Our daily newsletter rounding up all of the top headlines from the DP. Get it Monday-Friday in your inbox. Free.
Sign up »
34th Street Magazine's "Toast" is a semi-weekly newsletter with the latest on Penn's campus culture and arts scene. Delivered Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Free.
Sign up »
Penn, Unbuttoned is Penn's only intentionally satirical newsletter, giving you your weekly dose of comedy from Under the Button every Wednesday. Free.
Sign up »
Quaker Nation is a weekly sports newsletter covering all things Penn sports. Delivered Monday mornings to your inbox. Free.
Sign up »
Recruiter's Row is a biweekly recruitment newsletter that keeps you up-to-date on all things employment related. Get it in your inbox every other Wednesday. Free.
Sign up »
I've already signed up
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
In her Sept. 10 op-ed in The New York Times, Susan Sontag anticipated that the anniversary of Sept. 11 would serve as "a day of mourning" and "an affirmation of American solidarity."
I wonder if, as you hurried to class on Monday, glancing over the headlines, the one that read "Two students sent to HUP for over-drinking" gave you pause? It certainly gave me pause, although I am heartened that students are helping one another by seeking assistance if their friends have had too much to drink. Getting help when needed is the right thing to do and I hope it will continue. I would hope, too, that if a student's over-drinking seems habitual and addictive, that you will urge him or her to seek treatment for alcoholism. I am very concerned, as are college and university presidents across the country, that binge drinking and related aggressive behavior seem to be escalating on college campuses, including our own. I am saddened, too, that our most promising generation puts itself in so much danger. Most unfortunate is that alcohol use is considered the social norm by some students on college campuses. Having spent much of my career studying health-promoting and health-damaging behavior, I am especially worried by the pervasive view that if you don't drink, you cannot have as much fun. A cultural shift away from this view needs to stem from a grass-roots effort: Students helping students. Penn students have what it takes to do anything they set out to do. I know that, and it makes me proud to be a Penn alumna and its president. Penn students are leaders, unparalleled in their intelligence and ambition. Penn students want to change the world, and I believe they can. Penn students also love a challenge, and I want to lay one before you. As you well know, Penn is a university of firsts -- the nation's first university, the nation's first medical school, the nation's first school of business, the list goes on. I challenge you to make Penn the first university where our very own students lead the campaign against excessive drinking. Are you willing to do what it takes to abolish excessive drinking and the risk that one of your fellow students will die from drinking too much? If my colleagues or I say binge drinking is harmful, it may have limited impact because it is not considered cool to listen to "the administration." But if you tell a peer that it is not cool to drink till you drop, that is another story. It is the beginning of a cultural shift. It is an opportunity to change your world. The students, faculty and staff on my special committee on alcohol abuse offered recommendations that can become the framework of a student campaign against excessive drinking. The campaign can be based, aptly enough, on committee-suggested strategies that spell the acronym PEERS -- Prevention, Education, Enforcement, Responsibility and Social Enrichment. · Prevention: Working with a coordinator of efforts against alcohol abuse whose appointment will be announced shortly, students can make constructive recommendations on how to maximize the existing strong but decentralized campus efforts against alcohol abuse. I plan to appoint a student advisory board to work with the coordinator. Working with the coordinator and the advisory board, you can spread the word that Penn students "work hard and play hard," but that Penn is not a hard-drinking school. You can help develop approaches to affirm the rights of non- and moderate drinkers. (In a very telling survey, 90 percent of Penn students reported that they are against drinking to excess. In the same survey, 76 percent of Penn students reported that they do not need to be drunk or high to have a good time.) You can make recommendations on ways to provide more consistent education about alcohol and more support and outlets for students feeling stress and social discomfort, so they do not use alcohol as a steam valve. · Education. You can work with faculty and others to educate your peers about ways to change the culture of excessive drinking and its widespread acceptance, the hazardous effects of alcohol on the body and the "second hand" effects of alcohol on friends, loved ones and students who share a campus with peers who abuse alcohol. You can work with the coordinator on important data collection and analysis to help us all fully understand the perceptions of excessive drinking and actual usage patterns. The research should be, as the committee suggested, quantitative and qualitative, with special attention to existing creative, collaborative prevention projects at other institutions. · Enforcement. The University will impose stricter disciplinary consequences up to and including suspension or expulsion for behaviors identified by the committee as dangerous (such as drinking games, alcohol-based hazing rituals and assaultive