Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(09/09/11 6:00am)
On the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks that shook our nation on Sept. 11, 2001, in a guest column for The Daily Pennsylvanian, I pointed out that the hijacked planes had flown right past the Statue of Liberty, and had ignored the Capitol, in order to fly their grim bombs into symbols of American economic and military power: the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I hoped that they were wrong about the symbols that best represented the United States. I argued that we were more importantly a nation committed to the search for liberty and equality. At least, that is what I hoped we were. How do things look now?
(12/07/98 10:00am)
What Hackney's own Student Judicial Charter actually said was that once a defendant broke confidentiality, "any person whose character or integrity might reasonably be questioned shall have a right to respond in an appropriate forum." Thus, at the height of the case, plaintiffs discussed it with The Los Angeles Times. The problem Hackney faced was that the facts of the case demonstrated the injustice of his regime. His mixing of what Eden Jacobowitz said and what others allegedly said gives you some idea of his notion of individual responsibility. Hackney's attempt to portray this event in terms of right versus left will not stand up to scrutiny. His primary antagonist was the Pennsylvania ACLU. His problem was not Rush Limbaugh but precisely the liberal media: The Forward, which broke the story, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Los Angeles Times, NBC News and CNN, among others. They all sent independent reporters who interviewed both administrators, appalled by Penn's injustice, and students at Penn, including, by their accounts, scores of African-American students, who found the prosecution absurd and preposterous. On the same day that Hackney portrayed himself as the victim of a "right-wing" conspiracy in its newspages, The Washington Post itself editorialized about Penn's "Speech-Code Silliness," terming it a paradigm of overbreadth, vagueness and arbitrary prosecutions. The Philadelphia Daily News, in an editorial, called the Penn administration "a herd of dik-diks." Had the editor been a Penn student, the term would have led to his or her prosecution. When the case began, I asked Hackney if the Judicial Inquiry Officer could legislate or must merely follow Penn's policy. Steve Steinberg, Hackney's assistant, called me a day later, and informed me that yes, in Hackney's view, the charges stipulated against Jacobowitz merited judicial adjudication. The Judicial Inquiry Officer was applying Hackney's policy. Under oath, however, before the U.S. Senate, Hackney replied as follows to Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who asked if, under Penn's code, the case should have occurred: "No, I think that this was a misapplication of that policy in the circumstances." In his letter to the DP, Hackney places great importance on the race of the students in this case. Here, however, is what he told the U.S. Senate, under oath, during his confirmation hearings for chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities. When asked about political correctness, Hackney said: "It would be a serious problem if it were to capture a campus.? There are various forms of political correctness? but I think in general one can think of it as a term that refers to being overly solicitous of the rights of minority groups and of fashionable and trendy concerns in the present. I think that is one form that could be quite worrisome because you want to have a very balanced and fair approach to things on campus." Dr. Hackney, meet Dr. Hackney. Hackney intervened in the judicial system several times, and in this case repeatedly. I invite the interested to read a chapter from The Shadow University about the water buffalo incident on-line at http://www.shadowuniv.com. How did the case end? Before witnesses, members of Clinton's transition team told me that Hackney's nomination to the NEH could not "bear much further scrutiny" and they asked "how the case was playing in the Jewish press." I told them that Jacobowitz would pursue justice and that the case was playing quite badly in "the Jewish press." They asked me to send them those papers. One week later, whether causally related or not I do not know, Hackney called me from Washington, D.C. -- he left the number with my son, and I took contemporaneous notes on the conversation -- to ask if Jacobowitz would be satisfied if the women dropped the case and the University dropped the charges. That sequence of events occurred exactly as Hackney proposed it. Hackney wonders why I could not find him while writing the book. What I possessed was better: the record of his policies, actions, words and double standards during his exercise of power. If someone tells me, "This has to end, Alan," I don't have to call him to ask if he said, "This has to end, Alan." Hackney writes of "shared governance" at Penn. Having both centralized power and destroyed that shared governance, infantilizing students and marginalizing the faculty, he lacks the moral authority to utter those words. I hope that there is no revival of his failed policies. Human relations have improved at Penn now that students are treated more equally and freely. I co-founded and lived in Van Pelt College House from 1971 to 1978. After its first year, it never was less than 20 percent black, simply because it acquired a reputation as a good place to be an individual. We had Maoist revolutionaries and College Republicans, black radicals and black conservatives, gay rights advocates and the Campus Crusade for Christ, all living under the same roof, without speech codes and without social engineering. They offended each other frequently, but far more than Sheldon Hackney ever could dream, they learned to talk to each other, to understand each other, to humanize their relationships and to live with each other in freedom and dignity. His balkanized and paternalistic vision of a university was a sad alternative.