661 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/11/99 9:00am)
From Melissa Wong's, "Days Like This," Fall '99 From Melissa Wong's, "Days Like This," Fall '99Seeking professionals to work in prestigious Boston law firm. Tight miniskirts and willingness to have love affairs with colleagues required. Welcome to the world of Ally McBeal. This is obviously not a job description you would find while searching for summer jobs or careers after graduation. Still, the manner in which Ally McBeal portrays women in the workplace is misleading and even offensive to women who do work in professional environments. First, the characters barely seem to be maintaining a working law firm, being instead much too busy with their sexual exploits to show much regard or concern for their clients and cases. Law partners end up sleeping with judges and trial witnesses and very rarely do we see a segment where work is accomplished without some obvious degree of flirtation. Sex is an issue that is supposed to be kept separate from the workplace but the ease with which the two are intermingled in every episode of Ally treats a very serious issue frivolously. While America is finally at a point of awareness about sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct on Ally McBeal occurs constantly without anyone seeming to mind. Sexuality also seems to be the premier asset of the women of Ally McBeal. Characters are not depicted as being capable and independent women, but rather as women who cannot stop thinking about men. They seduce their colleagues, pine over old boyfriends and use their sexuality as their main asset instead of their aptitude, intelligence or skill. Other character traits seem to be firmly rooted in the sexist television of the sixties and seventies. Take the example of Ally McBeal herself. She is a flighty and neurotic woman who continues to obsess over her ex-boyfriend and his new wife, both of whom work at her office. Ally also carries with her an aura of weakness and fragility, looking ready to break down and burst into tears at every one of life's complications. She -- like most of the show's women -- is hunting for a man, and this remains a big priority in her personal and, so it happens, professional life. Is this how we picture the modern working woman? At the opposite end of the spectrum is Ally's new co-worker, Nelle. She is a competent and confident character but she has also long since alienated many of her colleagues with her cool and distant manner. Perhaps she would have been better accepted if she were a little less smart or a little less capable. And then there is Ling, the sole Asian woman in the group, who stands out as the exotic sex kitten. Her love scenes have included pouring hot candle wax on her partner's chest, the usual dose of the stereotypical Asian fetish fantasy. Of course, this is television and entertainment and we viewers chuckle at the exploits of Ally and her cast as they tackle legal cases and the trauma of the yuppie life with flair, fun and humor. But Ally McBeal appeals to viewers because it attempts to parallel our own experiences in the workplace. And it is now evident that Ally is no longer treated as just a television show that we watch purely for enjoyment. Increasingly, we are turning to Ally McBeal as if it was representative of a trend in American society. Time magazine placed Ally McBeal star Calista Flockhart on its June 29, 1998 cover alongside Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem with the headline, "Is Feminism Dead?" We answer with a resounding no, that to draw upon this weak fictional character to represent the modern woman is utterly wrong and ridiculous. And yet the fact remains that many still do see women through Ally-colored glasses. Considering the family-friendly time slot of the show, we should be even more concerned for girls who look to Ally's character as a role model and Ally's career path as one they'd like to follow. As for those of us who are already members of the workforce or will soon join the ranks, look elsewhere for your role models.
(10/05/99 9:00am)
To the Editor: Whether or not this argument is true, I find it difficult to take Kim's attempt to pontificate on this issue seriously when he incorporates stereotypes of his own into his article. I do not understand how Kim's experiencing "uncomfortably aggressive cases of racial harassment" from groups of anonymous high school boys in Center City at night would lead him to comment on his drawing "no conclusions about every white teenager from Northeast Philly based on a few stupid punks with nothing better to do than roam around and call me names." Is this assumption about the neighborhood from which these anonymous harassers hail not the same type of stereotypical thinking for which Kim is chiding the University community? If Kim were truly serious about changing Penn students' perceptions of the residents of West Philadelphia, perhaps he would be better served by first examining his own thoughts and his own attitudes about people and eliminating his own stereotypes from his argument. William Miller College '00 Celebrating the old To the Editor: It saddens me to see that the old Hillel building is slated for destruction. Its cornerstone dates the building to the beginning of the century, the building is as old as most of the Quad and its architecture resonates nicely with the neighboring Christian Association building and with older Penn structures such as Bennett Hall and the Veterinary Medicine Old Quad. With some luck, the proposed construction will not destroy another little portion of the older architecture on our campus. John Nemec SARS Doctoral Candidate Keep names secret To the Editor: In regard to your editorial, "Promoting student safety" (DP, 10/4/99), I am strongly opposed to the University releasing the names of student sexual offenders. To let students know the names of student sexual offenders will solve nothing. I do agree that offenders need to be punished in the form of counseling, community service and/or parental notification, but the names of these animals do not need to be released. Imagine sitting in class when the professor decides to do a roll call. While calling out one of the names on the list, some of the female students in the class recognize that that name belongs to a sexual offender. They immediately shy away and proceed to glare at him. He is seen as an outcast. The University should rely on correctional methods and let the system run its course. Sexual offenders should be put through a strict rehabilitation program where they will hopefully learn the wrong that they have done. However, they shouldn't have to walk around for the rest of their Penn years with a scarlet letter carved into their foreheads. The best way to prevent sexual offenses is through awareness, not by releasing the names of offenders to the entire student body. Andy Chai Wharton '01
(09/24/99 9:00am)
Since the start of the school year, at least three female students have received harassing phone calls, all of which appear to be the work of one man claiming to be a doctoral student in Penn's Psychology Department. According to University Police Deputy Chief of Investigations Tom King, three female students have filed similar complaints thus far. In each case, the caller has identified himself as someone from the Psychology Department, explaining that he is working on a study and needs females with "passive-aggressive personalities." All three complaints occurred between 10 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. Though the calls begin with talk of a psychology experiment, the topic eventually switches to a sexual nature. At times, King said, the caller has even identified himself as the "naughty night-gram." One of the female students, who wished to remain anonymous, said that the caller seemed very believable -- so much so that she continued to talk with him for over two hours. "He was talking about things that very well could have been in a psychology study, so it was totally believable for a while," she said. "He was crazy enough that he was good." The majority of the conversation did not relate to sexual topics, the student said. "At first I thought it was legitimate so I kept talking to him but the conversation turned sexual and I got really freaked out," she added. The student explained that the caller wanted to enroll her in some kind of study about dominant and submissive personalities. He initially gave the name "Dave Moraglia." There is no one by that name currently enrolled at Penn. In addition, the student said that two of her friends received strikingly similar calls, making the situation even more disturbing. King explained that despite the unusual nature of the calls, an increase in phone harassment is common at the beginning of the school year. "The callers have additional targets of opportunity [in September]," King said. "It probably happens at most universities." University Police have received several unrelated harassment complaints since the start of the school year, King said. Penn Police Det. Jim Blackmore, who spoke at New Student Orientation on the topic of phone harassment, said he believes these latest calls are simply the work of students with a little too much time on their hands. While there is really no way to prevent this type of incident, Blackmore advised that someone who does receive a harassing phone call should hang up immediately and activate the campus call trace system by dialing "257." This technique only works from on-campus phone numbers. The system sends information about the call to police, who can then use it, should the victim choose to prosecute. Additionally, Blackmore warned that people should never give out any personal information over the phone, regardless of who the caller claims he is. King said that unfortunately, many more students may have received similar harassment calls but are uncomfortable reporting to police, much like the reaction of people who fall for flim-flam scams. "People shouldn't be embarrassed," King said. "These callers are slick."
