509 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/25/03 10:00am)
Amidst the deluge of "friend of the court" briefs being submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the upcoming cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, there are far fewer submissions opposing the University of Michigan's policies.
However, a significant percentage of the estimated 70 amicus curiae briefs that have been submitted to date have asked the court to rule that Michigan's admissions policies are unconstitutional.
Despite odds that seem to show a clear majority in support of Michigan, the disparity in the numbers of briefs filed for each side were attributed by some to the lack of education and awareness on the part of the signatories.
"Right now, it is very politically correct to support race preferences," said John Findley, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, one of the organizations that has filed an amicus brief opposing Michigan. "Certainly academics and big business support it, but perhaps they don't understand the constitutional implications."
Executive Director of the National Association of Scholars Bradford Wilson also agreed that political correctness silences professors who are against racial preferences.
"To speak honestly about one's opinions on this subject is impossible, except for the very brave few," he said.
However, this assertion is opposed by many, including Penn Law professor Anita Allen-Castellitto.
"I think there are very few law professors in the United States that believe that the Michigan program is unlawful and unconstitutional," she said in an interview earlier this month.
In addition to the high profile brief submitted by President Bush, other institutions such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association of Scholars and the Center for New Black Leadership, have weighed in against Michigan's policies.
The ADL typically stands in favor of affirmative action and is a major proponent of diversity and civil rights around the world.
While its brief was officially submitted in support of neither party, it states that "while we support the ends sought by the university and its law school, we cannot agree with their methods."
Instead, the ADL is in favor of more race-neutral policies.
"We're not saying that race shouldn't be a factor... but every applicant should be treated as an individual, not classified or given a proxy just on the virtue that they are of a particular background," ADL Regional Director Barry Morrison said.
While the ADL is opposed to Michigan's specific admissions practices, Morrison pointed out that its "position is not to say that all programs at all schools should be shut down, but the way [Michigan's] program is structured, we think it places undue emphasis on race."
But Morrison did recognize the potential danger this case poses to affirmative action at large.
"Should this ruling be sweeping in nature and go well beyond the facts of this particular case and, for some reason, brings up threats to affirmative action and diversity, we'll... see what we can do to allow, permit and encourage diversity at that level," Morrison said.
The NAS filed its brief based on the "position that students ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their race."
"This is a bedrock moral and legal principle," Wilson said.
NAS also previously released a study refuting Michigan's claim that diversity in the classroom has educational benefits.
Michigan's admissions policies are "a way to rationalize [the school's] view of a just social order," Wilson said.
He charged that Michigan is "trying to wrap [its] desire to use race preferences in the language of traditional academic quality."
"That, I think, is bogus," he added.
Others had similar complaints about the social implications of Michigan's policies.
"It says to people of certain minorities that you don't have to meet the same standards as other people do," Findley said.
"It sends a signal that you don't have to work as hard to make grades as other people do."
The Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation, sees the issue more in terms of private versus public institutions, taking issue with Michigan's policies because it is a public state school.
"Private institutions should be allowed to discriminate because they are private," said Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon. "The real distinction is along the lines of public versus private. Public institutions belong to us all."
Staff reporter Julia Barmeier contributed to this report.
Affirmative action precedent set in 1978 landmark decision
The two cases against the University of Michigan set to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in April are not the first to confront the issue of affirmative action in higher education. The precedent for the use of race in university admissions policies was set by the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.
Bakke is considered one of the most important civil rights decision since the end of segregation and one of the most difficult cases ever heard by the Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision, the court held that Allan Bakke, a white applicant rejected from the University of California at Davis School of Medicine, had been a victim of reverse discrimination as a result of the medical school's use of quotas in its admissions policy.
Five justices argued that the rigid use of racial quotas in the medical school's admissions process violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion was constitutionally permissible.
The opinion in the Bakke case, written by Justice Lewis Powell, states that although the use of quota systems violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a university could consider race a factor in an admissions decision if doing so "could attempt to create [a] diverse body," Law professor David Rudovsky explained.
Powell's "swing vote for the middle ground," Rudovsky said, was the deciding one in this case, and his opinion essentially articulated a compromise between the two viewpoints of the court. It reversed Bakke's admissions decision at the UC-Davis School of Medicine and, at the same time, upheld affirmative action.
Powell's opinion was widely criticized by those who felt it would lead to widespread and aggressive use of racial criteria in university admissions, although "some thought it was appropriate to specifically consider race," Rudovsky said.