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Bethel High School '92 Bethel, Conn. It sometimes seems that for each and every student at the University, there is a committee, commission, task force or panel out to improve things. This past year alone has seen the activation, action and deactivation of committees with names as cumbersome as their tasks. Take the Judicial Inquiry Office Evaluation Committee, for example. Or the Consultative Committee for the Selection of a President. Or the committee that has perhaps made the most waves on campus this year, the Commission on Strengthening the Community. The two events brought the issues of free speech, civility and racial tension on campus into the national spotlight. The Commission's task was "to evaluate University core community values including diversity, free speech and civility; to look at race relations and all inter-person" relations on campus. Although this might seem like quite a daunting task, the 22-member commission solicited advice from all areas of the University, drew up a preliminary report by February, solicited feedback on that report, and submitted its final recommendations by April. Among the most dramatic of the Commission's recommendations were the abolishment of the University's racial harassment hate-speech code, the randomization of freshman year housing assignments, and the assessment of faculty committment to campus life as a criterion for promotion and salaries. In the interest of creating a more unified undergraduate community, the Commission also recommended that no fraternity or sorority rush be held until at least the second semester of freshman year. Fagin, Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson and Executive Vice President Janet Hale recently responded to the Commission's final report with a document explaining the University's implementation of some recommendations. In response to the Commission's recommendation that "student speech, as such, should not be the basis of disciplinary action," the administrators pointed to a three-pronged effort including a new Code of Student Conduct, a new Code of Academic Integrity and the implementation of a new student judicial system. In response to the Commission's suggestion that the University build a coffee house or gathering place on Locust Walk open to all members of the University community, Fagin, Lazerson and Hale promised to build an extension to The Book Store which will house a coffee shop. Many of the Commission's recommendations, however, will not be implemented by this year's interim administration and will be handled in the upcoming year by newly-appointed President Judith Rodin and Provost Stanley Chodorow. Fagin said she is confident that Rodin and Chodorow will have no problem implementing the remainder of the Commission's plans.
(10/28/92 10:00am)
To the Editor: Yes, it certainly does. Is that necessarily accurate? No, not in any way, shape or form. Believe it or not, there are some Republicans on campus. If you look hard enough, you will find some Bush '92 signs. There were more before they were vandalized or taken down, like the College Republican's sign on Locust Walk. Behind closed doors, many people here offer very conservative views, but most of them are afraid to voice them due to the liberal majority. By Hackney publicly supporting Bill Clinton, he only increases the hesitancy of the minority to speak their minds. Hackney needs to ensure this is a place where people can voice their opinions and not fear being lynched. Hackney seriously failed in his duty to the students of Penn when he openly advocated a Presidential candidate. SCOTT RIBBLE Engineering '96
(11/22/91 10:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney is scheduled to meet privately with City Council representatives and state legislators today to discuss the controversy surrounding the Mayor's Scholarship program. Hackney said last night that the he and the lawmakers will "discuss the whole range of issues" relating to the program, but declined to specify which lawmakers would be attending this afternoon's meeting. "It's rather straight forward -- PILCOP has been talking to [lawmakers] and giving their version, and we are simply seeking to set the record straight," Hackney said. PILCOP, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, filed suit in Common Pleas Court last month charging that the administration has not complied with a 1977 city ordinance which requires the University to provide scholarships to needy Philadelphia high school students. "We're there to answer their questions," Hackney added. "They have been given an erroneous view and misinformation." State Rep. James Roebuck (D-Phila.), who represents much of the area west of the University's campus, said last night that he had been invited to the meeting and planned to attend. Roebuck said that the meeting pertains to the Mayor's Scholarship program, but said he was not aware of the specific agenda. "I'm very interested, since it affects my district and my neighborhood," Roebuck said. "I suspect that we will get information about the scholarships." Hackney also said that lawmakers will be provided with "all the information they want" at the meeting. The University began the scholarship program to comply with a series of agreements with the city that date back to the 19th century. In exchange for the scholarships, the University received nearly 47 acres of land where the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Quadrangle now stand. PILCOP has alleged that the University is required to give out 125 new four-year scholarships annually, for a total of 500 at any given time. The University believes they should provide 125 scholarships total at one time.