(04/08/99 9:00am)
About 150 men and women turned out on College Green to voice their support for women's rights. Holding candles to symbolize hope and chanting "University Silence Perpetuates the Violence," about 100 students marched across campus last night to protest sexual assault and the harassment of women. The march was one of several events in Penn's sixth annual Take Back the Night, a rally to raise awareness and support against rape, sexual violence and sexual harassment. "[The goal of the rally] is to give a voice to the victim survivors and raise support and education about sexual violence," said Penn's National Organization of Women Co-Chairperson Erin Healy, a College junior and one of the event's organizers. A large symbol of the female covered in white cloth set the background as the evening began on College Green, where around five speakers challenged the nearly 150 male and female students in attendance to break the silence and take back the night. "Let us draw strength from one another," said NOW Co-Chairperson Kimberly Junod, a College junior and an organizer of the event. "Someday women will come together to celebrate their freedom" from fear of sexual violence, Junod said. Norah Feeny, director of the Rape and Crime Victims Program at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety at MCP Hahnemann University, delivered the keynote address to the assembled students in front of the Peace Sign. Feeny focused her speech on trauma, defining it as "events that are life-threatening or threatening to bodily integrity." Over 50 percent of the U.S. population and 70 percent of women will have to deal with a trauma in their lifetime, Feeny said, explaining that trauma includes crimes as well as accidental incidents. With regard to sexual assault, Feeny continued, one-third of women are victims of childhood sexual assault, while 20 percent of women -- or one in five -- will be victims of rape some time in their lives. After all the event's speakers left the podium, the students in attendance -- far fewer than in past years -- lit candles and prepared for a march around campus. Organizers provided no reason for why the event had such a lower turn-out this year. Originally, the event's organizers had decided that men could not march with women, arguing that the march should be a chance for women to gain strength from solidarity. Since its founding in 1976 in San Francisco, the event has traditionally been designed as a rally for women, with men banned from marching. About one-third of those in attendance at the speaking portion were male and at least three of the men joined the march this year. Healy said that while there will always be men who wish to march with the women, "the important part is to keep the focus of the march on women." "I think it's more important to unite and support on this issue than to be divided on politics," Healy said. The march began and ended at College Green, winding its way around the Quadrangle and the western end of campus. The students shouted defiant chants against rape and sexism that rang out into the night, such as "Penn Unite, Take Back the Night," "Yes Means Fuck Me, No Means Fuck Off" and "We're Here, We're Women, We're Fabulous, Don't Fuck With Us." After the march, the Survivors' Speak Out took place on the Green, with victims -- both men and women -- sharing their stories of assault and healing with the crowd.
(03/25/99 10:00am)
About 50 people showed up at the open mic event as part of the annual B-GLAD celebration. A vocal and excited crowd of about 50 people gathered on College Green yesterday afternoon to show support for Penn's gay community. At a rally yesterday for Bisexual Gay Lesbian Transgendered Awareness Days, several students, faculty and staff spoke to an open mic in front of the peace sign encouraging support for gay rights. College and Engineering sophomore Kurt Klinger, co-chairperson of the B-GLAD planning committee, declared that the microphone was open to anyone who wished to speak, calling the rally "an opportunity for students, faculty and staff to share" their experiences. As the crowd gathered at 1:30 p.m., the gray clouds gave way to the sun, prompting Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Center Bob Schoenberg to state, "[It's] got to mean something in our favor that it's turned into such a beautiful and sunny day." Pride was one the themes of the afternoon as Kurt Conklin, a staff member at the Office of Health Education, began the rally by declaring to the crowd, "I'm a big queer." Conklin was joined in his declaration by Nursing senior Stephanie Marrs, who said she would like to be able to introduce herself with the words, "I'm queer -- hi." And College freshman Randy Ramirez said "pride should be everything for us." Even with the sun matching the high spirits of the crowd, an ominous atmosphere again ensued as Conklin reminded the crowd that "people are still harassed and killed because of their sexual orientation." Referring to the two recent killings of gay men in the U.S. and the attack on Penn's Sigma Nu advisor Robert Drake in Ireland, Schoenberg said, "I am sad and I am disappointed at? the horrible things that continue to happen." Heterosexual students and members of the University community also turned out to show their support. Beverly Dale, executive director of the Christian Association, said, "We all need to work together to make it a more unified fight and that's what we're here for." Vice Provost for University Life Valarie Swain-Cade McCoullum added poetry to the afternoon, quoting renowned poet Walt Whitman and adding her own verse. "Let us rejoice, this is the day the community has made, let us rejoice and 'B-GLAD,'" McCoullum said. B-GLAD is an annual celebration of gay pride and awareness at Penn. This year's theme is community, with diverse groups from across campus sponsoring events.
(01/26/99 10:00am)
In light of two recent Supreme Court decisions that make it easier for workers to hold their employers accountable for instances of sexual harassment, Penn is seeking to make sure that employees are familiar with all aspects of the University's harassment policies. Officials want to re-emphasize their "100 percent zero tolerance" of sexual harassment, according to Associate General Counsel Eric Tilles. Though Penn has not changed its sexual harassment policies since November 1995, these recent rulings prompted the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Affirmative Action and other Penn resource centers to educate and inform supervisors of existing policies. Penn has already taken several steps to ensure that employees and supervisors throughout the University are well-informed. In addition to republishing brochures listing resource centers, sexual harassment policies will be published in the Almanac -- the University's journal of record -- within the next 1 1/2 months. The Office of Affirmative Action held two two-day training sessions for its employees so they could pass the knowledge on to other University workers, according to Valerie Hayes, the office's executive director. Covering sexual harassment is "only a part of a program in employment discrimination law," she said. Penn's sexual harassment policy covers students, as well. Last June, the Supreme Court presided over two cases concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. Boca Raton and Ellerth v. Burlington Industries. Although the Supreme Court ruled to remand both cases to lower courts, the justices ruled that "a company may be liable for the acts of a supervisor whether or not the company knew what the supervisor was doing," said attorney Anita Weinstein of the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen & O'Connor. "Education at all levels is the key." For the most part, sexual harassment complaints "go to deans, the Office of Affirmative Action, the provost [and] the ombudsman" Tilles said. For this reason it was a high priority issue to ensure that deans and department chairpersons were made aware of these policies early on. "The resource centers have been out there," Tilles said. "[One can] choose whatever avenue is most comfortable if someone believes they have an issue."
