Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(12/05/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In his column, "Building a university beyond the Ivy walls," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 12/5/00) Enrique Landa made it sound as if educational programs offered on the Internet would soon be the death of the university as we know it.
I think he ignored a very important aspect of a university: the education derived from our peers and the learning experience of living with them.
Yes, I can read Shakespeare in the cozy corner of my room, but my understanding of his work will be very narrow without the input of teachers and the other students in my class. Many students at Penn share their ideas on life, academia and culture during late night conversations, group homework sessions, forums like the DP and by asking questions during class.
These are all integral parts of an education. When most undergrads come out into the workforce, what is expected of them is not necessarily a thorough knowledge of ABC 101, but the skills developed through four years of interaction within an academic community.
I felt that Landa's column completely ignored this. While the Internet is certainly a useful tool in providing educational access to those who cannot travel, it will never replace today's institutions of higher learning because what they exemplify is a community of scholars who learn not only from their texts, but also from their fellow scholars.
(12/05/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In her recent column "Don't tell me. I don't want to know," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/29/00) Ariel Horn writes about the dangers of gushing personal information about oneself to those who might not care. While this idea has its merits -- in such cases as bare-breasted table dancers -- the problem on this campus is not so much excessive self-expression, but rather our general adversity toward it.
We walk around campus and categorize peers as mere classmates, study partners, social friends or intimate friends -- and limit both the amount of influence we allow them to have on our lives, and the amount about them we're willing to accept that strays out of those categories.
It's quite pessimistic to see another's self-expression as our own excess baggage. Are we so self-involved and fragile that we cannot deal with hearing what another yet undiscovered person has on his or her plate?
There is something wonderful about each and every person on this campus, something that isn't usually expressed outwardly.
Listening to others with gritted teeth and rolled eyes, as Horn suggests, would be a step up from complete insensitivity, but still just the lowest form of charity.
Listening with an open mind and benefit of doubt is the least one can do. But that listening, as well as anticipating the gift of another's self-expression, could defeat the common current of cynicism and acknowledging one of the miracles of human communication.
(12/01/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
As a lover of rare books, I applaud Enrique Landa's efforts to encourage his fellow students to visit Penn's rare books collection ("Finding treasures in Van Pelt," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/21/00). I must take issue, however, with one of his assertions in the editorial: that the Haggadah and Milton's Paradise Lost have "little in common."
While this may seem a small matter, I believe an essential part of the appreciation of rare books, and of all books, is an awareness of the deep connections shared by much of literature, sacred or secular.
Aside from their obvious common status as priceless books, the two works share many common attributes. Paradise Lost and the Haggadah are deemed by many to be essential reading in their respective milieux. Both works have origins in one of the books of the Pentateuch, or Torah -- Paradise Lost in Genesis, the Haggadah in Exodus. Each commemorates humans passing -- or failing -- a trial, and each imparts a key event in the story of two faiths with common origins.
And perhaps most importantly, both works reflect the struggle to understand the human relationship with the figure of God.
(11/30/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
After reading the article "Race issues divide men in blue," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/17/00) I realized the dark cloud of controversy had once again appeared over our department as a result of disgruntled employees, former and current. And what good timing, during Unity Week and the search for a new vice president for Public Safety in which Chief Rush is a viable candidate.
Well, once again, you are being used by people who refuse to accept the consequences of their actions and instead claim discrimination or hide behind anonymity.
When the author of the article came to our department, she said that she was doing an article on "law enforcement from a minority perspective." She was provided with a list of officers on various shifts and in various divisions.
Several officers that I supervise said after being interviewed that they felt the author was looking for only negative statements about the department. Some were upset because after making time for the interview, their statements, most of which were positive, were not printed. They were also upset, as was I, by the fact that what was reported occurred in the past. I refer to the article as regurgitated dirty laundry.
Former Penn Police officers who filed discrimination complaints are people who often refuse to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences for the same. I also think of past complaints that may or may not have been substantiated and they are viewed as a way into the "deep pockets" of the University for an easy settlement.
It appears that only ethnic officers were interviewed for this article, as opposed to minorities. With that said, I will tell you that as a female -- a minority, last I checked -- in the sergeant capacity, I make decisions every day that affect the officers, the department and the community. These decisions, whether positive or negative, reflect upon the department as a whole. To say that these decisions are not important is an insult and shows ignorance on the part of officers who think otherwise.
The so-called "growing problems" the anonymous officer alludes to may have been evident in the past, but the department of today reflects quite a difference.