(09/18/91 9:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney said yesterday his plan for diversifying Locust Walk will result in substantive changes, despite criticism from committee members and others that fraternities will remain dominant on the main thoroughfare. Hackney released the report from the Diversity on the Walk committee Monday, accepting all of the committee's 17 recommendations. Most of the recommendations focus on behaviorial and philosophical issues, but there are three physical changes which would create student residences on the Walk within the next two years. "I continue to think that the report is a very good report and will lead us to a diverse Walk," Hackney said. "I feel the majority of students are in agreement with me and the committee." But several committee members -- including the heads of the undergraduate, graduate and faculty governing bodies -- complained throughout last year that the president's original charge to the group, which stated they could not force the fraternities to move off the Walk, hampered the goal of achieving a Walk accessible and welcoming to all students. Four committee members refused to sign the report, saying that the Walk cannot be diversified and behaviorial problems eliminated until some or all fraternities are removed from the Walk. "I wish they had signed it," Hackney said, "But its substance is not affected." Despite continuing criticism about his stance on forced fraternity removal, Hackney yesterday stood by the decision, but said if any fraternity wanted to relocate voluntarily, the University would provide support. The next student residences on the Walk will probably be created at 3609-3611, where the University Counseling Service is currently housed, Hackney said The administration is looking into renovating the building or tearing it down to build a new structure on the site, Hackney said. The most substantial change will follow the expected completion of the Campus Center in 1995. Then, the Book Store will be moved into the new Center and that space at 38th Street and Locust Walk, can be used for housing, the report said. The president said he expects this change to be possible immediately following the completion of the Campus Center. But he emphasized that this could only be in the very long-term. One issue mentioned by several committee members yesterday was that the group was so large and had so many points of view that it impeded the year-long process. Hackney, who was pressured to add members to the committee when it was first formed, said though the large size of the committee may have made consensus difficult, "it was probably necessary to have all voices in the community represented."