behavior while intoxicated). You can denounce such behavior and support the disciplinary consequences. You can also support the handling of off-campus alcohol violations in the same manner as on-campus violations, where permitted by University policy. · Responsibility. PEERS is all about responsibility -- responsibility for yourselves and for your fellow students. This is about drinking to excess, hard enough and fast enough to induce illness and even death. This is about talented young people who abandon all reason and put themselves and others at risk. Be responsible. Encourage responsibility in others. That's being smart. · Social Enrichment. There is fun without alcohol -- and lots of it. Look at the number of class-wide and cross-University events sponsored by student groups and those sponsored by the college houses and the Office of the Vice Provost of University Life through "Penn p.m." Suggestions are always welcome. Students want a space that is "dark, crowded, noisy [and] open late at night," and we will provide it, right in the heart of campus on Locust Walk. There is poetic justice, in my view, that this will be housed in a fraternity closed down for, among other things, failing to comply with the rules of its national organization regarding alcohol. And Penn is quickly becoming the new city-wide hot spot for late-night activity -- with several restaurants and coffeehouses, the new Barnes & Noble and more. Those who claim there is nothing to do need only look around them. That alcohol abuse is a complex issue does not come as a surprise to anyone. There is no silver bullet here, no one-size-fits-all solution. But as these multiple endeavors -- and similar efforts at other institutions -- are taking place, there is much responsibility that is ultimately, unavoidably yours. My colleagues and I will do our part to implement many of the suggestions of the special committee on alcohol abuse. PEERS is a way for you to do your part. Take up the challenge.
A few weeks ago, I endured a 12-hour Greyhound bus ride home from Boston. Yes, I would agree, no sane individual should subject themselves to such agony. I often tell people that if I'm really bad in my lifetime I'll be riding around hell in a Greyhound bus. Fortunately, this masochistic experience has at least allowed me to come confidently to one conclusion: Civility is becoming a thing of the past. Admittedly, examples set by the drivers and riders of Greyhound buses, as reputable as they may be, should not serve as the sole basis for my societal theories. They did, however, confirm creeping suspicions I have been fostering over time. The trip began with the Nazi bus driver. This 6'2" brutish woman treated riders like little peons out to swindle Greyhound and challenge her almighty authority. My first encounter with her was not pretty. I was transferring buses in New York's Port Authority and made an agreement with a driver to hold my belongings on the bus so that I could go into the city during the two-hour layover. When I returned to get on the bus, the Nazi bus driver appeared, noticing that I had not gone through the "normal line," and immediately began barking me out. The other bus driver, who had made the deal with me, tried to intervene. There was, however, no logical reasoning with this woman seeking dictatorship over all. I tried to find a common ground with her. I sought out empathy: "Listen," I said, "I'm really sorry about the confusion. I honestly was not trying to sidestep any rules." I had deviated from Greyhound's conventional practice, and she felt compelled to think the worst of me, making me pay big time. I was forced to wait another hour in Port Authority surrounded by my suitcases. I finally boarded the next bus, determined to survive this trip with a decent attitude. That woman had to be just a bad apple. Not quite. As I was sitting on the bus, contentedly reading my Newsweek, I noticed an older crippled woman making her way to a seat rather slowly. The man behind her, who was riding Greyhound because his Harley was in the shop, was losing patience quickly. He yelled out, "Lady, are you gonna move anytime soon or am I gonna have to move you?" I looked around and you could see the smiles appear on the faces of people in the long line waiting behind her. No one even considered assisting this struggling woman to expedite the process or, better yet, for the sheer sake of kindness. Failing to move from my seat, engrossed in the spectacle and beginning to sense a societal trend, I was as bad as the rest. The incivility did not end there. As we stopped to eat at the ever appetizing Roy Rogers, the bus driver adamantly exclaimed that we had 10 minutes to be in and out -- not a minute more -- and could not go to the bathroom inside the restaurant since there was one on the bus. I thought he must be joking. People always take longer than the time given, and who goes to the bathroom on those Greyhound buses? That's even more masochistic than riding the bus. Everyone, except for one man, was back on the bus within the time allotted. While this man's girlfriend made his absence known -- he was in the restaurant's bathroom -- the driver went ballistic and refused to wait. There was a literal brawl on the bus. As we were driving away the girlfriend began clutching the keys of the driver and screaming at him to stop. There was swearing, name-calling and, worse, a half-hour delay for everyone else because these two individuals could not civilly work things out. One might wonder, as did I at first, why I did not come to my realization about civility earlier. Perhaps up to that point I had been somewhat oblivious, desiring to