As far as Chief Rush being the problem, I don't see it. Maureen Rush has done more for the development of minorities in this department than any past director, commissioner or chief. If there is any preferential treatment on her part, it is towards those people who go above the normal standards to do their job.
I was disappointed in the article considering the fact that it was Unity Week. I think our department has made significant steps to prevent offensive behavior, harassment and discrimination toward fellow employees and those we serve. For those who have problems of this nature, it is important that they come forward and have the issue addressed and corrected. No one wins when such allegations are made in the form of anonymous statements to someone who is looking for sensationalism.
(11/29/00 10:00am)
Several years ago, the student body asked the University for an all-night campus diner offering affordable fare and a comfortable atmosphere. The administration responded with Eat at Joe's, and students soon learned to close their wallets to the ill-conceived and poorly executed exercise in corporatized kitsch.
Now, however, it appears that Penn officials have learned from that mistake. And we -- and our stomachs -- hope to be very pleased by the end result.
The new El Diner restaurant is scheduled to open in the teal-and-chrome vacancy at 3925 Walnut Street in mid-January. It promises to stay open 24 hours a day, offer a menu of inexpensive items and bring about the ultimate demise of Eat at Joe's faux '50s interior.
Should it open on time -- hardly a given in light of the University's recent track record with retail -- and deliver on these counts, we will be very pleased. Indeed, if the reality lives up to the hype, El Diner will represent a clear case of the administration eventually listening to the concerns of the student body.
As we again embark on a period of term paper deadlines and pre-exam cram sessions, the need for a place to get a cup of coffee at four in the morning will become all the more obvious to the student body. Here's to hoping for cheap, all-hours dining on campus at this time next semester.
(11/29/00 10:00am)
Four years ago, while on the staff of Harvard Medical School, Penn Ophthalmology Professor Evan Dreyer falsified data in a grant application to the National Institutes of Health. For that blatant act of misconduct, Dreyer agreed to a 10-year ban on federal research funding earlier this month, but that penalty is not sufficient.
He should also lose his job at Penn.
As the recent controversy in the University's beleaguered Institute for Human Gene Therapy demonstrates, a researcher's inclination to play fast and loose with protocol can have grave consequences. Penn needs to have a zero-tolerance policy on flagrant, willful research misconduct, and on that basis, Dreyer must go.
We are further troubled by the fact that when Dreyer was hired by Penn in 1997, he was already the subject of a federal investigation over his NIH funding request. Health System spokeswoman Rebecca Harmon said that the University was unaware of the charges at the time.
This, however, evidences the same kind of lax institutional oversight that we witnessed in the IHGT affair. Just as the Medical School's Institutional Review Board fail to readily observe the misconduct in Director James M. Wilson's gene therapy trials, so too did someone drop the ball by not thoroughly vetting a potential addition to the faculty.
Researchers, especially in the field of medicine, hold the lives of patients in their hands, and no violation of this public trust can be condoned.
(11/29/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I'd like to take a moment to address the issues raised by Alex Hurst ("P2B not a high-tech utopia," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/20/00). I appreciate Alex's opinion, but in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I'd like to comment on some of his points.
* Alex is correct that the University "is already rich in entrepreneurial resources," However, P2B and PenNetWorks in particular will serve as an additional outlet for entrepreneurs. It is well documented that successful entrepreneurial hotbeds throughout the country have a critical mass of new companies and support organizations that contribute to the viability of the technology community.
* The incubator model has taken some lumps recently, but a number are thriving despite current market conditions. PenNetWorks is well positioned for success, not because we have a "shiny building," but due to the network in place to support entrepreneurs. We have access to the entire University infrastructure, Redleaf's substantial network and support from world-renowned sponsors.
* Alex discusses the University's motivation behind this initiative. He states that Penn will "cash in on the technology boom with little downside" and that "the entrepreneur assumes all the real risk." The University has already invested in putting together the PenNetWorks facility. Redleaf has devoted almost $1 million to the facility. In fact, if an entrepreneur is admitted, Redleaf provides pre-seed capital as a loan to the entrepreneur. The loan converts into equity upon successful graduation. If the entrepreneur does not graduate, the loan disappears. The entrepreneur is never obligated to pay it back.
* The University's primary motivations behind this initiative are economic development and the provision of resources to students, faculty and staff in order to prevent "brain drain." The administration wants to keep the entrepreneurial talent in our area. Penn will hold no position in, and reap no benefit from, any student-related business.