(12/15/98 10:00am)
To the Editor: Hackney accuses Kors of "doctoring the facts to trivialize the incident in a way that appealed to Rush Limbaugh and his audience," and states that the black women plaintiffs "were required by the Student Judicial Charter to refrain from public comment about the case, leaving the field clear for Professor Alan Kors and his allies on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal to shape the story." Hackney has not adduced a single example of a fact which Kors doctored, and Kors' column includes a direct quotation from the section of the Judicial Charter which clearly gave the plaintiffs the right to speak out publicly. In a few "gracious" words, Hackney associates Kors with the extreme right wing and accuses him of intellectual dishonesty. Kors' response consists primarily of a recitation of facts. Is it really ungracious to state that "human relations have improved at Penn" under the current administration or that Hackney's vision of the University was "balkanized and paternalistic"? Different people have different notions of what constitutes graciousness, just as they have different notions of what constitutes sexual relations. I doubt that Eden Jacobowitz, who was tortured by then-University President Hackney's underlings, would join in Beeman's praise of Hackney for his graciousness and restraint. Michael Cohen Professor Emeritus, Physics u To the Editor: Professor Richard Beeman's letter (complains of Professor Alan Kors' treatment of Professor Sheldon Hackney in the newly published The Shadow University. Beeman makes no comment about the substantive issues at the heart of the "water buffalo" discussion. Was Hackney right to limit freedom of speech in a college environment? Was it acceptable to apply this code unequally and selectively? Do black and minority students need a condescending code to protect them from freedoms enjoyed off campus? I was at Penn during the water buffalo catastrophe. I also remember when Greg Pavlik, a DP columnist, was investigated by Hackney's Judicial Inquiry Officer for "racial harassment" because some people thought his weekly columns were offensive. Is this what Beeman refers to when he says "intellectual freedom flourished at Penn" under Hackney's tenure? Students weren't the only victims of Hackney. He imposed mandatory seminars for professors who practiced academic freedom in ways Hackney disapproved of. Where was Beeman when Professor Murray Dolfman was persecuted by Hackney? When 14,000 copies of the DP were stolen and destroyed by disgruntled black students, Hackney did nothing -- and when he did do something he punished a University security guard who had tried to prevent the theft! Allowing the flourishing of censorship is certainly not what comes to mind when thinking of "intellectual freedom." Beeman speaks of Kors' "one-sided interpretation of that period." He is right. There must be another side, and I would love to hear Hackney's comments about the many shameful incidents and events at Penn that he permitted, caused or side-stepped. Those of us who attended Penn during Hackney's tenure remember him as a charming gentleman who loved to greet students and chat. We also remember him as a spineless administrator who paid himself millions of dollars to preside over Penn only to racially segregate it, impose speech restrictions, terrorize professors who fell foul of the politically correct, treat students unequally and then bring shame to our alma mater. The Shadow University is a sad reminder of what happened at Penn and the vigilance necessary to prevent it from occurring again. Thor Halvorssen College '96 The war on drugs To the Editor: Malik Wilson correctly points out in his column ("America's hidden industry," DP, 12/10/98) that there is a considerable racial inequality in the American justice system. But why have seemingly racist policies been permitted to persist and swell for so long? The "war on drugs," while justified as a means of cleansing America of crime, has fostered blatant racial disparities in prison populations. Blacks are unfairly punished for the same drug offenses as whites. Fifty-four percent of blacks convicted of drug offenses get sentenced to prison versus 34 percent of whites convicted of the same offenses. Additionally, laws that punish use of crack much more harshly than use of powder cocaine hit blacks especially hard, since studies have shown crack to be more favored among blacks than whites. The "war on drugs" has clearly been a racially biased crusade against basic human liberties, but few bother to ask the simple question: Why should we imprison anyone, regardless of their skin color, for a decision to put any sort of substance into his or her own body? Many anti-drug proponents claim that drug abuse leads to crime and delinquency. Yet a recent study performed at Columbia University suggests that alcohol is associated with more violent crime than any illegal drug, including crack, cocaine and heroin. In fact, economic pressures are the cause of most drug-related crimes. The "war on drugs" is wasteful of government resources, as well. In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war. The Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion in 1982. In 1998 the Clinton administration requested $17.1 billion. Crime has increased, not decreased. So the "war on drugs" is more than a matter of racial injustice. The "war on drugs" requires a distinction between right and wrong. While it robs some of us of our money, it robs others of their dignity and it robs us all of our freedom. David Jelinek Graduate School of Engineering '02 Co-President, Penn Libertarians Ron Lin College '01 Co-President, Penn Libertarians
(12/15/98 10:00am)
APRIL And this year, neither Passover nor the Medical College Admission Test could prevent Penn students from taking advantage of the mostly-great weather and Fling's most renowned activity -- partying. Tenor saxophone legend Maceo Parker headlined the Friday night concert -- which was moved from Hill Field to inside the Palestra due to predictions of inclement weather. April was the "cruelest month" indeed for the over 90 vendors whose food trucks and carts decorated Penn's campus. After a year-long fight, City Council passed a Penn-backed ordinance that limited them to certain locations on campus and kept them off such main stretches as Walnut Street. Phi Sigma Kappa brothers also found themselves being evicted from their longtime home. The fraternity's charter was revoked after kegs were found in its house and a link to a pornographic World Wide Web site was discovered on its Web site. Early in the month, the campus was buzzing with politics -- Penn politics, that is. With unusually high voter turnout, nine of the 12 incumbent Undergraduate Assembly candidates were re-elected, while at least 16 of the 23 winners were Greeks. The election also saw the invalidation of a referendum seeking to reverse a controversial UA resolution that gave $30,000 to the InterFraternity Council to hold campus-wide non-alcoholic events. In March, the allocation of the funds by the Greek-controlled UA to the IFC raised some protest from Student Activities Council-affiliated student groups. Penn accepted just 4,837 of 16,651 people who applied for undergraduate admission -- a 29 percent acceptance rate, making the Class of 2002 the most selective ever. Students were entertained and provoked by, among others, Conan O'Brien and Anita Hill. O'Brien, of late-night TV talk show fame, spoke for more than two hours, playfully fielding questions and showing video clips of his career, while Hill told her side of the infamous sexual harassment allegations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Perhaps the biggest event of them all, the Penn Relays, the world's largest track meet, is an annual Franklin Field occasion in April. This year's Relays featured 1996 Olympics double gold medalist and world record holder Michael Johnson, among others. And hip-hop star Busta Rhymes performed to a packed crowd in the annual Relays concert. Late in the month, officials announced the renovation of Gimbel Gymnasium, made possible by a $500,000 donation from Penn parents Ellen and Howard Katz. And the University mourned the death of Vice President for Business Services Steve Murray, 51, a 25-year veteran of the University who succumbed to a long battle with cancer. -- Eric Tucker
(12/11/98 10:00am)
The GOP-led Judiciary Committee is expected to vote to impeach President Clinton this week. The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Edging toward a momentous vote, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee lined up one by one last night in favor of impeaching President Clinton. Democrats vowed opposition after committee lawyers clashed in closing arguments over alleged ''high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a senior Republican on the committee, said he would cast his vote ''with no joy, but with no apologies, just as those on this committee voted to impeach Richard Nixon 24 years ago.'' Rep. John Conyers of Michigan -- who sat in judgment during Watergate a quarter-century ago -- warned that lawmakers were ''poised on the edge of a constitutional cliff, staring into the void below into which we have jumped only twice before in our history.'' All of the committee's 37 members -- 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats -- were granted time to lay out their views in a prelude to today's free-flowing debate on four articles of impeachment against the president. The first votes are expected today -- the last on Saturday. Given the political breakdown of the committee, there was no real doubt about what the outcome would be when Rep. Henry Hyde, the panel's chairperson, calls the roll on charges arising from the president's campaign to cover up his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Speaker Newt Gingrich notified all 435 House members to prepare to return to the Capitol next week for the first impeachment roll call aimed at a sitting president since Andrew Johnson sat in the White House in 1868. At the White House, presidential aide Gregory Craig launched a sharp attack on Republicans after listening to closing arguments presented by David Schippers, the GOP's lead lawyer on the case. ''We are disappointed and saddened that the committee majority brought this solemn constitutional process down to a level of innuendo, anger and unfair, unsubstantiated charges,'' he said, then turned sharply and strode back into the White House. Schippers spent nearly three hours summing up the case against the nation's 42nd president, buttressing his case with never-before-seen videotaped segments of Clinton fielding questions under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Schippers, a former prosecutor, said Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power left lawmakers with the ''sorrowful duty'' of seeking his removal from office. Earlier, Democratic lawyer Abbe Lowell had summed up for the Democrats, telling legislators: ''Listen to the American people, who are asking you to find a truly bipartisan way to avoid the course you are about to undertake.'' White House spokesperson Joe Lockhart insisted the GOP charges ''fall well short of impeachment,'' but the president's Democratic defenders expressed increasing concern about the vote on the House floor next week. Several official sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Democrats laboring to gain support for censure from pivotal GOP moderate lawmakers were ready to demand a financial payment from Clinton as well as his signature on a written condemnation of his conduct. Each lawyer relied on late-20th century technology to argue a case that arises from the 18th century constitutional remedy of impeachment. Lowell made liberal use of snippets of videotape and audio tape to bring Clinton, Lewinsky, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and other major figures in the drama into the committee room. A few hours later, Schippers did likewise. At one point, he queued up a videotaped segment that showed Clinton saying, ''I don't recall'' whether he and Lewinsky were ever alone together in the White House. In fact, the two had multiple sexual encounters in the area around the Oval Office over a period of several months. Gingrich's ''Dear Colleague'' letter to fellow lawmakers did not use the word ''impeachment.'' Instead, it noted that the Judiciary Committee was on the verge of wrapping up work on ''this matter,'' and lawmakers should prepare for a debate on the House floor beginning next Thursday. In the last presidential impeachment drama, Richard Nixon resigned before the House could vote on articles of impeachment approved by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote. This time, the committee is riven along partisan lines, and Clinton is fighting, not resigning. It was the first time Gingrich had injected himself into the impeachment proceedings since announcing he would leave office at year's end. In his brief letter, he did not address any of the controversies surrounding the issue, including the Democratic demand for a vote on censure in the full House.