Michigan's policies have been accused of resembling quota systems too closely. The decisions of the current Supreme Court cases -- Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger -- will either uphold or change the precedent established by Bakke.
-- Sara Levine
(02/19/03 10:00am)
The University and Penn Law School Dean Michael Fitts have both signed separate "friend of the court" briefs to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court this week in favor of the University of Michigan.
The briefs support Michigan's policy of using race as a factor in admissions, which is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, and also assert that each individual institution should have the right to create its own policy.
Yesterday was scheduled as the final day for submission of amicus curiae briefs. However, with Washington, D.C. under a blanket of snow, it is unknown whether the University's briefs have been formally submitted.
Penn signed one of the two amicus curiae briefs, written by lawyers at Harvard University, along with Brown, Duke, Princeton and Yale universities, the University of Chicago and Dartmouth College.
The brief argues that "academically selective universities have a compelling interest in ensuring that their student bodies incorporate the experiences and talents of the wide spectrum of racial and ethnic groups that make up our society."
The second brief, signed by Fitts, is being filed on behalf of individual law school deans at selective institutions around the country, including Georgetown, Duke, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell and New York universities.
It states that "diversity is a compelling interest in law school admissions because it furthers the educational mission and benefits all students."
At present, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger involving Michigan's race-based admissions policies in its undergraduate and law schools on April 1.
As it now stands, Michigan's undergraduate admissions process works on a point system under which any student receiving more than 150 points is admitted.
Before being challenged and declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, the policy stipulated that minority applicants received an additional 20 points in their overall scores, about as much as one overall grade point in a GPA.
Penn Vice President and General Counsel Wendy White said that this is one of the most important cases to come before the Supreme Court in years and that colleges and universities around the country have a vested interest in the outcome.
"It's a case that will have widespread and dramatic impact on higher education," White said. "The University of Pennsylvania is interested in this extremely important issue as both a matter of public policy and law."
This consortium of universities is not by any means the only group submitting an amicus brief. In fact, according to White, the Supreme Court is likely to receive more than 100 amicus briefs regarding this case. In addition to colleges and universities, a group of Fortune 500 companies as well as General Motors Corporation, the American Bar Association and the National Organization of Women have also filed briefs.
The total number is likely to surpass the current record of 62 briefs submitted in 1978, according to The New York Times.
Perhaps not coincidentally, this record was set the last time affirmative action was an issue before the Supreme Court in the landmark case the University of California Regents v. Bakke, in which the court declared race a legitimate factor in the admissions process, but declined to exactly define the term "affirmative action."
Robert Iuliano, acting vice president and general counsel at Harvard University and co-author of the first brief, explained the reasoning behind submitting the brief as a collective unit of institutions, rather than as a single university.
"The point is that the concerns that we're addressing and the points of view that we offer [in the brief] is a perspective shared by many institutions that have individualized admissions processes -- race is only one factor among many," he said.
"It's not an isolated view held only by Harvard. When a group of institutions combines, it is harder to ignore, the court has to take pause," he added.
While a number of schools appear to be backing Michigan's policy, not many have voiced the opposite opinion.
"No college or university as far as I know, is involved in the amicus on the other side," White said. "In fact, the total number of [amicus] briefs filed against the University of Michigan is significantly small."
Many of those taking Michigan's side argue that race should continue to be a factor in admissions policies, but most, including Penn, do not use the points system that Michigan employs. Still, they do use race as a factor and see it in everyone's best interest to do so.
"What we'd like to do is bring as representative a class each year to Penn as we can, one that is reflective of the society we live in," Admissions Dean Lee Stetson said before the brief had been filed. "We want students to be prepared for [a diverse world]. The only way that can be guaranteed is by bringing a diverse student body to Penn."
Fitts believes law schools have a similar need to create a diverse community.
"I personally believe in the value of diversity in higher education," Fitts said. It is a benefit to everyone "that we have a very diverse student body along a whole range of dimensions including geography, religion, economic status and race."
Amicus curiae briefs can be filed by any party with a vested interest in any case and are not designed to litigate the argument. Often though, White said, the court will find the argument that it is looking for in one of the briefs and cite it in the final ruling -- a circumstance that occurred in the Bakke decision, in which the court cited Harvard's amicus brief as an appropriate use of race in an admissions policy.