exercise hopeful idealism. But the Greyhound's confined quarters seemed to magnify society's growing problem. The commission has come to agree that much of the "ideological extremism, polarization of contemporary public culture, the thoughtlessness of social behaviors, the lack of strong leadership and the tendency towards the super-fragmentation of communities, may be the result of the intrusion of mass market forces and values into areas of social, cultural and political life from which they were formerly, largely absent. A "culture of immediacy" has developed, leading people to be less concerned for their community and others. It is almost as if we are becoming desensitized to a trend of inconsiderateness toward others and unwillingness to compromise. People are beginning to anticipate disagreement. What, then, does this mean for you? Penn administrators, faculty and students can conform to the norm or they can complement the work Rodin is undertaking and allow Penn to set the stage for measures other universities will aim to replicate. Admittedly, there are some students who load computers with viruses and pornography; who recklessly ride bicycles, banking points for how many pedestrians they can knock off; who refuse to lend a hand for fear of upsetting a precious exam mean; and who ignore students struggling to scrounge up an extra dime to print up the last page of a paper that was due 10 minutes before. But, for as many bad apples there is a significant number of those who do step up. I, a College student, have typed this entire column on a Wharton computer. An empathetic Wharton student -- imagine that -- whom I had never met before, took pity on me and allowed me to use his account when my computer crashed and none of the labs were open. Folks, there is definitely hope. With the new academic year upon us, it is good to remember that while we are celebrating a nice emancipation from our parents, we are not in a world of our own. Consideration counts.
Last week, we took an important step in the implementation of our full campus master plan: We held the ceremonial groundbreaking for Sansom Common, which, when complete, will add more than 300,000 square feet of retail, dining, and residential space to our campus. At the Nov. 13, 1996 University Council meeting, I brought the campus community up to date on the expansive and fresh thinking taking place at Penn about the quality of campus facilities, the condition of student residences, and recreational opportunities and retail amenities, both on campus and in the area surrounding the campus. But at least as important in the long term are the principles and goals that underlie the planning process here: · A vibrant, attractive, and safe campus. · Facilities that support the academic initiatives articulated in Agenda for Excellence, our strategic plan. · Contemporary, high-quality student residences. · Greatly expanded recreational and retail opportunities for the campus community. · The highest and best use of our existing facilities. · Robust economic development to support community revitalization. These emphases build on the campus master planning principles articulated in 1992 by Venturi Scott Brown. I said, too, in November that there is much we must do. Many academic facilities no longer support the changing way we teach and learn at Penn. Student residences are dated and must be made more attractive and responsive to students' needs. We need to improve recreational opportunities for all who study, work, and live here. The retail amenities on and surrounding the campus must offer more quality and choice than they do now. Those at the University Council meeting also heard me point to other particular developments that were underway -- and that have advanced over the past eight months -- including: · The construction of facilities for the Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, which continues on schedule and on budget; the state-of-the-art facilities are scheduled to be completed at the end of October. · The receipt of the Biddison-Hier analysis of our housing stock and the recommendations of the Residential Planning Committee, better known as the Brownlee Report. Both will guide our thinking as we address the work that must be done, both physical and otherwise, on and in our student residences. · The anticipated delivery this summer of recommendations by our consultant on campus recreational facilities, based in major part on a survey of students, faculty, and staff to glean their opinions on the quality and quantity of the facilities. · The renovation of College Hall, Logan Hall and now Irvine Auditorium -- to be followed by the renovation of Houston Hall and parts of Williams Hall -- which will bring new vitality to the "heart" of campus as we transform these historically significant buildings into useful space for academic and student life -- the Perelman Quadrangle. Like these other vitally important projects, Sansom Common is critical to Penn's future and to the future of our community. That's precisely why City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, City Council President John Street, Mayor Ed Rendell, and so many others in city government are so excited about the project. It means jobs. It means opportunities for businesses in West Philadelphia. It means economic growth. But, perhaps most important, it is symbolic of Penn's commitment to the city of Philadelphia and, more specifically, to West Philadelphia. It will create a vibrant area, with activity day and night. It will create an area with a critical mass of retail and public spaces. It will create an area with a stronger sense of neighborhood.