(04/09/91 9:00am)
The University will abandon its United-Way-only charity campaign next year to implement a so-called combined campaign that gives employees more say in how their donations are spent. Hackney's decision comes after a month-long referendum, in which University empoyees overwhelmingly voted in favor of the combined campaign. The combined campaign received 1929 votes compared to the 1133 votes for the United Way-run system. Another 343 voters did not express a choice. Until 1988, the University's charitable campaign, through which employees can donate a portion of their paycheck to charity, was entirely under the auspices of the United Way. Employees could designate charities to which they would donate, but all funds were channeled through the United Way. In 1988, a group of faculty and staff, calling itself the "Committee for a Combined Campaign," argued that the United Way guided campaign stifled freedom of choice and information. The University adopted a hybrid form of the combined campaign in 1989. Under the new campaign, the University raised nearly $324,000 for the United Way and increased total charitable contributions by about 30 percent. President Hackney said yesterday several factors went into his decision to adopt the combined campaign for the next year, including last months referendum. In the referendum, employees were asked if they supported a campaign at all, and, if so, would they like a combined campaign or a United Way campaign. Of the 9,000 ballots distributed to University employees, 3,405 were returned to the President's Office. Of these, 2,528 employees voted for a charitable campaign, while 877 voted against having any campaign at all. "The referendum played a part . . . and I listened to the discussion," Hackney said. "I looked at the charitable campaign as something the University does for its faculty and staff." Combined Campaign committee member Jane Combrinck-Graham said last night she was "thrilled" and called the 62 percent vote for the combined campaign "astonishing." She said she feared that the referendum would have been won by the United Way because the organization still receives the greatest number of contributions of all the groups under the current plan. United Way officials declined to comment yesterday, but they expressed displeasure with the vote in a statement released yesterday evening. In the statement, the officials called the decision "a change for change's sake," adding that the combined campaign "does not offer Penn employees anything that they were not already receiving through the United Way campaign." "It is President Hackney's prerogative to determine how the University will conduct its workplace fundraising," the statement said. "We respect that." Along with the decision, the President announced that Dental School Dean Raymond Fonseca would serve as Penn's Way Campaign Chair. Fonseca said he was "excited" about being asked to take the position and added he looks forward to a successful campaign. He said he does not believe the past year's controversy will affect employee's good will. "I think that the better instincts will come out in people," Fonseca said.
(04/08/91 9:00am)
Two hundred years ago, the nation's founders amended the United States Constitution to prohibit government from passing laws which would abridge an individual's freedom of speech. Three years ago the University implemented a racial harassment policy similar to one that a Michigan state court has since found violates that fundamental freedom. Now, as President Sheldon Hackney struggles to develop the "right" harassment policy, he faces the same dilemma as numerous university administrators across the country -- should free expression be preserved at the cost of injury to some, or should individuals be protected from injury at the cost of abridged speech? · Since promising University Council last spring he would change the outdated policy, Hackney has released two proposed definitions of harassment. The first, released in October, radically changed the definition of harassment by narrowing its scope. The second proposed definition, which was presented to University Council last month, eases off the narrow definition, forming a bridge between the October proposal and the current policy. Hackney plans to present Council with a new proposal this week. Throughout the year-long debate, students and faculty have repeatedly focused on the specific wording of the policy, with many campus discussions centering on pure semantics rather than the effects of the code. One controversial inclusion in Hackney's two proposed definitions is the concept of "intent," which some faculty and students said puts an "unfair burden of proof" on the victim. The October definition said an action would constitute harassment only if it had "malicious intent." And the latest definition listed "intentional interference with academic or work status" or "intentional stigmatization and villification" among the six behaviors that would be considered harassment. Graduate student activist Wayne Glasker said during one of the debates that it is often difficult to prove the intentions of an act, making the harassment policy useless. "There can be instances when unintended harassment or abuse may occur," he said at last month's Council meeting. But others say inclusion of intent as a component of harassment is important to protecting free speech on campus. City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis said at last month's Council meeting that proving intent of an act protects alleged perpetrators from punishment for non-harassing behavior. Tomazinis said if the term "intent" is removed from Hackney's policy, people could become subject to unfounded accusations. Former PPU Speaker Debra Cermele said yesterday