(11/20/98 10:00am)
Under intense questioning, the independent counsel defended his investigation of President Clinton. The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr heatedly defended his investigation under insistent questioning last night from President Clinton's private attorney in the third presidential impeachment inquiry in history. Clinton's own conduct was scarcely mentioned in the final clash between the prosecutor and the president's lawyer. ''That is false and you know it to be false,'' Starr snapped at one point in the nationally televised House Judiciary Committee hearing as attorney David Kendall accused him of prosecutorial misconduct in his dealing with Monica Lewinsky. ''I am confident that we have abided by our obligations,'' Starr said as his adversary pressed him at another point on leaks of grand jury material. For his part, Kendall sought to set the tone even before he posed his initial question. ''Let me begin with the simple but powerful truth that nothing in this overkill of investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the president of the United States,'' Kendall said. The fencing between the two longtime adversaries came near the end of a long hearing in which Starr laid out his evidence against the president, material that triggered the third formal impeachment probe in the nation's history. In a two-hour recitation of his case, he alleged Clinton had carried out a ''scheme to conceal'' his relationship with Lewinsky and engaged in a ''pattern of obstruction.'' He then spent hours fending off a withering barrage from committee Democrats, one of whom, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, accused him of having ''crossed the line into obsession.'' Throughout the day, Democrats sought consistently to turn the spotlight away from Clinton's behavior and toward Starr's investigation. But by the time he had completed his testimony after 12 hours, Starr received a standing ovation from many in the room, and several Republican lawmakers lined up to shake his hand. Starr's testimony was the first the committee had taken since receiving boxes of his evidence this fall. While the full GOP-controlled House has voted for an open-ended inquiry, Republican appetite for prolonged proceedings has diminished markedly in the wake of election setbacks. Thus, it was not clear whether -- or when -- articles of impeachment would ever emerge from the panel, which is itself torn by bitter partisan bickering. Several sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, say Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) who is in line to become House speaker in January, has said in private conversations he wants the issue resolved before he takes office. Still, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) the committee chairperson, announced to the displeasure of Democrats that the committee would vote on issuing subpoenas to additional witnesses. Among them was Robert Bennett, the lawyer who represented Clinton in Paula Jones' sexual harassment case. That case was settled last week. Starr told Kendall he wasn't present as an advocate for the report he had presented to Congress, although he referred to ''the president's perjury and obstruction of justice'' in connection with his affair with Lewinsky and long effort to conceal the truth about it. In more than an hour of questioning, Kendall did not ask Starr a single question about the evidence he found in his long and costly investigation -- a probe that resulted in a referral alleging 11 potentially impeachable offenses. Instead, the president's lawyer peppered Starr with questions -- cross-examination style -- about his own conduct, and that of the prosecutors, FBI agents and others who worked for him. Starr disclosed little that was previously unknown, although in response to a question from David Schippers, the Republican chief counsel, he said some grand jurors had laughed at Clinton as the president answered questions in a videotaped deposition last August 17. He also said the ''plain language'' of the Constitution makes clear that Clinton could be prosecuted for perjury after he leaves office, regardless of the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. ''I stand behind it because it is mine,'' Starr said of the report he submitted to the committee in September outlining grounds for possible impeachment arising from Clinton's sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked why Starr had not told the public before the fall elections that he had found no evidence of impeachable offenses in inquiries into other areas covering FBI files, the dismissal of White House Travel Office employees and the Whitewater real estate deal in Arkansas. When Starr responded that his mandate under the law was only to report on evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, Frank said: ''In other words, you don't have anything to say unless you have something bad to say.'' Questioning by Republicans was far more gentle, and several made clear their sympathy for Starr. ''I commend you for standing up to the nonsense? that you have had to put up with today,'' said Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, one of Clinton's most ardent and persistnt critics. Clinton was in Asia beginning a five-day visit when Starr stood before the committee's chairperson, Rep. Henry Hyde, raised his right hand and swore the traditional witness' oath to tell the truth. White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said Clinton did not watch any of the live coverage but saw one short clip of it on a CNN news broadcast. However, an aide did brief Clinton on Starr's prepared testimony, Lockhart said. Behind panel members were two big portraits -- one of Hyde, the Illinois Republican at the helm of the current inquiry; the other of former Rep. Peter Rodino, the Democrat who oversaw the Watergate impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon in the same room in 1974. Peppered with questions about alleged inappropriate treatment of Lewinsky, grand jury leaks, his own private law clients and other matters, Starr had made only one concession as the hearing moved into the evening. He agreed to provide a list of clients from his former law firm. At the same time, when Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) asked Starr directly whether he felt he had a conflict of interest, the prosecutor replied, ''I did not.'' He stoutly turned aside all suggestions of prosecutorial misconduct, although at several points he told his questioners they might well have a different view of the law. ''Obviously this body is at liberty to reject'' the material as not being ''substantial, credible evidence'' of impeachable offenses, Starr said. Starr, himself the target of ceaseless attacks from Clinton's defenders, spoke calmly and methodically -- but unambiguously -- as he offered his first public accounting of his long investigation into the president's relationship with Lewinsky, a possible cover-up and several other matters. ''He testified that he could not recall being alone with Ms. Lewinsky. That was untrue,'' Starr said of the president. ''He testified that he could not recall ever being in the Oval Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky, except perhaps when she was delivering pizza. That was untrue,'' he added. Four more times, on matters relating to Clinton's previous utterances, Starr firmly repeated, ''That was untrue.''