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.
Although increased patrols and security stations will provide an increased sense of security, Rodin's measures would incur an enhanced financial burden for the University with little positive results. The costs associated with this project would be tremendous. In addition to the initial costs of construction, equipment procurements and personnel training, the University would have permanent additional staff and maintenance costs. These costs would provide only an appearance rather than a real enhancement of security. Rather than pursuing personnel increases with respect to the police force and security guards, the University should follow alternative measures that would provide more protection at a lower cost. Even Rodin stated her plan's greatest shortcoming, "Yet no one can be always protected by others?" Instead the University should procure an information network comprised of video cameras and a remote monitoring station as a vantage point to decrease crime on campus. No one should expect a police officer on every corner 24 hours a day to protect the general population. Rather, through the use of prepositioned video cameras, security personnel would be able to monitor the campus and surrounding area and then respond when applicable. This plan does not call for the end of police patrols of any sort, rather to provide a cost-effective measure that would give affordable security benefits. These cameras would provide numerous advantages over the traditional method of increasing patrols. First, they would provide a constant view of the area under surveillance. This would be an incredible deterrent to criminal actions. If criminals knew that they would be watched with a nearby police presence, they would be further dissuaded from committing a crime. Second, the cameras would dramatically decrease the response time to the crime scene. Dispatchers would instantly know the current situation with regards to both the victim and the assailant. The police would have a positive identification on the suspect, pinpoint his exact location and know the exact nature of the crime. Currently, the police department must wait for either the victim or a witness to contact the station, report the crime, then the dispatcher must assess the importance of the call and if it is real or not. Finally, the dispatcher must send the appropriate level of police resources to apprehend the suspect. As one can obviously see, the use of prepositioned video cameras would greatly reduce the response time of the police. The response time and the level of police are directly linked to the chances of successfully capturing the suspect. In addition, the prosecution of said suspect would be greatly enhanced as the security personnel would be able to record the incident for later use. By being able to preempt the need for a citizen to call the police, one can see how video cameras could provide an effective alternative to blue light telephones. These cameras would be both more efficient, reliable and accurate in their description of the crime scene. The use of prepositioned video cameras would complement the role of the police officers in a nonintrusionary manner. These cameras would view only the public sphere to the same extent as police patrols currently do. Some may conjure fears associated with an Orwellian Big Brother, yet these claims would be unfounded. These cameras would not be monitored by the police department per se, nor would they be recording all of the time. Rather, security personnel would run the remote operations center which would complement the current police emergency line. When viewing a criminal action, they would have the option of recording the incident and would appropriate the proper police presence. Thus, the police would be properly directed without having the means to violate the general privacy of the populace. Also, both the suspects and the police officers would be aided by such a system. In addition to recording the evidence, these tapes would show if officers are acting properly or not. For example, during the incident in which a student accused an officer of physically knocking him off of his bicycle to enforce the bicycle ban, the video would have been extremely helpful. The tape would clearly show if the officer was guilty or not. The Rodin plan also ignores the need to improve the police department through qualitative not quantitative measures. The University should strive to improve the effectiveness of each police officer. One method would be to update the tactics employed by the police department. Currently, the average police officer has the same options available as Wyatt Earp in the Old West. Armed with only a nightstick and a gun, the police are severely limited. They can either talk to the suspect or use force as seen through the stick or the gun. The police department should pursue instead additional options in the realm of less-than-lethal weapons. These weapons provide officers with enhanced flexibility when faced in a multitude of confrontations. One example would be that of Oleoresin Capsicum, better known as Pepper Spray. Pepper Spray is comprised of a natural substance that allows officers to effectively counter dangerous individuals without the threat of police danger or legal liability to the suspect. Without Pepper Spray, the police officer might be pushed into a compromised situation which might require deadly force that could have been otherwise avoided. Furthermore, The Department of Public Safety should employ techniques to decrease the amount of office work for the arresting officer. After an arrest, an officer could spend up to four hours away for his patrol stuck behind a typewriter. Therefore, an officer's shift could be easily comprised of administrative duties instead of working where he is needed, on the street. Through computer system already in place in police departments in areas such as New Mexico, the administrative time spent by officers have been reduced by over 60 percent. This freeing of time would provide an inexpensive way to increase the level of security without incurring expensive personnel costs. In her report entitled, "Increasing Our Collective Security" Judith Rodin takes an important first step in recognizing the security needs of the Greater University community. However, instead of providing a true level of enhanced security, she merely advocates a costly yet marginally effective program. Through the assistance of technology Public Safety could find an affordable means to support its staff and truly enhance campus security.