that after a session of debate on the University's racial harassment policy, most of the 65 PPU members voted in favor of a plan that would uphold Hackney's strict intent clause. She also said most of the five "parties" in PPU submitted plans that included the clause. "The biggest debate was about intent," Cermele said. "It is unusual that PPU would come to a consensus, but it was voted by a majority that intent must be part of the official definition." Many PPU members supported another controversial tenet of Hackney's October plan which said the harassment must be directed at the individual it offends. The third stipulation said the act must constitute "fighting words" or their non-verbal equivalents. Hackney said last week he has not yet settled the question of intent or decided if he will include the term in the definition he will present this week. Others on campus, while conceding that the campus debate is healthy, have speculated that the actual wording of the code will not effect behavior on campus in the long-run. "In the end everything will be done case by case," United Minorities Council Chairperson Nalini Samuel said. "The message to students is that they will be protected. That's what the policy needs to exude." But Assistant to the President Stephen Steinberg, who is working on the policy with Hackney, said clearer wording of the policy will help to outline accepted behavior on campus. "A clear policy will help all members of the University community behave in ways closer to the ideals of the University," Steinberg said. "It won't change people's behavior, but it's an important communications mechanism." Law School Dean Colin Diver, however, said the wording of the policy could define how students and faculty members behave on campus. "I think actions will change, not simply because of the wording of the policy, but because of the use of the policy to hear certain cases," Diver said last week. "The language of the policy becomes critical because it becomes the basis of whether students can be punished or not." · The debate over how far to restrict free speech continues around campus. To students, staff and faculty who are willing to risk insult and harm for the sake of open discussion, the First Amendment is the primary value in developing the policy. Hackney himself has said repeatedly that he feels open expression rights take precedence at the University. But for the many others who believe the University's role is to always shield its members from harm, the key issue is an individual's protection from possible injury. Steinberg said the administration has tried to come to terms with the two ideas. He said the new guidelines will attempt to "integrate" the concepts of free expression and non-harassment, rather than just form a compromise between them. Steinberg added that the seemingly contrasting ideas may not be as conflicting as people have argued, saying they both actually center on freedom of expression. He said the policy will make it easier for individuals to speak out without fear of being harassed. "An academic community rests on the notion of free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas," Steinberg explained. "It is not free and open if everyone who's a member of the community can't participate." Some University professors, however, have maintained that a harassment policy which in any way limits speech goes against the ideal of a University -- that academic institutions should at least uphold the freedoms of expression which are fundamental to the Constitution. "The University is a part of the United States of America where we have a Constitution that guarantees free speech," Physics Professor Michael Cohen said last week. "The University should be a place that has at least as much free speech as the country, if not more." Cohen, who instigated debate on the issue last year, and others hold that universities are established to allow for debate -- in any form -- in order to encourage the discovery of new ideas. They say broad harassment policies, such as the current one, prohibit that debate and thereby limit new intellectual discoveries. "The purpose [of a university] is not to create a 'civil environment' -- we try to insist on that, but it's not our reason for being," Diver said. "We have to have full and robust discussion and debate. We have to tolerate both ideas and language that a lot of people are going to find quite offensive." Diver, who has stood on the side of open expression throughout the entire University debate, said he supports the specific criteria set out by Hackney's October proposal. The narrowness, Diver said, may allow for some hateful speech, but will protect harmless language that would otherwise be cut out entirely. But the voices in favor of a narrow harassment policy are often drowned out by those who think the University does too little to protect minorities from insult and injury. They say racial harm should not be tolerated at a University, claiming "harassment" takes away their rights to freely express themselves. Gloria Gay, assistant director of the Penn Women's Center, said the administration is moving backwards in its efforts to find the best harassment policy for the University. She said narrowing the policy's scope further burdens the victim of harassment. "The point of it is that you don't victimize the victim, so you try to be inclusive and let people have due process," Gay said. "You don't narrow something so you exclude people from using the policy if they need it." "My interpretation is that nobody has the right to be saying negative things to other people," Gay said. UMC Chair Samuel said last week she also supports a broader scope for the harassment policy, pointing out that the University's Guidelines on Open Expression sufficiently