While the Michigan case specifically involves racial discrimination in a public institution, private institutions could be affected. Depending on the scope of the ruling, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act -- the law that extends federal anti-discrimination laws to private institutions receiving federal funding -- could come into play. If history is any indication, White said, Penn could very well be affected by the ruling as an institution that receives federal money.
"The private sector believes that the University of Michigan case may have an effect on our policies as well," White said. "Whether [the court] decides broadly or narrowly will alter how the University is affected.
University President Judith Rodin, Provost Robert Barchi, Executive Vice President Clifford Stanley and Admissions Dean Lee Stetson could not be reached for comment yesterday.
(02/18/03 10:00am)
(See below for correction.)
Some colleges and universities may be forced to re-evaluate their admissions policies if the Supreme Court comes down against the University of Michigan's stance on affirmative action in a hearing slated for this spring.
Up to this point, universities have been allowed to use race as a factor in admissions decisions because of a clause that legalizes this practice if it is geared toward the educational benefits of a diverse classroom.
But all that could change this spring, producing a wide range of effects, according to experts.
"We're awaiting the Supreme Court's decision with great interest," Penn Admissions Dean Lee Stetson said. "It could have a bearing on us in a very distinctive way."
Due to legal differences between a state university and a private one, in addition to differences in the admissions policies of Penn and Michigan, it is unclear exactly what the effect of the decision will be on Penn.
"Right now we're in a wait-and-see mode," Stetson added. "We feel that we can work with any reasonable decision that comes from the high court... [but] it could create a challenge for us, in that we will have to work to achieve the same ends, but perhaps with a different approach."
"This will be a major decision," Law Professor Anita Allen-Castellitto said. "It will be one of the most important race-related decisions that the Supreme Court has ever handed down."
In April, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases regarding the University of Michigan's admissions policies -- Grutter v. Bollinger, which concerns the university's law school, and Gratz v. Bollinger, which deals with its undergraduate admissions policy.
The latter case deals specifically with the University of Michigan's use of a 150-point system to offer admission to prospective students.
Under this system, each of a student's characteristics are given a number of points, with students with the most points being offered admission.
Students receive 20 points if they are black or a member of another minority group, while those same 20 points also represent a full letter grade change in grade point average.
In the midst of widespread controversy over the issue, President Bush in January filed a brief, urging the Supreme Court to rule against Michigan's policies.
But many say the stakes are much higher than just admissions. Experts at Penn agree that a ruling against Michigan could set a precedent for future decisions against race-based policies.
"If they rule that all use of affirmative action is unconstitutional, that would have a big impact," Law Professor C. Edwin Baker said.
Allen-Castellitto pointed to the case involving Michigan Law School as particularly important.
"Changing affirmative action changes the legal profession," she said. "I think the outcome could dramatically affect the number of minority lawyers in the country, and minority lawyers have been in the forefront in protecting the rights of the poor, civil rights and human rights."
Both Allen-Castellitto and Law Professor Alan Lerner said they predict -- and fear -- that the Supreme Court will find Michigan's policies unconstitutional.
"I fear that they took the case in order to continue a pattern... of curtailing and cutting back on various kinds of affirmative action programs," Allen-Castellitto said.
"I think there are very few law professors in the United States that believe that the Michigan program is unlawful and unconstitutional," she added.
Lerner said he is so "pessimistic" about the potential outcome of this case that he signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" brief, in support of Michigan's admissions policy. These briefs are submitted by third parties not directly affiliated with the case, but have a vested interest in the outcome.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that Michigan's policies are unconstitutional, the direct effect on Penn admissions remains to be seen.
Penn is a private institution and does not receive funding from the government. As such, depending on the details of the decision, the ruling may not apply to Penn in precisely the same way it would to a state school like Michigan.
But some experts say that distinction is only a matter of degrees.
"I have no doubt that the people who challenged U. Michigan will mount a challenge in private institutions as well," Lerner said.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed affirmative action as it applies to higher education admissions since the controversial 1978 case of Regents of the University at California v. Bakke.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to hold racial quotas for admissions, but that, as Justice Lewis Powell wrote, "The goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race... under some circumstances."
(02/07/03 10:00am)
As international tensions between Iraq and the United States continue to escalate and the probability of war continues to increase, University officials explain that heated relations will most likely have no effect on Penn's study abroad programs.
