Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(09/07/01 9:00am)
This past spring, Penn's administration announced that nine of Penn's 12
schools would begin paying the health insurance premiums of their fully-funded
graduate students. However, as the details of the 2001-2002 Penn Student
Insurance Plan slowly emerged, it became clear that many graduate students
will actually be worse off under the new arrangement.
(09/16/97 9:00am)
Congratulations! You're in college. You're on a beautiful campus. You may be in a city for the first time. You may also be living on your own for the first time. It would be easy to believe that everything is perfect and that nothing can touch you. Don't be fooled. These people are criminals -- opportunists who seek out students like you. They assume you are wide-eyed and naive, with plenty of money in your pocket and not a care in the world. They assume you don't know any better. Let them know they are wrong. Just because there are lifeguards out there doesn't mean that you don't need to know how to swim. You have to take responsibility for your own personal safety. Be a tough target. I have spent more than a decade traveling all around the country talking about how common sense, awareness of your surroundings, and even having a big mouth can keep you from being the target of a crime. I talk about street smarts. I will be at the Palestra tomorrow night. (I have it on good authority that the sound system will be in good working order!) It's my second visit to Penn. The tough target strategies I'll be talking about follow four basic principles. Get your scissors. Cut these principles out and hang them in your room. Share them with your friends They could save your life. 1. Have a Plan A crime can happen to anyone anytime, anywhere. It can happen to you, so you've got to be prepared. You've got to have a plan. If you have a plan, you can adapt it to where you are and what you are doing: walking down the street, riding in an elevator, going to your car. Street smarts apply in every circumstance: · Pay attention to your surroundings. (Don't wear headphones while jogging!) · Look tough by carrying yourself confidently. It's not how tough you are but how tough you look. · Conceal your money by wearing your purse with the strap across your body or under your coat, or use a fanny pack. · Cross the street if you see someone acting suspiciously. · If it feels bad, trust your instincts and get out of the situation. 2. Do Not Get in the Car If someone tries to take you into a car or down an alley, do not go! Ever! Some of the worst crimes happen when criminals take their victims to a "secondary crime scene," a place other than where they were initially confronted. They take their victims in cars, and many of these people never come back. You cannot allow this to happen under any circumstances. Do not get in the car. Do not go down the alley. Just make a pact with yourself that you just won't do it. 3. Attract Attention If you are in trouble, or if you see someone else in trouble, yell "Fire!" The mention of a fire gets everyone's attention. And the last thing a criminal wants is to be the center of attention. So shout, scream, do whatever it takes to draw attention to the situation and get help. 4. Take Action The rules are simple: ·If you are confronted, give up your property. If someone demands your purse, your wallet, or even your coat, give it up and get away. Do not wait around for request No. 2! ·If fleeing is an option, it's always your best option. If the attack is physical, you have got to respond. You cannot let the criminal have control. There is a fifth principle, what I like to call the "Golden Rule" of safety: Help one another. If you see someone in trouble, do something. For the next four years, this is your home and you are family to one another. Do what any family does: take care of yourselves and take care of each other. I'll see you tomorrow night.
(09/08/97 9:00am)
School has been back in session for a week now, and with the new year has come a new pack of freshmen, flooding their ways onto Locust Walk. And it seems like someone should warn them. The Walk is not just a really long hallway between Psych 001 and English 014; it's a social environment with its own set of quirks and rules that we'd all do best to keep in mind. Perhaps the most important thing to be aware of when walking the Walk is what your "visual range" is. Visual range is the distance at which you first recognize people passing by you on the Walk. Some people will recognize their friends and classmates from a dozen yards away; others can't spot their roommate until they're right on top of them. Being aware of your own visual range -- especially as relative to most other people you know -- will make communication on the Walk much easier. It's going to be most people's first instinct to say "hello" to friends and acquaintances as soon as they see them -- that is, as soon as they enter visual range. This is a mistake! Since two people's visual ranges will rarely match up, anyone who attempts an immediate "hello" is likely to be met with silence and a blank expression. Remember, Locust Walk is a busy, often noisy place, and someone saying "hello" isn't always going to be enough to draw another's attention. A missed "hello" can cause all sorts of trouble. So given this, what's an extroverted freshman to do? The best solution is what I call "scoping for range." Essentially, you have to keep tabs on approaching acquaintances as they make their ways down Locust Walk. As you enter their visual range, the two of you should have an instant lock, be able to exchange your salutations and move on. Naturally, you can also stop and talk. But the rule of thumb is, if you do, you should probably move to the side of the Walk. Chatty freshman are the No. 3 annoyance when navigating the Walk, right behind bicyclists and pigeons. While not hearing someone when they say "hello" could lead to friction later on, it's far more troublesome to find a greeting you've given has missed its target? and found another. It's been known to happen that an overly anxious freshman has said "hello" without first scoping for range and has missed his or her intended target, greeting someone else entirely. Perhaps a fellow classmate, perhaps someone they met at a party or a floor event -- an acquaintance, barely -- but hardly someone that they'd put on their "hello" list. Now, we all have our "hello" lists. There are people we will pass and say "hello" to and others that we won't, people we will bother to scope for and others who aren't worth the effort. But a missed "hello" that reaches someone off the list may have the unfortunate effect of convincing them they are actually on the list, leading to forced greeting after forced greeting. And that can only lead to bitterness and hostility. A missed "hello" will almost always result in something called "'hello' degeneration," but this process can even occur with people who are on each other's "hello" list. If two people pass each other on the Walk too often -- based mostly on how well they know each other -- they will find it harder and harder to put the proper enthusiasm into each successive greeting. "Hello, Jack!" Then, "Hi, Jack!" Then, "Hey." Then a grunt or a nod. Then nothing. As the greetings shorten, the two will almost certainly find trouble interacting outside the Walk environment. Resentment will increase as the two slide off each other's "hello" lists, till the two are at best virtual strangers, or at worst bitter annoyances. The best way to avoid "hello" degeneration is to spot it in its early stages, before it begins to impact on the relationship -- whatever that might be, and agree to use some simple, recognizable gesture to acknowledge each other's passing. I recommend a solid nod and a bright smile. In the past, I've been known to use a rather endearing grunt. Ultimately, it's best to use whatever comes easiest to you. As a last tip, never use "How's it going?" as a greeting. Too often on the Walk, the person you're saying "hello" to will already be past you and gone by the time they get a chance to reply. "How's it going?" is a question, and unless you're in a situation where the other person has the opportunity to respond, you shouldn't bother asking. Hopefully, I've been able to save a few lives here -- or at least a few egos. I'll see you on the Walk and remember to say "hello."