protect people's First Amendment rights. "We have an Open Expression policy to protect free speech," College senior Samuel said. "This one should lean towards protecting minorities. It will balance out then." Samuel said the policy should make it easy for victims to bring perpetrators up on charges. She said many minority students are reluctant to claim they were harassed because of the difficulty in proving so. "The person being harassed should be able to say he or she was being harassed," Samuel said. Another faction throughout the year-long debate has questioned the need for a harassment policy at all, pointing out that most of the restrictions under the code are listed in other University policies or in state and federal laws. "[The parts of the policy that overlap with existing codes] merely dignify the policy and make it look like it's performing functions already performed," Cohen said. "The purpose of the policy is to prohibit free speech and to pretend it is to prevent illegal discrimination is a fraud." · But regardless of their side in the issue, most people agree that developing the right type of harassment policy is not the solution to racism on campus. Some faculty, staff and students say the emphasis should not be on guarding speech or punishing ignorance, but on bringing all members of the University into the realm of participation. "As hard as it is to set up rules to say you cannot act a certain way, it's easy compared to finding ways to increase the participation of blacks in the community," Communications Professor Carolyn Marvin, who teaches a class on free expression, said last week. "We shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that the appearance of politeness is the way to solve problems." Marvin, who made headlines last year for publicly burning an American flag to support her First Amendment freedom of expression, said more energy should be spent on finding ways to increase minorities among students, faculty and administrators, rather than on limiting speech. And Black Student League President Jessica Dixon said yesterday the University should make a greater attempt to educate students and faculty members about different races and cultures. She said education is the best way to prevent racial harassment. "A lot of times people are accused of being racist, but they're not racist, just ignorant," College junior Dixon said. "I think the University needs to make a bigger effort to educate everyone about racial diversity, cultures, different peoples' standards and norms."
(11/14/90 10:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney said last month that he will not use the Castle in any way that would prevent the expelled Psi Upsilon fraternity from reclaiming the house. "No use will be made of the Psi Upsilon house during the next three years that would preclude the return of Psi Upsilon to the Castle when and if the fraternity requalifies itself for recognition under the recognition policy," Hackney stated in the letter. Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan said yesterday that Hackney made the statement to protect the University during upcoming court proceedings, in which the fraternity -- known as the Castle -- will try to reverse the University's sanctions. "We don't want to look in public like we have a better idea of what to do with the house than the Pennsylvania court system," Constan said. But Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg said yesterday there is no legal reason not to make permanent plans for the centrally located house. He reiterated the University's stance that the University Trustees control the house. Psi Upsilon alumni maintain that they own the building, located at 36th Street and Locust Walk, and that in the fraternity's absence, the house can only be used for residential purposes. Faculty Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips, who last week threatened to resign from the Walk committee because Hackney said it could not consider relocating Walk fraternities, said yesterday the president's attitude towards the Castle further impairs the committee's usefulness. "It's a policy statement made by the president that was not referred to the committee for its consideration," Phillips said. "It seems to me that if we have a Locust Walk committee to consider the uses of Locust Walk, matters considering the usage of Locust Walk should be referred to the committee." But Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson, a committee co-chairperson, said the statement will have no effect on the workings of the committee. She said it expresses the same stance the president has held all semester. "He has always said that we would not make any long term permanent commitment," Morrisson said. "We're not ruling out any possibility for the future." Morrisson and Constan said they do not think the president's statement assumes the fraternity will be rerecognized if it applies. Hackney said early this semester that the Castle house would be filled by January, but Morrisson said in October that it is not likely to be occupied next semester. Several groups are jockeying for a spot in the vacant facility, and the building has entered into debate over efforts to diversify the Walk's residential population. The president has received staunch criticism throughout the semester for his refusal to move fraternities from the Walk, most recently from the influential Faculty Senate. The Castle has filed suit against the University, trying to get back on campus before 1993. The vice provost for University Life punished the chapter in spring for planning and executing the January kidnapping of a Delta Psi fraternity brother. The members were kicked out of their house, and the fraternity lost its recognition for at least three years.