(11/05/98 10:00am)
Gloria Steinem spoke about feminism and campus activism to a sell-out crowd. The song Gloria by Laura Branigan seemed a fitting introduction for this year's big fall campus speaker -- feminist activist Gloria Steinem. The Connaissance division of the Social Planning and Events Committee welcomed Steinem to Zellerbach Auditorium last night to tell a sold-out audience of 900 people about her accomplishments and the motivations behind them. Steinem, a political activist and writer, used the 70-minute address entitled "Acting Globally and Thinking Globally" to explain the feminist revolution that has guided her political and intellectual work. Focusing on the current election, marriage, children and the role of women in the labor force, Steinem explained the way in which feminism hopes to lead society away from a hierarchical structure based on patriarchy. "Brace yourselves," the 64-year-old Steinem said. "If all goes well, each of you will leave here tonight with a new thought or idea." A feminist, according to Steinem, is a person who believes in the social and economic equality of men and women. Feminism also coincides with anti-racist thought. "We are currently witnessing the second stage of resistance to the term," said Steinem. "The first stage of resistance suggested that feminism was unnecessary and dead, while the second stage suggests that it used to be necessary but not anymore." Steinem went on to explain that feminism lost some of its followers as the result of people either misunderstanding the meaning of the term or understanding it but not believing the movement to be an "effort to undo the current social and racial conditions of the deep rooted caste systems of our society." But she emphasized that the more and more young people have embraced the movement in recent years. Steinem said that some students' reluctance to identify themselves as feminists only leads them to lose their self-respect. Turning to Penn, Steinem urged female students to join the feminist movement, stressing the importance of its role on campus and beyond. "The feminist movement at Penn and the Penn Women's Center are a microcosm to teach us to organize for change around the world," Steinem said. "I know you will do so much better than my generation." Steinem went on to explain that women become more radical with age, while men tend to be more radical at a younger age. Radicalism among women, according to Steinem, is analogous to a thread that is deep rooted in the "caste system of society." As women experience the social conditions of society though marriage, children and the labor force, the thread of radicalism is woven deeper and their views become more extreme in response to the recognition of injustice, Steinem explained further in an interview before the speech. In her talk, Steinem also said that American citizens vote less than those in any other democracy. She urged students to vote in order to move away from political passivity and create majority support for important issues. Steinem also praised the results of the elections Tuesday. "The right-wing extremists have taken over the Republican party and the trend toward voting less gives more control to the right wing," Steinem said. "This worries me, but thankfully the right extremist control was stopped with the elections [Tuesday]." When an audience member asked her to comment on marriage and children, Steinem described how marriage today is different from marriage in the 1950s and 1960s. Then marriage was considered to be designed for "a person and a half;" women put more into the marriage, while men entered it half-heartedly. "We are only halfway there today in moving toward equal marriage, as society is aware that women can do what men can do outside the home," she said. "Until men are seen as equals inside the home and with child rearing, women cannot be equal outside the home." Equality in the paid labor force is therefore impossible, according to Steinem, without eliminating the differences between men's and women's roles in raising families. Regarding the Lewinsky scandal, Steinem said in the interview that consensual sex between two adults should not be confused with harassment. "I believe the right wing has attempted to use the sexual harassment law to democratically remove the president from office," she said. Steinem concluded her address with an explanation of a lesson she learned through years of organizational work. "Trust your instincts and the voice inside of you that is the result of both your environment and heredity," said Steinem. "Listen to that voice to help you master the art of behaving ethically and effectively as if everything you do matters." A 40-minute question-and-answer session followed the speech, as audience members lined up to talk to the feminist. When asked what message she wished to give college students, Steinem answered, "Dream the biggest dreams and don't let anyone discourage you."
(08/06/98 9:00am)
The Associated Press William Parnell, 62, was fired on sexual harassment charges, and then reinstated after an arbitrator found no evidence against him. He resigned Friday, saying university President Angelo Armenti continued to attack him, causing his health and reputation to suffer. ''Armenti's continued unfounded claims created health and stress problems for Professor Parnell,'' said Chuck Thomas, president of the faculty union. Armenti declined to comment on Parnell's resignation. ''I have heard nothing about it,'' Armenti said. ''After I see the letter, I perhaps will be in a position to comment on it.'' The university president had once alleged that Parnell failed graduate student Cheryl Gray because she alleged another professor sexually harassed her. Armenti also claimed that Parnell sexually harassed students with improper comments or touching. Arbitrator Seymour Strongin ruled that Parnell had good academic reasons for giving Gray a failing grade. He also said he found no validity to the charge that Parnell had failed Gray because of her allegations. Nor did the arbitrator find any credibility that Parnell himself had harassed students. Those charges were seven to 19 years old. Armenti fired Parnell, a California professor for 28 years, in November 1996. In February, an arbitrator ordered Parnell reinstated and awarded him about $85,000 in back pay after finding no proof that Parnell ever sexually harassed students and determining that Parnell had good academic reasons for failing Gray. Armenti fired another education professor, Bob Brown, in 1996 during a sexual harassment probe. He came back to work in March with an arbitrator's blessing, but Armenti immediately suspended him with pay because of an 11-year-old sexual harassment complaint against him by a former student. Brown has since returned to work, and he and Parnell are suing Armenti and the university. The university is appealing a ruling that it must rehire Arshad Chawdry, a professor of business accused of forcing kisses on a secretary and another professor. The university paid the women at least $600,000. Faculty leaders have criticized Armenti for overruling them on students' grades, especially for athletes. Earlier this month, the state Board of Governors of Higher Education approved extending Armenti's contract through 2001.
(04/16/98 9:00am)
The woman who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment visited Penn as part of a book tour. Anita Hill predates Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Katherine Wiley as the first woman to bring national attention to sexual harassment in the workplace. "I come to you as a woman whose experience with gender bias was profound and life-changing," Hill said yesterday during a speech to approximately 200 students and faculty members in Meyerson Hall. The event, a lecture and book signing by Hill, was sponsored by Penn's African-American Studies Department. Her book, Speaking Truth to Power, was published last October. It tells her story of the 1991 sexual harassment hearings against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, who has since joined the court. Hill, 41, worked as an assistant to Thomas from 1981-83. Thomas was the assistant secretary of education and then became the chairperson of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill filed a sexual harassment complaint against Thomas in 1991 when he was nominated for the high court, a charge he denied. Thomas ultimately won Senate confirmation after a bitter and partisan dispute pitting Hill's largely Democratic and feminist supporters against Thomas' Republican backers. History Professor Mary Berry, who introduced Hill last night, was working on the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights in Washington, D.C., when Hill's charges first broke. Berry noted that Hill is an "important icon in the struggle for women's rights," and later said that she is "as least as important as [civil rights pioneer] Rosa Parks." The recent sexual harassment allegations against President Bill Clinton have only increased the demand for Hill to lecture around the country, Berry added. "Her coming here is very timely," echoed Gale Ellison, the program coordinator for the African-American Studies Department. "We were very fortunate that we tracked her down before the Monica Lewinsky situation." Hill discussed society's tendency to isolate race from gender and commented on her individual experiences as a black woman. She described the Thomas hearing as a "way to pit two groups of outsiders against each, and it was effective." Hill added that, "I couldn't choose between [focussing on] race and gender when I wrote my book." Hill spoke about the difficulties hindering the public's understanding of sexual harassment, noting that "the public is much more interested in talking about sex than about discrimination." The issues of racial and gender bias in schools and in the workplace were also addressed by Hill, who stressed the need for a "multi-layered" conversation about race that "must look back in time and also look forward." And although she touched on Paula Jones' recently-dismissed lawsuit against Clinton --Estressing that it was "not realistic [and] not reflective of what's going on in the workplace" --EHill avoided making any specific statements about the president. The majority of the audience responded enthusiastically to Hill. "I think she is right on target about not being able to separate racism and sexism," said Sarah Meyrowitz, a first-year Social Work student. "Oppression being detrimental to the oppressor is a very important point." But others said they were disappointed that Hill mainly discussed abstract race and gender issues, rather than focusing on the 1991 hearings. "I felt discluded from it, it was more about gender and race," College Junior Veronica Scalzo noted. "[Hill] said she was speaking to black women. She avoided the news situation."