(09/05/97 9:00am)
My parents were quite pleased -- although UVA was located much further away, tuition was cheaper and unlike Penn, there were no worries about safety or snobbery. Then something strange happened: my rabbi called me."Let's chat about college," he remarked. Despite my recent anger at him over a youth group matter, I took him up on his offer. Begging me to "reconsider Penn and remember the Jewish factor," my rabbi reminded me Penn was teeming with Jewish people, while in his eyes, UVA had a higher population of people with missing teeth rather than those of Jewish origin. As biased towards Penn and ignorant about UVAas my rabbi sounded, I nonetheless entertained his arguments. How important was the "Jewish factor" to me? The thoughts echoed back and forth. After years of Hebrew school, Passover seders and experiences I had in NFTY (my youth group), how could I turn my back on my tradition, family and identity once I reached college? I could only continue my spiritual growth at a school with a huge Jewish population, like Penn -- right? But wait -- who was I kidding? UVA's Hillel had won awards for its programming and Elie Weisel had recently lectured there. How bad could it be? In the end, I changed my mind and chose Penn, but really not because of the Jewish factor. In reality, the allure of the city and my visit during Spring Fling played a larger role in my choice. But without question, my rabbi's pleadings had subconsciously made me reconsider my original decision. So I arrived on campus last fall proud of my heritage and eager to become involved in Penn Hillel. But during the course of my freshman year, both my eagerness to be active and pride in my Judaism came under fire. Before college, I could never envision feeling isolated and inferior among other Jews. But I did upon attending Kosher dining at Penn for the first time last year. Why the stares? Oh yeah -- I'm not wearing a kippah. Oops. And I won't soon forget the time when an Orthodox rabbi whom I brought to campus for a program about missionary cult groups ended up denouncing my beliefs in front of the crowd. After I responded later with a passionate diatribe about what Reform Judaism means to me, his best answer was, "Maybe you're not really Reform." What was going on? I felt confused, betrayed and angry. These disconcerting experiences were a rude awakening for me. And as a result, I began to question myself and my Jewishness. The reason? In high school, I was Mike Silver, committed NFTY member, Hebrew high school graduate, youth group president and persistent pest who once resorted to bribing a girl with McDonald's chicken nuggets in order to get her to join my youth group. In my northern New Jersey town -- where Jewish education rarely continues past Bar Mitzvah age and youth group events are shunned in favor of parties -- my friends and I were the exceptions. We stood alone as the active ones and since in our circles active was analogous to Jewish, we were the "Jewish ones," -- the ones who cared. At Penn, was I really Jewish? The questions continued to rage on like a tempest, but then the epiphany came: if the beliefs rest in my heart, isn't that the only important thing? Does it really matter if I don't go to services every week or have knowledge of every single Torah passage? I respect my family, upbringing and tradition as much as anyone else and I am at peace with myself and my religion. Why should I be criticized if my faith manifests itself differently? The fact is, active Reform Jews, like myself, shouldn't be condemned because of other people's follies. Today there exists a large number of uncommitted Jews who contribute to the destruction of the religion through their apathy. Of course, many of these people are indeed Reform, but they give Reform Judaism a bad name by using it as an excuse to forsake their religion. The problem lies in the indifferent nature of the people themselves -- not in the institution of Reform Judaism. When stripped away of misconceptions, one will learn that Reform Judaism emphasizes a personal relationship with God, self-evaluation and choice -- and does not encourage intermarriage and apathy. Polarization among Jews remains a severe problem worldwide, not just at Penn. The proclamation by a small but vocal group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis last year that Conservative and Reform Jews weren't "real Jews" sent shockwaves through the American Jewish community. And the debate in Israel over conversion rights shows these issues often transcend religious boundaries and infringe on politics. Combined with external forces like anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this internal friction will continue to threaten our stability as a religion if we don't address it. Thankfully, cooperation has begun at Penn, and thus I am filled with optimism for the coming year. Last spring, the new Hillel executive board made a sincere and successful attempt at attracting a pluralistic group of leaders. In addition, several innovative events -- such as the Shabbat Experience -- brought the different Jewish communities together. On a personal note, my friendship with an Orthodox girl whom I met last year has opened my eyes in many ways. Sure, we've had disagreements -- ideologically, we always will -- but mutual respect and understanding still exist. Most importantly, we're still friends. In essence, Penn has taught me one thing UVA could never have: there are issues facing the Jewish religion that must be dealt with both at Penn and around the world in a cooperative manner. Though I did much soul-searching here last year, in retrospect, the exposure to this internal strife has allowed me to become a more educated Jew -- one who's now energized and more committed than ever to Reform Judaism and to Penn's Hillel.
