, choice and responsibility are fundamental educational values for all of us. Those questions and values would be debased by the proposed music download nanny.
Fernando Pereira The writer is the Rachleff professor of computer and information science and chairman of the Computer and Information Science Department.
Misconceptions about SAC
To the Editor:
I appreciate Kevin Collins' column about political participation ("Penn must foster a political culture," DP, 11/16/04). I share his passion for political involvement in the college-age constituency, especially at Penn. That is why it is for me a mark of pride, as well, to see a 280 percent increase in Penn voting this year, and furthermore why Collins' misconception of Student Activities Council policy worries me and warrants a response.
As a member of the SAC Executive Committee, the branch of student government charged with fairly distributing the University's money to over 208 student groups, I would like to clarify the policy that is currently in place for political and ideological funding, and the reasoning behind it.
First, SAC does not fund the general operating costs of any group that by nature or mission supports or advances any one party, candidate or ideology. This has nothing to do with tax codes or avoiding Penn's entanglement with politics (though it helps). The reason for this rule, as I see it, is fairness. Everyone pays into the general fee, out of which SAC funds flow. Penn for Choice members might be a bit dissatisfied if their parents' money were going to fund the Penn for Life group. Because a disproportionate number of organizations representing a certain viewpoint (i.e., groups with no counterpart) may arise, and because fairly funding groups according to their needs and projects may produce unfair inequality among the opposing views, SAC chooses to stay out of this funding block entirely.
This, however, does not mean that SAC does not share Collins' desire to foster political engagement on Penn's campus. SAC currently funds, on a contingency basis, events held by one or more partisan or ideological groups which promote dialogue on an issue.
For example, during my tenure, SAC has funded the Penn College Republicans and Penn College Democrats for debate events that brought out more than one viewpoint. It is important to draw the distinction: SAC seeks to spur, not stifle, political and ideological discussion while, as a responsible and non-partisan body, not promoting any one ideology, party or candidate over another.
With this issue clarified, it seems that the changes that Collins called for in his column have already been implemented. If groups were as mistaken as Kevin was, thankfully all that has been necessary to resolve this issue is dialogue -- proving once more the value of discourse on Penn's campus.
Philip Gommels College '06 The writer is the vice chairman of SAC.