(11/09/90 10:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney yesterday held fast to his stance not to move Locust Walk fraternities despite growing pressure from influential campus groups. The Faculty Senate Wednesday added its powerful voice to wide-spread sentiment that fraternity removal should be considered in the diversification of Locust Walk. But Hackney reiterated his position that allowing fraternities to be removed from the Walk would tear the campus apart. "I have been saying from the outset that we could change the character of Locust Walk without the process being divisive," the president said yesterday. "I am not out to punish anyone and I don't want to conduct a vendetta." The Faculty Senate and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly have also called on Hackney to reexamine the membership of the Locust Walk committee. They said graduate students, with only one committee member, are underrepresented. Hackney said yesterday he would not consider changing the make-up of the Walk committee, but said to ensure getting a wide range of views, the group will conduct open forums and interviews. Hackney formed the Walk committee last semester in response to student and faculty concerns that the campus' prime residential space is open only to predominantly white fraternities. In his charge to the committee this fall, Hackney said members should not consider moving the 11 Walk fraternities in examining ways to allow a greater mix of students to live on the campus's main artery. The Faculty Senate unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday stating that the Walk committee "should be free to make any recommendation it wishes on the uses of Locust Walk," according to Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips. The resolution joins an almost identical GAPSA resolution and echoes criticism from many undergraduate and graduate students. Phillips said Wednesday that he may resign from the committee because he thinks Hackney's charge restricts the group's actions. He said yesterday that he has made no further decisions and declined to comment on Hackney's refusal to consider changes. The Faculty Senate head said the second meeting of the Walk committee last night did not sway his decision either way. Both Phillips and GAPSA Chairperson Susan Garfinkel, the graduate member of the Walk committee, have threatened to resign because they think Hackney has taken away the group's maneuvering room. But Garfinkel said last night she will not resign at this time. The GAPSA chairperson told her constituents at a monthly meeting last night that she thinks it is premature to resign, saying it is better to wait to see how committee deliberations proceed. But the Arts and Sciences graduate student said she has not ruled out leaving the committee, adding that she is more likely to step down because of Hackney's charge than because of the make-up of the advisory body. At last night's meeting, GAPSA members announced plans to form their own committee on Walk diversification which will send recommendations to the president's committee. Many GAPSA members said only Garfinkel can decide whether to remain on the committee. Garfinkel said members feel it is better to have access to the committee's information than to take a stance against the president through her resignation. Other Walk committee members -- some of whom have also considered resigning from the committee -- said last night they think the committee should move beyond current debate over the committee's make-up and charge and begin deliberations on what to do with Locust Walk. "I think it's a shame that [Hackney] is not willing to change the committee's makeup, but we need to start concentrating on the issues," Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance Co-Chairperson Robin Wood said last night. "I think at this point I'm committed to working it through with this committee." Black InterGreek Council President Kathryn Williams, who said she never thought of leaving the committee, said last night she is not concerned with the president's specific charge to the committee. "Our major function is to bring up the many issues and let him understand where the campus is coming from," Williams said. "The committee can do whatever it wants to do and the president can do whatever he wants to do."