(04/18/97 9:00am)
Regardless of whether you are opposed to or in favor of affirmative action, or an opponent or proponent for diversity, there is one thing that can be agreed upon -- the admissions process has to be box-checker proof. Box-checking occurs when an applicant falsely identifies himself or herself as a minority. Since Latinos range from blond-haired and blue-eyed to racially black, and sometimes do not speak Spanish, a box-checker can very easily pick up the identity and dispose of it when it no longer suits him or her without being detected. Box-checkers make false assertions to gain any possible preferential treatment and currently their is no way to detect such fraud. Sometimes an applicant will make this assertion knowing it is technically true. For example, the applicant has some trace of ethnic heritage by blood in his or her family (i.e. grandfather was Mexican) but the applicant's upbringing was outside of that heritage; or the applicant will claim to be Hispanic simply because he is from Spain (European). Such applicants nonetheless are Latinos only in name and can only identify as Latino when there is a perceived benefit, rather than some duty -- such as contributing the Latino perspective to the school. They do not have the culture ties or culture perspective that would make them a genuine addition to the school's diversity. Perhaps the most common example, the movie "Soul Man," was a comedy, yet in real life this is a serious and complex problem. As a Law student I am concerned about this problem and will present a brief analysis under two scenarios. First scenario; no material benefit. Assuming the school -- in no shape or form -- uses such information to admit or reject a student, award scholarships or appropriate funds to recruit the applicant, box-checking is wrong. First, box-checkers are committing fraud. Since the application notes the information is for diversity purposes and both types of box-checkers know they cannot provide that sought out diversity, their assertion is knowingly misleading the school to think otherwise. Second, it prevents the school from accurately determining how many of its applicants, admittees and students are Latinos -- thus the school has no method of gauging its recruiting methods or its compliance with state and federal EEOC regulations. Third, box-checking gives the school administration no incentive to strive for true diversity since the "numbers" falsely indicate that diversity exists. In the second scenario -- that is box-checking leads to some benefit -- the problems in the first instance are also compounded with other issues. First, the box-checker cheats non-Latino applicants. Whereas a box-checker would compete with the regular pool, box-checking has removed him or her from such competition. Second, against other Latinos, the applicant has gained a benefit that was not meant for him or her and has displaced a Latino student. For all intents and purposes, diversity and affirmative action become meaningless. Such acts when unchecked by schools, at best, allow for the status quo to exist and at worse become the newest form of discriminating against Latinos. In sum, at the law school level box-checking prevents diversity and allows for a new form of discrimination in admissions to exist. It cheats all students of a fair chance at admissions and takes advantage of the schools efforts and resources to create a diverse student body. More alarming however are the greater ramifications. These individuals committing this serious fraud are entering the legal profession with practice in cheating, stealing and deceiving. Society does not need anymore crooked lawyers. Moreover, since the ranks of Latinos at the law school do not increase, box-checking also means subsequently the number of latino lawyers also does not increase. The problem of box-checking exists at the Law School. I would suspect as many as half of the schools recognized latinos are box-checkers. At this time, since there is no way for the school to verify this information during admissions process, the perception or the reality that box-checking leads to a benefit will continue to encourage such misrepresentations. Box-checking and other similar false assertions also continue in other situations such as during career placement, and special programs and services ear-marked for latinos or minorities. To deal with this problem of fraud, some schools require additional essays that center around the claimed identity, or even questionnaires that are administered by the school's latino students, thus creating a post-acceptance back-up plan that can net fraudulent applicants. Perhaps the Law School could implement such strategies as well as other procedures that will prevent box-checking including expulsion when such misrepresentations surface after admissions and reporting to the American Bar Association. These penalties and strategies are appropriate considering the great harm this fraud creates to Latinos and the rest of our society.