(04/15/98 9:00am)
The Harvard Crimson CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (U-WIRE) --ESix male Harvard Business School students have been officially sanctioned for sexual harassment, 18 months after the first allegations were brought against them. The harassment included notes sent during classes, unwelcome physical contact and violations of privacy. According to a memo distributed to business school students and faculty by Harvard's Faculty and Staff Standards Committee, "these behaviors seriously interfered with the ability of other students to learn." Both males and females were victims of the alleged harassment. The disciplined students are members of the same study section, a group of about 80 students that work closely together on projects while in the business school. The notes focused on individuals and were of a sexually explicit nature. "They would comment on these individuals personally, making comments about what behaviors they might engage in, behaviors of a pretty salacious sort," Harvard Business School Dean Kim Clark told The Boston Globe. The pattern of harassment continued during the entire 1996-97 academic year, despite complaints by both students and section leaders. The business school's independent newspaper, The Harbus, reported that a letter was sent to members of the section in May 1997 acknowledging the delay in addressing the incidents and requesting student aid in identifying the perpetrators. Sources say it took over a year to begin an official investigation into the incidents because the victims were reluctant to bring formal complaints. Action was further delayed because the FSSC was in the process of revising its procedures, which left the proper course of action unclear. Eventually, under faculty and student pressure, the FSSC brought the complaints itself. The investigation continued for several months. "The process of bringing the situation to the FSSC and ultimately to closure has taken us far too long," Clark said in a letter to the business school community. "I apologize for that." Students and faculty members said that they are frustrated the complaints were not addressed earlier. The slow process "brought to our attention that it has to be made more simple and direct," Business Professor Myra Hart said, adding that she and others were confused about how to make their grievances heard. They asked "who to talk to and what can we do to make this happen?" Hart said. "Our whole review system was in flux," Hart said. She added that the female faculty members were kept abreast of developments by Clark, who held at least two meetings to explain the process. "Of course we wish that this had been handled immediately," Julia Clarkson and Sarah DiTroia, co-presidents of the Women's Student Association, wrote in an e-mail. "But [we] believe that the school is committed to educating the community and being proactive in the future." The six perpetrators will be required to perform community service, and some will be barred from attending graduation ceremonies. All of them will receive their diplomas this June. "If any actions like those dealt with here should occur in the future, they will be met with a prompt and severe disciplinary response," the FSSC said.
(04/10/98 9:00am)
To the Editor: Your paper misquotes me as saying that the evening is about "supporting women in whatever way we want to support them." What I actually said was that the evening is about men supporting women in whatever way they want us to support them. This is a crucial difference -- asking women how we can support them means taking a risk that they may want us simply to be present and not speak at all, or to remain behind on the Green while they march across campus without us. It means letting them set the terms of how the evening proceeds. And it means being willing to hear things that are not flattering to our gender. You also misquote me as saying that, "If you love women, stop debating these issues." What I actually said was that if you love women, stop debating them on these issues at least this one night. Sexual assault and harassment should be debated and discussed vigorously, and as the advisor to STAAR I train men and women to facilitate these very debates in campus workshops throughout the year. But Take Back the Night is not a STAAR workshop, it's a time for men to listen to the real and painful experiences that women have endured. Because there are men who have been sexually assaulted, or who have been unjustly accused of assault, I am all for creating spaces where their stories can also be told. Let's see some more campus men do something affirmative on this rather than simply criticizing the women who do all the work on events such as Take Back the Night. Kurt Conklin Student Health Service More on Women's Center To the Editor: I appreciated Steve Schorr's reexamination of the Penn Women's Center ("Just how far has we come?" DP, 4/4/98), as I believe constant evaluation is needed for any organization to achieve its goals. And it was rewarding to read an article in which a man recognized the challenges that women have faced in the past. As I continued reading the column, it became clear that Schorr does not believe many of these challenges still face the women of today. But that may be because he only identified "sexism and abuse" and "gender relations" as problems women faced. Although great strides have been made, there are still miles left. What it appears Schorr -- and many of us -- have forgotten is that life at Penn is quite different from the lives of many Americans. Pick up a copy of Ms. magazine and take a look at the "News" section. Then try to tell me that sexism, abuse and gender relations are problems of the past. And then there are the many challenges Schorr did not mention at all, for instance how society tells women to weigh 102 pounds (take a good look at the images of women in advertisements sometime) or how to balance a successful career while simultaneously raising children. The problems women on Penn's campus face today are still as staggering as when my mother was in college. Maybe the types of problems have changed slightly, but they are still there. But housing such groups is by no means the sole focus of the Women's Center. It is quite simply a place for women; it is where we can speak with other women about our problems, where we can get information and referrals and where we can feel safe. But are we satisfied having it represent Penn women? I am the president of the largest women's organization on campus.There has never been an occasion in which I was unsure about referring a member of my student group to the Women's Center, either for information, support or referrals. I have never had a member of my organization relate to me any negative experience involving the Women's Center. It seems to me that the Penn Women's Center is doing a wonderful job of representing the women of this campus. Janelle Brodsky Panhellenic Council President
(04/06/98 9:00am)
From Karen Pasternack's, "Effective Immediately," Fall '98 From Karen Pasternack's, "Effective Immediately," Fall '98When someone she trusted raped her, where is a safe place? The Penn Women's Center. When she tires of being voiceless in her department and invisible in the classroom, where is a safe place? The Penn Women's Center. Sometimes the world does not seem to be a very place, if you are a woman." There were no divisions within the crowd lingering in front of the building, only a sense of camaraderie as we looked back on the accomplishments of the last quarter-century. Days later, in his column "Just how far have we come?" Steve Schorr used these accomplishments as evidence that Penn may no longer need the Women's Center -- especially on Locust Walk. I wish desperately that I could agree with him, that it would only take 25 years to undo and redefine all the hatred and violence against women that is a dark thread woven into the fabric of our society and our university. He is certainly right that we have come a long way. During Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to the University last October, she pointed out the myriad choices available to women in 1998, possibilities that past generations of women were never allowed. Listening to her made me realize how often I take these achievements for granted. I became increasingly aware that women have only begun to tap into the power available in this society. And while we should be proud of our advancements, we need to remember that women are heading into the 21st century with an overwhelming number of urgent problems. Schorr is also right to note that times have changed for women at Penn since the Women's Center opened in 1973 after a series of rapes received inappropriate administrative responses. The center has encountered a variety of explosive situations over the years. And some of these moments have revealed its flaws. But no organization as complex as this one can claim perfection. Rather, the benchmark of benefits should be in progress, and the Women's Center is definitely developing rapidly. According to its director, Elie DiLapi, it touched the lives of over 15,000 people last year through its dedication to a diversity of causes regarding issues of gender, discrimination and minorities. Further fault in Schorr's argument lies in that he completely overlooks the center's conceptual framework. It is not about the victimization of white women to the exclusion of all others. It stands for the acceptance of people of all sexes, races and sexual orientations, actively coming together to strengthen the University and West Philadelphia community through tolerance and support. In DiLapi's words, it is "a place of connection for people who may not have found a home elsewhere at Penn." In fact, services to individuals actually comprise only a quarter of the center's traditional work, which is comprised of crisis intervention, counseling and victim support. Additionally, the center offers seminars on women's perspectives on a variety of issues, such as "Women, War and Peace." It has also established a mechanism to track patterns as they emerge on the campus. For example, Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape (STAAR) developed when collected stories of date rape scenarios proved the need for student activism in this arena. Schorr does briefly mention the final portion of the Women's Center's responsibilities, which encompasses the groups that work out of the center. Penn's Eagerly Awaited Radical Ladies (PEARL) and Generation XX are among the most active of the many groups that use the space of the center. Criticizing these groups' radical mission statements, Schorr's conservative response, answers its own questions as to why women's avant garde publications benefit from the support of the center. The basis for Schorr's argument for why we don't need the Women's Center on the Walk revolves around DiLapi, whom he depicts as an autocratic ruler whose sole purpose in running the center is to take revenge on fraternities. Calling attention to DiLapi as the ringleader of some master plan to thwart the fraternity system is nothing more than a weak attempt at scapegoating, especially considering that the Women's Center assumed its place on the Walk only after the Theta XI fraternity was removed as a result of its own unrelated actions. Perhaps Schorr is not wrong when he notes that a center for men's health is lacking from the Walk. But that issue should be addressed separately. The fact remains that there are certain extremely serious issues that men will never completely understand nor have to face in their lifetimes. And in a university environment, these situations do not exist in isolation. For instance, if a woman is in an abusive relationship, her performance in the classroom may suffer. A center with a supportive and anti-discriminatory voice has the power to infiltrate and effect the mechanics of the University system, assisting her recovery and ultimately effecting the well-being of the student population. Schorr can call himself anything he wants, be it a feminist or an international spy. But if we stick to the evidence, we see that while he was busy labeling the Women's Center as outdated in his column last Friday, The New York Times op-ed page discussed sexual harassment in the government and the premeditated killing of four females by two pre-teen boys in Arkansas. But don't rely solely on my words to convince you that the Penn Women's Center should not be taken for granted. If you are still skeptical, look beyond the ink on this page and head to College Green Wednesday for "Take Back the Night."