Though anti-American sentiments may present a potential public relations problem for students studying abroad, the administration believes that if a war with Iraq were to occur, it would be isolated, preventing the cancellation of any Penn-sponsored international program.
According to Director of Undergraduate Study Abroad Geoffrey Gee, he and others "anticipate that if there were to be a war with Iraq, it would have a regional impact."
Gee explained that because the University has no programs based in the Middle East, such cancellations -- either now or in the future -- will most likely not become necessary.
He added that "if there is fallout in any part of the world in terms of anti-American sentiment... [the University and the Office of International Programs] will react to that."
Currently, over 20 percent of the University's undergraduate student body studies abroad each year -- last academic year, 437 Penn students took courses in other countries.
School of Arts and Sciences Dean Samuel Preston echoed Gee's belief that if such a conflict were to occur, it would not affect Penn-based international academics.
Preston also noted that even after the disastrous attacks of Sept. 11 and President Bush's declaration of war on terror, less than 1 percent of those studying abroad returned to the University.
"You look back at 9-11... out of the 300 or so of the students studying abroad, only three came back," Preston said.
Such reassurance may help increase student confidence in the stability of study abroad programs -- a faith which was shaken one year ago when University officials were forced to suspend Penn's program in Israel during the spring 2002 semester.
After the U.S. State Department's advisories became more drastic -- due to rising tensions and security concerns -- University officials contacted the four Penn students studying in the region and requested that they return home.
Along with Penn, the University of California system, the University of Colorado and the University of Southern California also decided to call their abroad students to return to the U.S. around that time.
The suspension has yet to be lifted for study abroad programs in Israel.
According to College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman, such choices required of the administration are never easily made.
"Decisions about whether to suspend study abroad programs because of world events are very definitely judgment calls," Beeman wrote in an e-mail.
He continued explaining that such actions are "almost always based on imperfect knowledge and the need to balance our concern for our students' educational opportunities with our concern for their safety."
Even after such a mid-semester cancellation, administrators must grapple with how -- and if -- students can count the academic progress they made while abroad.
In such circumstances, Gee explained that issues over the completion of course work and the payment of abroad expenses are always dealt with on a situation-by-situation basis.
He remarked that although problems are more complex when students are required to leave the programs mid to late in the semester -- rather than at the beginning of the academic period -- Gee said that the "University can be counted on to act responsibly in regard to its students."
(01/20/03 10:00am)
With the Trent Lott debacle of last December, political pundits from across the country assumed the Republican Party would abandon its core principles and cave on racial issues. These predictions seemed on target when Senator Lott publicly declared himself a supporter of affirmative action during an interview on Black Entertainment Television.
But President George W. Bush is a principled fighter. He will not accept a policy as misguided as affirmative action because of pressure from special interest groups. In the words of the eminent TV philosopher Homey the Clown of In Living Color fame, "Homey don't play that."
Last Wednesday, President Bush made the decision to file a "friend of the court" brief opposing affirmative action in the cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, now heading to the Supreme Court to be heard this spring.
Nowhere is the moral bankruptcy of affirmative action better illustrated than in these cases. The University of Michigan is being challenged for its use of race in the undergraduate and law school admissions processes. The university grades candidates on a point system, with 100 out of a possible 150 usually good for admission. A perfect SAT score is worth a meager 12 points. The color of your skin can earn you a whopping 20 points.
Ironically, the beneficiaries of such admissions policies are rarely underprivileged but in fact from well-to-do families. Should the child of a wealthy black businessman receive a 20-point preference over the child of a working-class mechanic from Detroit?
Not only are these preferential treatments immoral, they're also illegal. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
So a program that receives federal funding cannot differentiate between applicants based on race, color or national origin. Nothing to debate. Nothing to discuss. It's that simple.
Yet affirmative action has remained at least marginally legal in this country for many decades. Thanks to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, universities have been able to discriminate for or against applicants based on race as long as they don't use a numerical quota system in doing so.
How did this violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 become codified in case law? Through unmitigated judicial activism. A group of five Supreme Court justices decided to legislate from the bench and override the law of the land because they felt they had a "compelling government interest" in doing so. But if we allow our judges to change the law based on their own personal whims, then why even bother to have a legislature or a written Constitution?
Most Americans realize the hypocrisy of preferential treatment in college admissions and hiring. According to a Washington Post poll conducted in the spring of 2001, 92 percent of Americans are opposed to race-based preferences, including 86 percent of African Americans.