(04/17/97 9:00am)
Like all educational institutions, Penn is actively planning for the next century. There are many important decisions, but in the end the most critical are ones of personnel. Dedicated and talented faculty can overcome even the most disastrous of overall planning efforts; but an undistinguished faculty will fail to deliver on the wisest of plans. Requirements for promotion. Universities are about the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, a first-class university needs its faculty to be outstanding along three different dimensions: scholarship, teaching and citizenship. One primary mark of a great institution is the degree to which its faculty contribute to knowledge. The faculty of such an institution are a concentration of some of the finest minds alive, people whose work is changing our understanding of the world. But universities are also places of teaching, of passing that knowledge on to the next generation of scholars and citizens who themselves will change what we know. In order to make this all work, the faculty and staff must go beyond being excellent in their own scholarship and teaching, they must have a dedication to the institution. Institutions do not run themselves; they take commitments of time and energy. Nature of the process. Selecting faculty members who satisfy these three conditions is one of the most difficult tasks facing modern universities. We must make predictions about what an individual will be like 25 or even 50 years from when they are hired or promoted. For this reason, the university engages in an elaborate process by which it gains information about a candidate's potential. It consults extensively with those groups who have the most expertise in judging each of the relevant characteristics. The scholarly activities of a candidate are evaluated both by the experts in the department and by experts in other institutions. In any case of promotion, many letters evaluating the work are solicited from recognized experts throughout the world. The teaching evaluations are informed by formal student course ratings, letters from selected graduate and undergraduate students, reviews of the candidate's own statements about teaching and opinions of Penn faculty who have observed a candidate's teaching. Contributions to the functioning of the institution are typically evaluated by faculty and administrators who have worked with the candidate. All of this information is gathered together and successively reviewed at multiple levels: the department, the school personnel committee and the University Provost's Staff Conference. Each of these contains scholars and teachers of eminence who can take an increasingly broad perspective on the case. If the case is viewed favorably by all these groups, passed on to the Trustees. It should be clear this is a process designed to prevent a certain kind of mistake -- the awarding of a permanent position at the University to someone who proves to be less than outstanding. Such a mistake would have serious long term negative consequences for the institution. Painful as it may be to make a negative judgment on a generally strong candidate, the Iniversity has seen being too severe in rejecting such a candidate to be the preferable of the two kinds of mistakes that can be made. Relative weight of teaching and research. It is fair to say that the sine quo non of promotion at Penn is excellence in research. We believe the University must make its investments in the best minds it can attract. An active mind, as revealed in outstanding contributions to knowledge, is the best predictor of further intellectual engagement. Active researchers bring an excitement to their teaching and an ability to let students develop as far as they can, which is essential to quality education. Students can learn a subject from someone not actively engaged in research, as they do in high school and in many small colleges; but they cannot develop the same understanding of the material and the way it was discovered that they get from one of the discovers. Moreover, an outstanding researcher attracts to the University the next generation of faculty and so lets the institution continue to maintain and increase its own excellence. The primacy of research excellence does not diminish the importance of excellence in teaching at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. At Penn, we can demand that the faculty be excellent in both regards. Students frequently see cases of outstanding teachers who are not promoted and conclude that the University does not care about good teaching. This conclusion is simply wrong both as a matter of logic and as a matter of fact. We care about both research and teaching. Students rarely notice the cases in which a poor teacher is not retained despite excellence in research; but there are many of those. Prognosis for good teaching is a necessary condition, just as is prognosis for good research. But neither is sufficient for promotion at Penn. I have been involved in decisions of this sort for 30 years. I have seen some judgments I believe were in error. But I have seen many more where a sound decision was made. Moreover, I have always been impressed with the seriousness, fair-mindedness and integrity which faculty and administrators at all levels bring to the process. The system for promoting faculty at Penn is lengthy and elaborate. But I believe that it provides an excellent result and has allowed Penn to become stronger and stronger as an institution. I took the position of Dean of the College because of my own commitment to undergraduate education. At every opportunity I am an advocate for decisions that I think will serve undergraduates best. My experience convinces me the procedures that Penn uses to promote faculty -- emphasizing research but insisting on excellent teaching as well -- in fact are in the best interests of our students, even if they occasionally result in rejecting a young scholar who is an unusually effective teacher.
(03/28/97 10:00am)
I do not mean to attack or criticize any present or former member of the UA, but simply to tell curious undergraduates, faculty and administrators what the UA is really about. What does it mean to be on the UA? With the risk of generalizing, most people think that having the UA name will enhance their resume. How soon we forget convocation. Sitting in Irvine Auditorium as an eager freshman, I remember how insignificant I felt after University President Judith Rodin listed the achievements of the class of 1999. I think there were only 900 student government presidents, 20 Olympic hopefuls, 50 business owners? the list goes on. So, realistically, how much can it help you when applying for jobs to say you were a member of the student government or on the steering committee. Now think about it? how many colleges and Universities are there in the United States? It can't help that much. This is perhaps the major reason why the UA is so fundamentally ineffective. According to Larry Kamin, the present vice chairperson of the UA, who is presently running for reelection, he himself stated in his candidates statement that people on the UA are "self-promoting." It is beyond me if he in fact feels this way, why he is running again. I find it quite humorous after reading the candidates' personal statements how strikingly similar they are to previous years. It seems like everyone is promising again. When I reflect on my two years on the UA, I must sadly admit that as a body our list of achievements is not that impressive. There are, however, individuals -- and I stress individuals -- who are on the UA to better the University community. Their successes have come because they chose to take action on specific issues. I strongly believe those individuals would have accomplished their goals with or without the UA. The list of these initiatives includes more performing arts space, lunch express, better safety measures and a report on advising. Each of these projects were completed byone or two people for the most part. When members tried to get additional support, whether it was to stand on Locust Walk or go door to door, UA members were usually too busy to help. I will never forget in the fall when the UA's safety committee held three safety awareness days. There were more non-UA members who stood on Locust Walk passing out safety information than UA members. Let me remind you, this was a UA sponsored event! I encourage student activism, but I think the UA does not facilitate student involvement. Perhaps student leaders should consider creating campus wide committees to address specific concerns. I propose that a representative from each campus group meet at the beginning of each semester to come up with issues that are truly representative of the student body. Then these representatives can solicit these committees to their respective group. By encouraging individuals to participate simply because they want to, ideally the members of the committees would be sincerely concerned and thus more effective. Or perhaps change the form of the UA and make it more of a President's Council. In this case, the president of each organization would meet once a month to discuss University issues. Student activism is a fundamental part of college. Instead of electing new people to the UA, it is time for Penn to consider changing the structure of the student government altogther.