(04/03/98 10:00am)
and Jeremy Reiss Anyone outside Houston Hall at about 1 a.m. this morning may have heard a rather loud cheer emanating from the Ben Franklin Room. That is because after four hours of deliberations, the Nominations and Elections Committee announced it would invalidate a referendum that would have taken away $30,000 the Undergraduate Assembly placed in a discretionary fund for the use of the InterFraternity Council due to violations of the rules governing referenda. According to NEC Chairperson Chris LaVigne, between 30 percent and 35 percent of the student body voted on the referendum -- which, if passed, would have reserved the $30,000 for events approved by the Student Activities Council -- reversing the UA's decision to co-sponsor certain IFC activities. The referendum required only a 15 percent voter turnout to be binding. LaVigne, a College senior, would not comment on whether the referendum would have passed, but a source close to student government said he heard it gained a majority "yes" vote. The referendum was thrown out because the NEC agreed with IFC President Josh Belinfante's claim that SAC's publicity in favor of the referendum consisted of "half-truths, extortions and dishonest statements." During the hearings, Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Noah Bilenker and Belinfante, both College juniors, presented to the NEC five charges of violations of the Fair Practices Code, which regulates student government elections. The $30,000 in question was placed in the discretionary fund more than a month ago at the UA budget meeting in response to Belinfante's request for IFC funding for non-alcoholic, campus-wide events. As a result of the funding, SAC's budget was $30,000 less than it would have been otherwise. While four of the charges were dropped, the NEC concurred with Belinfante's charge that SAC members presented misleading publicity to the student body, exaggerating the degree to which SAC groups would be hurt by the decrease in their budget. Belinfante cited one e-mail sent to the International Relations Undergraduate Student Association and accidentally to all International Relations majors which he said told students to "vote for the referendum or [the IRUSA] will no longer get funding from SAC." He also complained about posters which urged students to vote against alcohol-free parties -- a misinterpretation of how the $30,000 will be spent. "This makes it look like there's going be alcohol-free frat parties, which, honestly, I've never heard of," Belinfante said. Belinfante also charged the NEC for failing to invite the IFC, an interested party, to the referendum meeting. The NEC threw out the charge because no interested groups, including SAC, were invited. Bilenker, who did not run for re-election, charged the NEC and College and Engineering senior Ben Goldberger -- a former NEC chairperson and former member of the SAC Executive Board -- with failing to clearly explain the referendum on the ballot and in a Daily Pennsylvanian ad. Bilenker claimed that many students did not understand that voting "yes" meant that the money would revert to SAC, while a "no" vote would uphold the UA allocation to the IFC. In particular, the College junior claimed many students confused voting to adopt the referendum with voting to adopt the UA budget and its IFC allocation. One of the referendum's authors, Elizabeth Scanlon, responded to the charges on behalf of Goldberger, who was out of town. She said the writers of the referendum had no responsibility to make sure all of the voters understood. "It's not against the rules to mislead people," the College senior said, calling the idea of throwing out the election results due to "misleading ads" ridiculous. "Imagine the presidential campaign being thrown out because one candidate called another's ads misleading," Scanlon said. Bilenker also claimed that the referendum should have been classified as "constitutional" -- or requiring a change in the UA's constitution -- rather than "miscellaneous." Constitutional referenda require a 20 percent voter turnout to be binding, rather than 15 percent for "miscellaneous." The referendum "does not actually change the text of the budget," NEC officials said in response to the charge, which was dismissed. Following the NEC announcement of the decision, the largely Greek crowd that remained reacted positively. "[The NEC] realized the referendum had as much of an unbiased nature as a statement coming out of Bill Clinton's mouth against sexual harassment," a jubilant Belinfante said. And current UA Vice Chairperson Samara Barend, who was re-elected to the UA, supported the NEC decision. "The referendum, if it had passed, would have completely undercut the budgetary powers of the UA," said Barend, who is not Greek. SAC Chairperson and referendum author Sang Cha, a Wharton junior, said posters concerning the referendum were very explicit and did not mislead voters. But he said he would accept the NEC's decision.
(03/30/98 10:00am)
Penn's Society of Women Engineers wants to make the male-dominated world of engineering a little more feminine. In line with that goal, the student group recently held its first corporate dinner, during which members had the opportunity to hobnob with recruiters from giants such as Procter & Gamble, Trilogy, Deloitte & Touche, DuPont and IBM. The group plans to make the dinner an annual tradition. During the event, held last Monday at the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel in Center City, each of the approximately 60 group members sat with one of the recruiters for dinner, then switched tables for dessert in order to have the opportunity to meet another recruiter during the evening. "We want to take advantage of those who want to take advantage of the fact that we are women," incoming SWE Internal Vice President Sarah Winnacker, an Engineering sophomore, said of the event's purpose. The idea for the dinner came from SWE seniors who realized, after interviewing for jobs, that they did not always know enough about the companies that they might be working for. The dinner culminated with a speech from Deborah Grubbe, a director of operations at DuPont, imploring women to take responsibility for their own lives in the corporate world. Noting that co-ed workplaces are more productive, Grubbe said she considers a single-sex workplace "unnatural." She added that men have told her that "we have more fun at work" with women around. However, Grubbe also said that as a supervisor, she has had to handle several types of sexual harassment cases -- men harassing women, women harassing men and same-sex harassment. But most people understand the limits of acceptable behavior, she stressed. Grubbe also noted the progress women have made in attaining high-level engineering positions, although she admitted that "there is still a long way to go." Twenty percent of current engineering graduates are women, compared with only 3 percent in 1977, she said. In addition, Grubbe said the culture of women engineers is changing. She explained that there are now women engineers of all levels of ability, whereas in the past, nearly all women engineers had superior skills than their male counterparts because they had to be able to overcome hurdles put forth by the male engineering establishment. Students and recruiters said they were pleased with the event. "I was very impressed with the caliber of women attending," said Rachel Rucker of the software company Trilogy. And Engineering freshman Veronica Lemcoff, an aspiring chemical engineer, said the event "was a great chance to learn about these companies first hand and talk one-on-one."