As we begin the spring semester, I want to share some thoughts I have had regarding several recent issues on campus. In just the past six months, three unrelated incidents have understandably disturbed and offended members of our community. Specifically, many were affronted by research funding received by a faculty member from an outside foundation accused of supporting neo-Nazi and racist agendas, by a student's article on Haiti published by a campus publication, and by the retrospective exhibit of Andres Serrano's photographs at the Institute of Contemporary Art, especially the notorious "Piss Christ." Not surprisingly, the common cry in response to each of these incidents has been: "Why doesn't the University stop this!" This is a heartfelt demand and it deserves a clear response. We "permit" these events because, first, in truth, we can never wholly prevent them -- and in each of these recent cases, those responsible acted legally, were clearly identified, and did not hide behind the illicit screens of anonymity or vandalism. Second, we permit them because tolerating the intolerable idea is the price of the freedom of expression without which we cannot survive as an academic institution. But third, and most importantly, we permit them because doing so is the only way to change things. Hearing the hateful is the only way to identify and educate the hater. Seeing the offensive is a necessary step to understanding and rejecting the perspective from which it comes. Seriously considering even the most distasteful idea is the absolute precondition to arguing effectively against it. By mission and by tradition, universities are open forums in which competing beliefs, philosophies, and values contend. Some will appear ill-informed, disrespectful, vengeful; in exposing and challenging them, their flaws become self-evident. That is why we do not close off debate by official pronouncement. That is why we must use such incidents to promote debate, to spotlight the hater, and to expose the hateful to the light of day. In recent months, I have been especially pleased to see the responsible way in which those offended by the Serrano exhibit voiced their protest in outspoken, but reasoned and appropriate arguments, and then worked constructively with the Institute of Contemporary Art to create a forum for the public discussion of their concerns. Those who have been outraged regarding the article published in The Red and Blue have been encouraged to do likewise. We as a community are learning to use public discussion and debate to educate one another and to assert our views. It is my hope that, in the future, those who know they may offend --while free to exercise their right of open expression -- will, as a matter of simple courtesy, open a dialogue ahead of time with groups or individuals they know will be affected by their exercise of that right. It is vital that we reach out to each other in this way, because we can learn to use the freedom of ideas and expression to educate rather than to wound. The University administration's job is to support such dialogue and debate, not to cut it off; to create an environment in which we can educate each other, not one in which doctrine or orthodoxy are legislated from on high. Will we provide "moral leadership" to the Penn community? Absolutely. But moral leadership requires suasion not censorship, conscience not coercion. Most of all, it requires insisting that we -- all of us -- talk about what troubles us. We must all use such occasions to fulfill the University's educational mission for each other. Part of that mission is to educate for leadership, and we must each take responsibility to respond to our own moral compass in ways that better the life of our community. Words are the life-blood of our university. For all their limitations, even if they sometimes drive us apart, words are what bind us together in the academy. Martin Luther King, Jr., understood the power of words. He believed that we must use them to talk about the difficult and painful issues that divide us, about race and about religion, about politics and about power, about gender and about identity. But I urge you to choose carefully the words you use. The words of hatred and bigotry, insult and ignorance, destroy dialogue and community and must be answered. I hope the day will come when no one in our community will use such words or inflict pain on others with intent. But until then, when we are faced with words of offense and awfulness, we must draw those who use them into the dialogue of ideas. That is the essential precondition of the dynamics of change. That is why we may censure speech, but never censor speakers. In the last two years, this community has found that we cannot, with policies and procedures, legislate the unlegislatable. If we can learn this lesson and put it into practice, then we can create together a model community in which individual and group differences form a mosaic, not a melting pot that tries to makes them in a homogenous mix. We are a community of different identities, and we must create a context in which a true diversity of views and opinions, persons and groups, politics and perspectives, is nurtured, valued and shared. But let us raise the level of the discourse, dispense with the intention to hurt, and each take more responsibility for all the members of our community. In that spirit, I welcome you back from winter vacation to the exciting challenges that lie ahead. Judith Rodin has served as president of the University since last July.