(03/07/97 10:00am)
I was watching Schindler's List and am once again struck that the story is not about the victims of the Holocaust. It primarily focuses on its perpetrators and the symbiotic relationship between Oskar Schindler, the businessman who sees the light and Amon Goeth, the labor camp commandant who does not. It is a story about White oppressors. What does the story tell us by what it is not? Since the experiences of the Jews are told in the context of Oskar Schindler, it tells us we have a long way to go to come to terms with the horrors created by Western culture. It tells us why the nation will embrace Roots but ignore Sankofa. Roots is considered a breakthrough production since it was made from an African American perspective, but it sanitized slavery's brutality for its television audience. Sankofa is a gruesome portrayal of the slave trade that was so accurate no movie studio would distribute it. It tells us why so many will celebrate the truth of Ghosts of Mississippi but won't ask why people who see the movie will still know little about Medgar Evers. How many more Mississippi Burnings will we need to see before portrayals of the Civil Rights movement from black perspectives are accessible? This country would be worse off without movies addressing the horrors fundamental to Europeans and European-American history and culture from oppressors' perspectives. It is not enough, however, for European peoples to air our grief over past and current oppressions while continuing to resist the perspectives of people who have suffered through oppression. Why doesn't this country have a museum to preserve the memory of the Middle Passage -- the trans-Atlantic shipping of Africans for slavery -- or of those Native Americans killed in the conquest of this land? Some have criticism Schindler's List for being superficial in portraying the Holocaust. The same could be said about portrayals of this country's own history of genocide. What, then, does Schindler's List tell us by what it is? This is an extraordinary movie told with as much poetry as it was told by Thomas Keneally -- the author of the book the movie was based on. Most of all, it is the story of an oppressor's liberation from the emotional constriction that gripped Germany and led to the horrors of genocide. Schindler is a man who began as a war-time opportunist all too happy to take advantage of Jewish slave labor. He was unfaithful to his wife and had little to hope for beyond striking it rich. Schindler dealt with the murder and madness that surrounded him only to the extent it effected his business. He suffered from the same emotional distance that allowed millions of other Germans to accept evil as a national policy. Schindler gradually discovered relationships and the joy that comes from choosing liberation over oppression. He freed himself by resisting evil, expressing his guilt for what he could have done but did not and accepting the blessing of those he saved. His life speaks to the possibility for all people born into the world with privilege or schooled in hatred to release themselves of the bonds preventing us from achieving grace. One of the most powerful scenes is when Goeth voices his own suffering to a Jewish slave, Helen Hirsch with whom he has fallen in love. He says "I would like so much to reach out and touch you in your loneliness. What would be wrong with that? I know you're strictly not a person, but what would be wrong about it?" You cannot possibly be fully human if you believe that certain people are less human than you. Our families suffer from a host of problems driven by the same emotional distance that resulted in the Holocaust -- suicide, incest, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse and neglect. Hatred in any form inevitably comes home to roost and it is incumbant upon all of us to resolve our inner contradictions with courage and compassion. I do not believe hatred is the sole province of people of European descent. I do believe my people have denied the power hatred has on our development and relationships with people all over the world for far too long. It is high time for people of European descent to come to grips with the negative aspects of our history even as we celebrate our accomplishments in such areas as technology, art and literature. The price for our liberation is simply the painful truth.
(03/05/97 10:00am)
Almost a year has passed since emotions flared over the Gregg Camfield tenure controversy. While we had reason to celebrate the fact that student support was instrumental in procuring a second chance for Camfield, the ultimate results left those involved with a defeated sense of frustration. Ever since last year's bout with the tenure bureaucracy, a pervasive cynicism surrounding the perceived emphasis on faculty research has hung over our campus. A satire bemoaning the tenure evaluation process appeared in the DP as recently as last week. Last month I participated in a historical conference commemorating 20 years since the inauguration of Jimmy Carter which allowed me to view our cynicism in an entirely new light. When I tell people about the conference, I usually get a response like, "20 years since Jimmy Carter? I feel so old!" Whether or not we're ready to take a serious look back, the time has come to begin the in-depth historical analysis of a decade we'd rather forget. Because I'm working on an independent research project focusing on the '76 presidential campaign, I figured the conference would offer me a tremendous opportunity to procure advice from prominent historians, while gaining a sense of context for my research. Even if I had only achieved those goals, I would have considered my trip a success. However, I will remember the weekend more for the intriguing perspective it provided me on the remarkable nature of academia. The highlight of the conference was not the presentation of manuscripts, but rather the provocative discussions that followed each one. These professors were, by no means, just scratching each others backs. To say they were offering constructive criticism would be a euphemistic understatement. We've all joked about the sea of red ink that tends to accompany the grades on our papers, but I truly fear the day one of my professors lets loose with the type of comments I heard. Don't let me mislead you; even though our esteemed faculty members have been known to bicker childishly over access to the Xerox machines, they conducted themselves in a well-mannered, noble pursuit for improvement. More striking than the content of the comments, however, was the apparent notion that the writers seemed to delight in being shown the shortcomings of their work. It wasn't until the last panel discussion, when the designated commentator was offering her laundry list of apparent deficiencies in the panel's