While affirmative action was originally intended to rectify past discrimination, its proponents now argue for it based on the need for "diversity" on college campuses. Most people on college campuses want diversity. But diversity is more than skin deep. True diversity includes differences in thought, culture, background and experience. Skin color should have no more bearing on this than height, weight or shoe size.
There are reasonable programs that can benefit underprivileged minorities while passing both legal and moral litmus tests. But these programs should be based on economic position rather than race. Universities should seek out promising students who haven't had access to the opportunities afforded to wealthier students, regardless of their skin color. The government should develop programs that extend credit to entrepreneurs establishing businesses in impoverished areas. These programs will directly benefit minorities that need help, without generating the much-deserved outrage of current preferential treatment programs.
I believe people in both major political parties ultimately have the same goal -- that every American, regardless of skin color, has access to a quality education and the opportunity to be successful. But using race as a factor in hiring or in college admissions is antithetical to this mission. It's exactly what we're supposed to be fighting against.
I applaud the Bush administration for its stand on the issue. Hopefully, the days of color-conscious admissions policies will soon be buried on the ash heap of history where they rightfully belong.
David Copley is a sophomore Finance and Real Estate major from Bellevue, Wash.
(11/26/02 10:00am)
A Yale pro-Israel student group set up a vigil of photographs and biographies for victims of a northern Israel car bombing on Oct. 22 -- the following morning the members found their memorial destroyed, their pictures removed and other objects broken.
(04/10/02 9:00am)
Just say no to the war on drugs.
(04/09/02 9:00am)
The University's suspension of Penn Abroad programs in Israel last week is not an unusual reaction among American universities, many of which have also pulled students out of the nation due to increasing violence in the Middle East.
(04/01/02 10:00am)
*This article appeared in the 4/1/02 Joke Issue*Looks like someone is just too cool for Penn.
(02/05/02 10:00am)
In response to the recent claims of racially-motivated incidents involving Penn Police, the Undergraduate Assembly has passed a resolution to urge the administration to create a forum for students where they can voice their complaints.
(12/12/01 10:00am)
This page may load slowly.
Please
be patient.
Click here for the
2002 Year Ahead Section.
Life at Penn this year was not particularly
different from
any other year, with the usual trials and tribulations
experienced by
students and staff - until Sept. 11, when the lives of everyone
at this
University and across the nation changed forever.
University officials responded immediately to
the needs
of the community following the terrorist attacks, canceling the
day's
classes, setting up a room full of phones equipped with free
long distance
so students could contact friends and family members and
planning
numerous
counseling sessions and services for the distraught. Some
professors even
modified the content of their classes to address the issues
surrounding
the attacks.
So far, 14 alumni have been identified as
victims of the
tragedy.
Muslim student groups tried to combat racist
sentiments
following Sept. 11 by attempting to educate the Penn
community about their
religion's true attitude toward terrorism through various
events, such
as Islam Awareness Week.
Penn has also responded to the war in
Afghanistan in many
different ways. Penn for Peace set up tents and banners on
College Green,
and students sent menorahs to Jewish American soldiers in
celebration
of Hanukkah.
As tensions in the Middle East escalated with
suicide
bombings
in Israel on Dec. 1 and 2, students showed their solidarity with
Israel
and their desire for peace through a rally on College Green.
To start the year off, however, Political Science
Professor
John DiIulio left to take charge of the White House's Office of
Faith-Based
initiatives. Students hoped their demands for a 24-hour diner
on campus
would finally be met by El Diner. By the fall, DiIulio returned to
Penn
as promised, but El Diner shut its doors after only four months
in operation.
The space was taken over by the Philly Diner in October.
In April, a graduate student alleged that he had
been
attacked
in a racially-motivated assault by Campus Copy Center
employees. The
student,
Gregory Seaton, filed a lawsuit against the store, but later
dropped it.
Penn lost School of Social Work Dean Ira
Schwartz and
General
Counsel Peter Erichsen, but also hired deans for the School
of Nursing
and the School of Medicine. A new chief of staff, vice president
for public
safety and chief of police were also appointed.
Dining Services caused an uproar by setting
requirements
on the number of meals freshmen were required to purchase
and decided
to close down Stouffer Dining Commons.
The year 2001 also marked the 125th
anniversary of women
at Penn, drawing alumni back in droves to celebrate during
Homecoming
weekend.