* Finally, Alex is right: P2B does not guarantee success. Entrepreneurs should explore all options carefully and assess the risks and rewards. However, we feel that our help will maximize an entrepreneur's chance for success and that we can all benefit.
Obviously Alex thinks we're doing something right. He's co-CEO of a company that has recently applied for admission to PenNetWorks.
(11/28/00 10:00am)
If anyone had any doubts that our politicians are dysfunctional, the rhetorical tone of the current election controversy in the state of Florida should put those thoughts to rest.
For the last three weeks, we've watched and waited as the votes were counted and recounted and counted again. All the while, it has become increasingly apparent that no one representing either major party is interested in a fair and accurate count indicative of the people's will. Rather, party leaders have focused on getting their man in the White House by hook or by crook, regardless of who actually won more votes.
Both Al Gore and George W. Bush are supremely confident that they won the Florida vote and hence the election, and both have solid foundations for their beliefs. But no degree of certainty merits rhetoric that distorts reality or attempts to delegitimize the electoral process.
Who doubts, that should their roles be reversed, Bush supporters would fight tooth and nail for every dimpled chad? And that Gore voters would argue that the integrity of the initial vote should be respected in the face of attempts to steal the election through endless hand recounts?
Members of the two major parties fight and argue; that is to be expected. What saddens us, though, is that they have ceased to argue over matters of principle or policy, but instead bicker over an electoral process in which partisan concerns have no place.
No one is trying to hammer out a sensible, nonpartisan solution to the current impasse. The elder statesmen of both parties -- Robert Dole and James Baker for the Republicans, George Mitchell and Warren Christopher for the Democrats -- have abandoned their statesman-like postures for the low road of sound bite politics. These diplomats are behaving quite undiplomatically.
If nothing else, this election evidences an electorate more divided than at any point in decades. The divisive tone of both parties during the recount process only pours salt into these wounds, squandering an opportunity for national healing.
(11/22/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I am happy to report that construction of the Penn-assisted pre-K-8 school in University City is not "plagued by delays," contrary to the story that ran yesterday ("Delays plague pre-K-8 school," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/21/00). The project is moving steadily ahead, and groundbreaking is not far off.
There is no change in the plan to enroll several initial sections of kindergarten and first grade next fall, and we eagerly look forward to the school opening its doors.
(11/21/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
On behalf of the University Honor Council, I would like to commend Ariel Horn for her column ("No bang for the buck," Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/15/00) exposing the inadequacies of term-paper mills.
She makes a good case these papers offer superficial analysis, if any, and are generally substantively void. A rational thinker would be led to the conclusion that it's probably not a great idea to turn in one of these papers and expect to do well in a class. So, from a consumer's standpoint, that information is appreciated.
Ms. Horn makes another good point: the danger of plagiarism. And plagiarism is one of the six or seven deadly sins of an academic institution.
She also notes that professors are taking academic integrity quite seriously these days; I agree. In my few years serving the UHC, I have seen an increase in faculty engagement in these issues, as well as a growing reliance on technology to detect cheating. This goes to show that these term-paper mills are a prime example of why these short cuts can leave you with a higher price to pay than $5 to $14.95 per page.
(11/21/00 10:00am)
Kenny Yuen
College '86
The writer is a former officer with the University of Pennsylvania Police Department.
(11/20/00 10:00am)
Congratulations to the Pennsylvania Quakers football team for securing its second Ivy League title in three seasons.
Saturday's 45-15 championship victory over Cornell was decisive, a welcome relief for Quakers fans who had grown accustomed to the team's frequent last-minute heroics.
We thought a win couldn't get any sweeter after the come-from-behind victory at Princeton. We remember thinking that the stunning Parents' Weekend defeat of Brown was insurmountable, too.
And despite the resilience of one stubborn goal post, last week's 36-35 Homecoming squeaker over Harvard forced all fans of the Red and Blue to rethink how amazing a single victory could be.
But on all those occasions, we were wrong. Those wins were tremendous, but they weren't for the title.
And so today, even as two goal posts stand intact on the turf at Franklin Field, we salute the champions who made the 2000 season truly one for the books.
We recognize Kris Ryan, whose 243-yard, four-touchdown performance made Saturday's win possible.
We congratulate Rob Milanese, whose nine catches and 117 receiving yards against the Big Red put him into the Penn record books with new single-season marks in both categories.
And we salute quarterback Gavin Hoffman, who shook off a shaky 1999 campaign to lead this team to the title, shattering every major team passing mark in the process.