papers, that I realized the true purpose of the scholarly gathering. The fact we were ultimately involved in establishing a framework though which Carter's presidency will be studied, was largely inconsequential. (It's actually possible to look beyond the simple assertions of mediocrity and failure!) Those who came to present their work primarily came to soak up the red ink. Research, presentation and criticism are the means by which our professors acquire new ideas to inform their lecture materials. Unless we're ready to admit that every discipline has been studied to its fullest, unalterable truth, we can't underestimate the value of publication-driven research. Not long ago, we were all deciding where we wanted to go to college. In choosing Penn, we passed up trade schools and small colleges alike. Inherent in that decision was our desire to learn through investigation -- to begin with the assumption there's always another side to the story. In short, we chose to come to a large research University. With that choice comes not only the blessing of tremendous resources but the responsibility to use them. If we insist on criticizing our professors efforts towards publication, then we risk wasting the vast resources for which we have so much pride. As students, we are expected to be vigilant in taking advantage of all Penn has to offer. Should we expect any less from our faculty? I am not suggesting we give our professors the license to ignore their teaching responsibilities -- no one would argue that teaching is insignificant. If it seems as though the University values professors who publish more than those who teach, the motivating forces are definitely not fame and fortune. Otherwise, we'd insist our faculty members should write trash novels, like those of John Grisham and Danielle Steele. The cynicism surrounding the tenure process stems from an unfortunate lack of common interest. Perhaps we feel alienated because faculty research is done behind the scenes, without undergraduate interaction. While we cannot expect to be included in the process at all times, at the very least, we can begin to show an interest in what our professors do outside the classroom. I don't know of any faculty member who would refuse to explain his or her research. Have we even asked? If faculty members are not accustomed to presenting their research to undergraduates, then it is up to us to establish a forum conducive to that end. Rumor has it that academic types have an affinity for brown-bag lunch discussions. Besides, everyone has to eat. Instead of complaining about such matters, it is imperative we view faculty research as a mutually beneficial and thus valuable mechanism in a university such as Penn.
(02/13/97 10:00am)
I grew up surrounded by a common belief that everyone in Israel knows everyone else. It's such a small country, the reasoning went, that any large event was sure to involve the children, parents, spouses or friends of someone you knew. That always struck me as one of the most beautiful things about the country -- the reason many people's first visits to Israel felt like a trip home. I never really gave much thought to the flip side of the coin -- that if any celebration or victory seemed likely to involve people you knew, so did any tragedy. Which is why news of last week's helicopter collision over northern Israel, claiming the lives of 73 soldiers, hit me so hard. I scanned the endless lists of names of dead soldiers -- most of whom were younger than me -- fearing the inevitable. I soon found it. One of the victims was listed as "Gil Sharabi, 20, from Rechovot." It was a name from my past, but it was one I recognized. I had known a Gil Sharabi growing up in Chicago, a boy my age whose Israeli parents taught Hebrew and other subjects at my grade school. The Sharabis were gifted, kind teachers who instilled the same values and ethics to their children as they had conveyed to us. Gil was a tall, athletic boy, with an infectious smile that seemed ever-present on his face. He was quick to learn English, and seemed to have little difficulty adjusting to life in the United States. Years passed, and the family moved back to Israel, where Gil's father served as a principal in a religious school, while his mother continued to teach. I had always intended to keep in touch with the family, always told myself I'd look them up during a trip to Israel. But I never did. And the years passed. Fast-forward to last week. I'm sitting at my computer when I hear news of the crash. A short time later, the names are released. "Gil Sharabi, 20, from Rechovot." Then my phone rings, with my mother asking me if it could possibly be the same Gil she remembered from school. I spent the next two days on the phone, calling the Israeli Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the consulate in New York for any information about the crash. They listened politely, but refused to disclose anything about the families of the victims. They explained there were simply too many people calling for verification that it was their nephew or friend or classmate whose name had been heard on the news. Friday. After Sabbath services, a friend from Chicago said he had something to show me. He had purchased a copy of an Israeli newspaper, which under the caption, "The sons who will not return," printed photographs of the 73 dead soldiers. He asked me if I remembered Mrs. Sharabi, our third-grade teacher. He pointed to the headshot, and my fears were confirmed -- "Gil Sharabi, 20, from Rechovot" was the same Gil Sharabi I remembered from home. The next day, another friend from Chicago e-mails the news of Gil's death. She suggests that we do something, however small, in his honor: dedicate learning part of the Torah in his memory, raise money to send to his father's school in Israel, send our condolences to his family. I agreed to do whatever I could, but the gestures seemed meaningless and empty. Inside, I criticize myself. I have been to Israel so many times, I tell myself. All I had to do was pick up the phone. There was a Gil Sharabi I never got a chance to know -- one who grew to love his country, eventually having to pay the ultimate price for its defense. There was a family I loved and respected that I had forgotten. And all I have left of him are old memories. It is true, I suppose, that everyone in Israel knows each other. You could see it on the news, or in the papers. You could see it in the way total strangers cried at the funerals of soldiers they had never met. You could see it when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- himself no stranger to death -- broke down in tears at one of the soldier's funerals. And you could see it in the way that thousands of miles away from Israel, the remnants of Mrs. Sharabi's third grade class gathered to mourn her son.