Between the reopening of Billybob and impending arrival of
El Diner,
students were welcomed by many changes when they
returned to campus
in
January.
UMOJA found a new home in the ARCH building, and the
Social
Planning
and Events Committee coined the year's Spring Fling `The
Sweetest
Fling.'
On the administrative side of Penn, a committee began
deliberations
over the future of the $1.9 billion University of Pennsylvania
Health
System, as rumors circulated that the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia
might become a possible buyer or partner in negotiations.
Additionally, Lori Doyle, the former Health System
spokeswoman, was
appointed
as Penn's new director of communications, capping off a
six-month search.
The start of 2001 brought some departures from the Penn
campus, as
well.
Political Science Professor John DiIulio announced that he
would be taking
a leave of absence to head up the White House Office of
Faith-Based
initiatives.
Penn also suffered from the loss of English Professor
Lynda Hart, who
died after a battle with breast cancer at the age of 47.
The realm of higher education felt the shock of the sudden
murders of
Dartmouth College professors Susanne and Half Zantop, who
were found
stabbed
to death in their homes at the end of the month.
Harvard University narrowed its search for a new president,
while former
U.S. vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore signed
for a job
teaching journalism at Columbia University. - Mary
Clarke-Pearson
February
may be the shortest month of the year, but in 2001 it was
jam-packed with
openings and closings, beginnings and endings.
Perhaps the biggest news came when the decision was
made not to sell
the financially struggling $1.9 billion University of
Pennsylvania Health
System. After months of speculation about the fate of the
beleaguered
system, Penn ultimately opted to spin off the Health System
into a separate
non-profit organization that would still be affiliated with the
University.
February proved to be a good month for West Philadelphia
retailers,
with the opening of El Diner and the reopening of Billybob. But
the
University
suffered a setback in its relationship with the neighboring
community,
as the Penn-Assisted Public School chose to close its doors,
at least
for the time being.
Provost Robert Barchi began his fireside chats with
students, as John
DiIulio officially announced his leave of absence from Penn to
begin his
term as head of the White House Office of Faith-Based
Initiatives.
University Trustee George Weiss donated $20 million to
his alma mater
to bolster financial aid and establish a campus technology
hub.
In the beginning of February, students and faculty alike had
a pleasant
surprise when an unexpected blizzard hit Philadelphia,
bringing snowball
fights, a picturesque Locust Walk and, for some, a
mini-vacation when
a few professors cancelled class.
Elsewhere in the world, the University of California called
for the end
of the SATs as an entrance requirement, the alleged murderers of two
Dartmouth
professors were arrested and the Israelis elected Ariel
Sharon as prime
minister.
At Penn, University involvement in the community was a
controversial
issue for West Philadelphia residents, and the opening of the
much-anticipated
Freshgrocer was delayed again. And while the search for a
new nursing
dean was in its early stages, the departure of Vice President
and Chief
of Staff Steven Schutt meant that another administrative
search would
have to begin.
But some on this campus will remember February for
giving them a taste
of March Madness, as the woman's basketball team clinched
its first-ever
Ivy League championship. - Dina Ackermann
(12/04/01 10:00am)
It is inevitable that an event as monumental as Sept. 11 will have
an effect on almost all aspects of society. One of those aspects
will be crime.
(11/20/01 10:00am)
Although Anirban Majumdar's closest friends at Penn had only known him for a
few months, they said they would not forget his kindness and sincerity.
(10/31/01 10:00am)
As the public learns more and more about the terrorists suspected
of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks, one new development may
have a tremendous impact upon today's college students.
(10/03/01 9:00am)
Federal investigators have been enlisting the help of college
administrators as they continue to track thousands of leads
related to last month's deadly terrorist attacks.
(09/26/01 9:00am)
Witnessing, and sometimes experiencing, the backlash against
minorities following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has prompted
students at Penn to discuss their role in American society in a
week-long campaign.
(09/26/01 9:00am)
As the nation's economy continues to plummet, many are
wondering how crime rates will react following the large increase
in unemployment in the past few weeks.
(09/06/01 9:00am)
After 16 months without a permanent dean, the Nursing School
yesterday named Afaf Meleis as its new leader.
(08/02/01 9:00am)
There will not be any upsets at the Ivy League Tournament for women's
volleyball in 2001.
(06/28/01 9:00am)
WASHINGTON -- One member of Congress was once a single mother on
welfare.