(03/19/98 10:00am)
Facing an audience of administrators, faculty and some of the University's best and brightest students, historian Garry Wills presented the 15th annual School of Arts and Sciences Dean's Forum Lecture Tuesday afternoon in the University Museum. Wills, 63, followed the likes of author Toni Morrison, playwright Arthur Miller and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in delivering the annual address as part of a ceremony presenting awards to the 20 SAS Dean's Scholars. Wills -- praised by SAS Dean Samuel Preston as "one of America's most distinguished intellectual figures" -- spoke for 40 minutes on "Public Support for the Humanities." He is the author of more than 20 books on subjects including the Civil War, the civil rights movement and public figures from Jack Ruby to Ronald Reagan. He is also a nationally syndicated columnist and a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books. Before his speech, Wills sat down with The Daily Pennsylvanian for a 30-minute interview to discuss politics, the humanities, the state of American society and his Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln at Gettysburg -- this year's text for the Penn Reading Project. Lincoln at Gettysburg DP: Most people at Penn know you as the author of Lincoln at Gettysburg, the text for this year's Penn Reading Project. How did you come to write a 300-page book about a 272-word speech? Wills: I had written a book about the Declaration of Independence and there I had talked a little bit about the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. I am also an admirer of Lincoln as a rhetorician. I was trained as a classical rhetorician; my doctorate is in classical studies. The address has always been something that I admired and wanted to analyze a bit more. So I put those two together -- the ideological content and the rhetorical structure -- and it finally occurred to me that this is a kind of funeral oration of the sort that Thucydides gave. And it reflected its culture, especially the cemetery movement of that time -- how charged up it was, how important cemetery dedications were -- and transcendentalist values about judging one's own life by the testimony of the dead. So even though it's a short speech, it's kind of a keyhole into a whole culture. What surprises is not that it took 300 pages but that I stopped then. There are some things now I wish I had put in -- it would have been a longer book. DP: How relevant is this to students today? Why should we be studying this? Wills: Because Lincoln, more than anybody else, committed the nation to the proposition that all men are created equal. That's a challenge we still have to live up to. DP: This book was distributed to nearly 2,400 freshman here at Penn. What do you hope that the students who read it acquired from it? Wills: Well, it would depend on what they're interested in. It has been taught in rhetoric courses and in English courses for an interest in Lincoln as a master stylist, which is an important thing. Words do matter -- saying things well can affect history. That's an important thing to take from it. An admiration for Lincoln himself is an important thing to take from it. In the confusion of war, he had the mental discipline to sort issues out and define why people were fighting. The meaning of the Civil War is the meaning he imposed on it, by his whole presidency but especially by that one speech. I've been asked by students if Lincoln realized he was going to present this momentous speech, and I said, "No," because he thought he was going to live, that he would have many speeches to deliver. The fact that he was cut off made this in a way a kind of dying request. It certainly added to the power of the speech through our subsequent history. The Clinton Saga DP: You've also been an outspoken critic of contemporary American politics, including the current President Clinton scandals and congressional politics. How do you think this is affecting people's faith in government? Wills: I think people have a much more resilient faith in government than they are often given credit for. It's a very unfortunate time -- I think it's going to be seen as that in retrospect. At the time of Watergate, people said, "Everyone's going to be disillusioned in politics now." That passes. What's happening now, that's interesting. I think everyone will come out of this thing regretting it. The Supreme Court decision [to allow the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton to proceed while he remains in office] was probably a bad one that will distract from his presidency. I think Kenneth Starr himself is going to regret that he ever got into this. I think Linda Tripp is. I think Monica Lewinsky is. I think everybody is going to go away saying, "This is not what I wanted. It's hurt me and it's diminished me." In that way it will be a sort of mutual cancelling out. DP: A lot has been made in the press of President Clinton's seeming obsession with his place in history. How will history look back on the Clinton presidency? Wills: I don't know. It is so hard to predict. One of the advantages of history is to be able to see the lack of "fit" between what people thought at the time and what turned out to be the case. People thought during Eisenhower's presidency that he was not much of a president. They thought that about Truman. It turns out in retrospect a lot of people have a very high regard for both men. We are in a time of tremendous transition. The end of the Cold War, the eruption of a lot of domestic concerns that have been delayed or suppressed -- gay rights, women's rights, affirmative action, drugs -- when you look at it, every president up to Bill Clinton had been a World War II veteran. A whole world disappeared when Clinton became the first Baby Boomer president -- the first one who was not a World War II veteran, the first one who grew up with a lot of his formation in the '60s. A whole new generation has come along. Most of the politicians coming into prominence now on both sides, Republican and Democrat, had trouble with the draft or experimented with drugs. This is a hinge in which one world rapidly dropped out of being and a whole new world has come before us with a very confusing complex, new moral orientations. In that sense it will be a social-transition presidency. Whether we look on that as happy or disastrous or perhaps just necessary, who knows? Historians should never predict. Historians know enough history to know that predictions are always wrong. DP: You've written that you were on Nixon's "enemies list" in the 1970s and you've described Kenneth Starr's probe as "inquisitorial." Is this an example of history repeating itself? Wills: Well, the enemies list is all not that big a deal, I must say. I think I was on the enemies list because Pat Buchanan resented very much all the things I wrote about Nixon. But that was a secret list for social exclusion -- "don't have anything to do with these guys." And that's quite different from having the subpoena power of a Kenneth Starr and saying things like "The First Amendment is about truth, it doesn't allow distortion." Any first-year law student knows that that's horrible constitutional doctrine. To have the subpoena power behind doctrines like that, there is no comparison. DP: Do you think that the current independent investigations are a corruption of the Constitution? Wills: Well, I would say it's a mistake. What do we got now, six independent counsels out there? And they're all fishing. The idea of giving a man an indefinite mandate to use any amount of money to investigate anything, which is essentially what it is, has really become ridiculous and I believe most people are beginning to realize that. We are not more noticeably more corrupt than the Grant administration or the Teapot Dome period. So to have an investigation into a person going into subpoenaing and prosecuting people in entirely unrelated cases, which has happened with the independent counsels, is absurd. Now and Then DP: With conflicting moral values, political strife and basic uncertainty, how does this time in history compare with Lincoln's? Wills: Lincoln's was much worse, of course. We're not on the verge of civil war. There was at that time. We don't have slavery. What we had in his time was an institution rooted in our history, rooted in our Constitution, which was immensely evil, which had posed tremendous problems up to that point, and debating over whether slavery would be extended in the West had broken compromise after compromise after compromise. And so you had seven states declaring war on the government and waging war and killing people. We don't have anything like that today.
(03/05/98 10:00am)
A 2 1/2-year-old sexual harassment suit against the University got a boost yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that federal sexual harassment law extends to cases when the victim and the harasser are of the same sex. Brian Linson, a 31-year-old former Penn graduate student, accused the University of failing to properly respond to his original complaint against his then-fellow graduate student Kenjiro Matsuda, who Linson claims sexually harassed him during a seven-month period beginning in September 1992. Linson said yesterday he was happy with the decision but not surprised, especially since the justices made no secret of their opinions when lawyers originally argued the case in December. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said then he did not "see how we could possibly sustain" a lower court ruling against Joseph Oncale, the plaintiff who sued for sexual harassment. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals put Linson's case on hold last July pending the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, but yesterday Linson said that he expects "that the ruling will be in my favor following this decision." Linson, who was studying for a doctorate in linguistics, claims in the suit that Matsuda grabbed his genitals and asked for sexual favors. Penn expelled Linson in 1993, claiming he owed nearly $10,000. Linson, however, claims the move was in retaliation for his accusations. The University has denied all the charges. Yesterday, University officials were unavailable for comment on Linson's case. U.S. District Judge Robert Kelly ruled in favor of the University in August 1996, but Linson appealed the decision five months later after Justice Department officials contacted him and offered to help him pursue the case. Linson had been representing himself. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a Louisiana oil rig worker who says he was sexually pursued and harassed by his male supervisor and two other men during his four months working on a Gulf of Mexico rig. The high court cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an anti-discrimination law. "We see no justification? for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the seven-page opinion. In a previous ruling against Oncale, a federal appeals court said the law does not apply to same-sex harassment. Although Title VII does not specifically mention sexual harassment, the Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that it amounts to discrimination if it creates a "hostile environment" in the workplace. If the high court had not ruled for the plaintiff, Linson said, men harassed by other men would have to "resort to vigilante justice." Linson said he wants to return to the University and would settle the suit if they allowed him to come back. "They've taken a person who wanted to come here to learn and they've made me an expellee," he said. Linson added that he is not sure what the next step is in his suit. He said he had not yet spoken with Linda Thome, the Justice Department attorney who is assisting him. Linson -- who is currently working as a research associate with a television analysis firm in Philadelphia -- said his dismissal from Penn is a "permanent blot" on his record. Thome, who works in the Civil Rights Division, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