(02/10/97 10:00am)
The face was plastered all over the morning papers, nightly newscasts, and popular weekly magazines. It was a fresh, young face -- different from the faces we normally see in the news these days, such as President Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and O.J. Simpson, whose stories are just tired and predictable. Yet suddenly, a new face appeared as if to fill this void. It was a pretty face, a seemingly innocent one with obvious natural beauty. The face, however, wasn't totally youthful in appearance -- the tiny lips were covered with lipstick, and the beautiful eyes were accentuated with eyeliner. So why was the presence of makeup on the face such an astonishing sight? The reason is the makeup rested on the face of a 6-year-old, the face of JonBenet Ramsey. Ramsey probably never thought she'd grace the cover of Newsweek as the tragic victim of a homicide. Rather, if everything had went according to plan, her coronation as Miss America would have inspired a media frenzy and ingrained the image of her face in all of our minds. Indeed, Ramsey enjoyed a remarkable early career as a pageant contestant; she was the winner of the Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl and the Tiny Miss Beauty contest, among others. Yet her meteoric rise to the apex of the relatively unknown subculture of child beauty pageants was cut short by a bizarre murder, which rocked the sleepy college town of Boulder, Colo. Everyone knows the details of the case -- two ransom notes, a mysterious 911 call, the parents as possible suspects. And, in all likelihood, the case will be solved within the next few weeks. But the fascination with Ramsey's murder will endure. Why? Her murder has shed light on the strange world of child beauty pageants -- a commonplace institution to some but a foreign one to most of us. In this world, little girls -- as young as eighteen months old -- saunter across stages in dresses worth up to $600. Competition is keen, and parents sometimes spend $7000 a year on pageantry expenses. While some will argue her murder had nothing to do with beauty pageants, we will be unable to divorce the two for a simple reason: the lasting images of Ramsey will be the pictures of her as a beauty pageant contestant. For example, there were seven photos of Ramsey in the Newsweek article detailing the case. Only in one picture was she not wearing makeup or expensive clothes, and not surprisingly, she looked completely different. Ramsey -- who was a child -- actually looked like a child in that picture. But more than likely, we won't remember that picture among the several cover shots. How could we not connect her murder to the world of child beauty pageants? Pageant advocates claim that "personality" and "natural beauty" are the most highly valued attributes, rather than whether a girl wears makeup or an expensive dress. In addition, they argue the competition isn't any less intense than Little League, and the contests actually promote self-esteem. In my opinion, however, the idea of children participating in beauty contests is disturbing for several reasons. First, as a camp counselor, I learned that young children have extremely malleable minds which are easily influenced by images emanating from popular culture. By encouraging them to look "sexy" by wearing makeup and seductively parading around a stage, overzealous parents are imparting unhealthy concepts of sexuality in the minds of their young daughters. Secondly, beauty contests differ greatly from Little League. Athletics are a measure of skill. Success often requires persistence, dedication and mental toughness, not just simple God-given talent. On the other hand, beauty pageant contestants are judged on purely aesthetic, inherited qualities. While makeup and ostentatious clothing may be shunned in some contests, "natural beauty" is not. Teaching children that appearance and appeasing others leads to success creates nothing more than hollow, superficial adults. Finally, placing young children in the limelight makes them extremely self-conscious, and adolescence accentuates this distortion of self-image. For children who have been taught that "looking good" is the most important attribute in life, the often unpleasant changes brought on by puberty -- such as acne and changes in body shape -- may damage their self-esteem more so than their peers. In studying child entertainers and models, psychologists have found they are prone to depression, eating disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse during adolescence. It is no coincidence that, during their teenage years, former child stars Danny Bonaduce (The Partridge Family) and Drew Barrymore (E.T.) had serious drug problems and Tracey Gold (Growing Pains) battled bulimia. Maybe I'm naive, but why can't we just let children be children? Why prematurely expose them to negative images of human sexuality and falsely teach them appearance is what matters most in life? Ramsey may have been one of the exceptions; those who knew her claim she was well-adjusted and enjoyed the stage. Perhaps she would have become neither anorexic nor narcissistic. Sadly, though, we'll never know, because her short life in the spotlight was so abruptly taken away from us. Her legacy won't be as Miss America, but as the poster child for an institution which, in my opinion, robs children of their innocence. The image of her face should remind us all to protect our young from the corrupt elements of society -- at least until they are mature enough to rationally deal with them. Growing up is hard enough. Putting lipstick on 6-year-olds just artificially accelerates the process, which in turn makes the real task all the more difficult. So while the murder mystery itself will soon be solved, what will endure is twofold: the lingering questions about our society's morality, and the image of a young face covered with makeup -- the face of JonBenet Ramsey.