(10/19/90 9:00am)
Yesterday was an unusually lucky day for Room 205 of Harrity Elementary School. At 8:30 a.m., parents and students of the 26-member third grade class learned that through the University-run Say Yes to Education program, Bucks County residents Robert and Jane Toll have guaranteed college or vocational program tuition for each student who completes high school. Mr. Toll is a 1966 Law School graduate and Mrs. Toll received a master's degree from the Graduate School of Education the same year. The gift appeared to be a surprise to the bright-eyed third-graders and their anxious parents, who had been summoned mysteriously to the West Philadelphia elementary school's gymnasium for the announcement. Smiles, applause and a standing ovation greeted the news. Carrie Graham, grandmother of third-grader Rahee Graham, beamed as she called the opportunity for her grandson to go to college "incredible." Jane Toll said that she and her husband wanted to "give [the students] the ability and opportunity to become anything they wish to be." Robert Toll is the chairman and chief executive officer of a construction firm. Jane Toll is the president of a real estate development corporation. In addition to paying the tuitions, the Tolls will contribute to educational enrichment and mentorial programs for the students throughout their school years. Say Yes to Education was born in 1987, when University Trustee George Weiss and Overseer and Associate Graduate School of Education Trustee Diane Weiss pledged to pay for the college educations of 112 sixth-graders at the Belmont Elementary School, if the children had to promised to finish high school. Its goal is to redirect the lives of West Philadelphia elementary-school students by providing financial, educational and psychological assistance and encouragement. Jane Toll said that she and her husband were inspired by philanthropist Eugene Lang, who in 1982 promised to pay for the college education of all 57 graduates of the East Harlem Elementary School in New York City. The Tolls handpicked Harrity because of its proximity to the University, and because it was suggested by the Collaborative for West Philadelphia Public Schools, created by Philadelphia School Superintendent Constance Clayton and University President Sheldon Hackney. The original Belmont Elementary School students, now in 10th grade and numbering 67, were present to welcome their new "brothers and sisters" to the Say Yes to Education "family" and to pass on footballs to each child. The football is the program's symbol -- it represents the chance and opportunity to achieve their ambitions. Linda Hampton, mother of a student in the original sixth grade class, encouraged the parents of the third graders to get involved. "This program will allow my son to become a good and productive person," she said. Diane Weiss instructed the thrid-graders to "take this football and run with it as far as you can go because we have a goal, winning, getting a college education." Superintendent Clayton gave the class her own present, an oversized diploma representing the students' "first touchdown." The diploma proclaimed that the third graders will complete their high school education. In addition to matching donors and classes, the Say Yes to Education program sponsors trips to various universities to show the students what college is like. University of Hartford President Humphrey Tonkin told the audience that the "Say Yes family" is expanding to his city. Tonkin, Hackney and the Weiss's were preparing to fly to Hartford yesterday to announce a sponsorhip there.
(10/11/90 9:00am)
During yesterday's University Council meeting, Hackney charged Judicial Inquiry Officer Constance Goodman with investigating the 45-minute show, aired October 2, during which the hosts split a bottle of tequila, discussed oral sex in explicit detail and showed pictures of nude men and women. The president requested that Goodman pay particular attention to the portion of the show where hosts identified first-year women by their name and face from the Freshman Record and put one woman's voice on the air without her knowledge or consent. Hackney said that he shared the University community's "deep revulsion" at the show's contents. "I really feel for the two women involved," Hackney said. "When [the hosts] were engaged in what they thought were fun and games, they may have affected the lives of other people." The hosts and producers -- Wharton senior Vincent Fumo and College senior Richard Rothstein -- called two women, reaching one on the air. They put the student's voice on the air, commented on her appearance and asked if she would agree to go on a date with one of them. UTV's executive committee fired Rothstein and Fumo and canceled Pig Penn the day after the show premiered. Hackney commended UTV officials for their "swift" action, saying after the meeting that the station management "moved in a very responsible way." Rothstein said last night he was sorry if the show offended anyone, adding that the hosts did not mean to harass the women. But he said he did not understand the furor over the show. "Would it be construed as harassment if a woman called me on a show and said that my picture was attractive and if I were so in real life?" Rothstein said. "I very much doubt it . . . I don't think that it's making people feel vulnerable by telling them they look attactive in their face book picture." Fumo could not be reached for comment last night. Fumo, son of Pennyslvania state senator Vincent Fumo, changed his phone number within the past week. JIO Goodman said yesterday that she will begin her investigation this morning by viewing the show and by talking with Station Manager Dianne Rekstad for more information. "Depending on what I find in the tape I will go forward with the investigation," Goodman said last night. But it is unclear how Goodman will obtain a copy of Pig Penn because few copies exist. Rothstein said last night that he does not have a copy of the show. UTV officials could not be reached for comment last night and it is not certain whether UTV owns a station copy. Hackney said yesterday that he asked JIO Goodman to investigate the show after reading partial transcripts of the show and a guest column, both of which ran on the editorial pages of The Daily Pennsylvanian.