(11/19/96 10:00am)
The issues raised in the news analysis "Seeing double: Facilities plans may overlap" (DP, 11/15/96) and the editorial "Long-awaited overall overhaul" (DP, 11/15/96), and in the editorial "First priority: Academics" (DP, 11/18/96), are important and your readers deserve some clarification. At last Wednesday's University Council meeting, I brought the campus community up-to-date on the expansive and fresh thinking taking place about the quality of campus facilities, the condition of student residences, recreational opportunities and retail amenities in the area surrounding campus. More important, though, was my emphasis on the principles and goals that underlie the planning process: · A vibrant, attractive and safe campus; · Control over strategic properties in the areas surrounding campus and the highest and best use of our existing real estate; · Facilities that support the academic initiatives articulated in the "Agenda for Excellence," our strategic plan; · Contemporary high-quality student residences; · Greatly expanded recreational and retail opportunities for the campus community; · And robust economic development to support community revitalization. These build on the master planning principles articulated in 1992 by Venturi, Scott Brown. I said, too, with great emphasis and diagrams that we will expand to the east and south of campus, and that we will work with the community to enhance areas north and west of the campus. There is, I said, a great deal of difference between the words "expand" and "enhance." My comments to Council stressed that in a resource-scarce environment, our campus and its facilities absolutely must serve and advance our most critical teaching and research missions. Where they do not, we must be prepared to challenge assumptions and prepare plans for investments or reinvestments that realign our physical assets with the "Agenda for Excellence." Space planning and academic planning are not in competition. They must go together. I also pointed out to those at the Council meeting that some of the planning on these issues is well-advanced, and well it should be. We will, for example, open an exciting new bookstore complex with mixed-use features that will revitalize the 36th and Walnut streets site that is presently a parking lot. We have also made several strategic real estate acquisitions that will shape campus expansion over the next 50 years. And we are accelerating our efforts to work with our good neighbors west of campus to ensure that West Philadelphia is a stable, exciting community of homeowners and responsible tenants for decades to come. Clearly, too, some planning is preliminary. We do not have firm plans, for example, for renovation of student residences or construction of new residential facilities on campus. Do we know where we have problems? Yes, and I identified several in my remarks to Council, but as I said, we will wait for the results of the Biddison-Hier study before we make those decisions. Indeed, the text of your coverage of my remarks to Council refutes its own premise that there may be potential conflict between our residential work to date and the Biddison-Hier study. As your reports stated in several places, I spoke about "potential" plans to build new dormitories. I said renovations "may" target the grad towers, the Quad and Stouffer. Again, we must wait for the results of the Biddison-Hier study before we make decisions. That is why we hired them. I did not, nor would I, ever suggest that the heart of the campus would move away from Perelman Quad. When this beautiful student complex is completed, the heart of the campus will be wonderfully obvious to all of us. Sansom Commons will not conflict with the Perelman complex. Instead, new retail and restaurant developments on Sansom Street will complement Perelman and add luster to the central core of the campus. That is why they are being master-planned together. But perhaps most troubling for me were your editorials, which posed a false choice between "aesthetics" and "academics" at Penn. Nothing could be further from my mind or from the plans of the Board of Trustees. We must seek excellence in all that we do here -- certainly in our academic programs and the facilities that support those programs, as well as in facilities that house us, provide important student services, serve the faculty and provide recreational opportunities. There is much to accomplish, but we will. This is an exciting time at Penn. And, we will continue to consult broadly with the campus community and report on our progress.
(03/16/95 10:00am)
Student government is powerless. So say the people on these pages and elsewhere at the University. Let's look at the validity of this statement. First, we are not a government. We are not the U. S. Congress. We have no power to pass binding laws on the students of the University. Rather, we are a lobbying group for students' issues. This is our source of power. Many people say the UA has no power because we don't have the ability to make "laws" for the University or the direct control of funding for student groups. However, this does not mean that the UA has no power. If you look at our accomplishments this year, just through our lobbying efforts, you can see that we can be a powerful force on campus. We have also accomplished over a dozen short-term goals this year. A movie theater is moving back to the old AMC Walnut thanks to our efforts. The elevators in the high rises will be renovated over the next three years partially because of our Residential Living Budget Report. Our Maple Report will change the way the computer program is used in the introductory calculus courses. We have lobbied to ban smoking in the Dining Halls and for fairness in the new judicial system. We have gotten fifty percent more representation for undergraduates on the University Council. The UA is still working on projects currently. In our last month in office, we will be working on getting a U. S. mailbox in the high rises, reforming escort services and reviewing the technology fees. Despite what you might read in the paper, we are still working hard. We also created Project 2000, which is a five year plan for undergraduate life with over twenty-five solid proposals detailing how to implement various ideas. Our Project 2000 paper will spark discussion and provide detailed plans for ideas such as a debit card, reforming the University budgeting practices and guidelines for a college house system. It will change the University for years to come. I could go on, but it would take up too much room. "The UA doesn't do anything" you say? Come on, look at the facts. The administration turns to the UA as the main voice of students on campus. While we are not the only voice of student opinion on campus, we are the only organization that represents all undergraduates. The administration pays attention to what we say, and often turns to us for the student perspective. Our power stems from this fact. Charges that the UA is somehow "corrupt" are ridiculous. The people on the UA are students, just like you, who go to classes and live in the same dorms as you. We are not these evil resume builders who don't care about student life. Many UA members work hours and hours each week to better student life. We have had our problems, but they have been grossly exaggerated by the press and the UA's enemies. Despite our recent attendance problems, we have been getting the job done as you can see from our list of accomplishments. The biggest enemy of the UA is apathy. Students who just think the UA is a joke or that it is totally irrelevant to their lives only diminish our power to lobby the administration. The more students get behind the UA's efforts, the more effective a lobbying organization we are. So what is the point of the UA? Student advocacy. Lobbying the administration on behalf of students. Setting up new programs to benefit students. Accomplishing goals. The 1994-1995 Undergraduate Assembly, for all of our problems, has done our job. We have gotten over a dozen short-term accomplishments and produced Project 2000. The UA, like all student governments, will continue to be ranked on by the press and by fellow students long after I am gone. Despite this constant barrage, the UA has gotten things done. So realize that there is a point to student government. And please realize the hard work and dedication of the large majority of UA members. We have made a difference this year and I am proud to have served as the chairperson of the most successful UA this decade.