Most importantly, we thank all the Quakers football players who gave evertything they had every Saturday this fall, who helped leave that unique taste of victory with yet another generation of Penn students.
Thanks for giving us a season to remember.
(11/17/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I am not embarrassed by the way our country is handling the close presidential election, in a relative sense at least.
It may be ironically typical of our country that the situation has resulted in a legal battle. But compare this with the recent opposition in Egypt to the results of their election. There were several murders there as a result of displeasure with the results. The worst we have here is at most a few months of waiting and a lot of arguing and debating.
(11/17/00 10:00am)
The University staked its revitalization strategy for the 40th Street corridor on the premise that once its anchor tenants -- a movie theater and a supermarket -- were in place, the retail floodgates would open.
But the Sundance Cinemas project at 40th and Walnut streets, after months of delays, is finally dead. And the viability of Penn's vision for the area where campus meets community is now seriously in doubt.
We still believe that a movie theater represents an attractive, student-friendly option for the site. However, finding a new operating partner may well be impossible.
In a saturated national market, chains are closing theaters, not opening them. Ritz, the major local chain, has expressed zero interest. And with Cinemagic 3 down the street, operators offering mainstream fare may be reluctant to enter the market.
Penn should give due diligence to its search for a new movie partner. But it also has to consider alternative uses for the location. Neither campus sentiment nor business interests will tolerate a dormant construction site for long. And the University will have to settle the site's status soon if it wants to attract new tenants to the area, even if it means that it has to settle for someone less photogenic than Robert Redford to sell its vision.
In a broader sense, the demise of Sundance Cinemas reflects the risk inherent in the University's development strategy. By replacing indigenous retail with national chains, Penn faces the prospect of stores fleeing a community in which they have little invested in the event of an industry-specific downturn, of which this is the case, or a general recession.
The University's plans for 40th Street were grand in scope and steeped in the optimism that a single coup, like Sundance, could spark a virtuous cycle of business growth. That dream is now largely in shambles. We hope that the University can pick up the pieces -- and quickly -- to see at least some measure of its vision realized.
(11/16/00 10:00am)
Female professors in the University's hard-sciences departments -- Physics, Biology and Chemistry -- are few and far between. Such a problem should clearly be addressed.
The solutions here are not easy ones. At major research universities across the nation, where publishing is the main determinant of scholarly prestige, women comprise only a small minority of tenured science faculty, thanks largely to the dearth of women enrolled in graduate programs decades ago. In the recruitment and retention of female professors, Penn is no better and no worse than its peers. Focusing our efforts on trying to hire away the small number of professors teaching elsewhere would only spark a bidding war the University can't win.
What the University can and should do, however, is work to increase the number of women entering the hard sciences and better support those already on the faculty, lest they follow the beaten path to less-research-oriented liberal arts colleges.
To the first end, professors of all stripes should encourage young women to pursue graduate work in the traditionally male-dominated hard sciences. Female professors who have successfully navigated this course should serve as able mentors to the next generation of academics.
And to support those who have already courageously chosen to enter the ivory tower, the University should encourage the formation and expansion of support networks among female professors and graduate students at Penn and other research universities. Many such groups have been successful in letting women know that while they may be the minority in their departments, they are definitely not alone.
Opening up once-limited academic disciplines to young women should be among the University's goals. Let's hope it pays dividends down the road with increased female representation in the science faculty.
(11/15/00 10:00am)
Bowing to pressure from City Council and local residents, Mayor Street finally abandoned his quixotic quest for a new downtown baseball stadium on Monday.
We frankly could not be more disappointed that no side -- not the city, not the state, not the teams -- has taken the initiative to get this deal done. No side has presented a vision of how the city's sports teams should fit into the larger landscape. And thanks to the utter lack of constructive dialogue on this issue, we're right back where we started.
With every other conceivable location less than an hour away from City Hall having been rejected, it appears that new stadiums for the Phillies and Eagles will, some day, be built in the vast concrete oceans of South Philadelphia.
But these facilities, as much of an improvement as they will be over the eyesore that is Veterans Stadium, will not revitalize one square block of the city. They will not increase pedestrian traffic in the city. They will not spur one iota of new business growth in the city.
And for those reasons, the city should minimize its share of the costs.
Under its current agreement with the teams, Philadelphia will pay one third of the construction costs for two single-sport stadiums. But before the first brick is laid, the Street administration should fix what the contribution will be with the teams.
When the cost overruns come -- and if the last decade's national ball park bonanza serves as any guide, they will -- the city should not pay a dime more.
Ball parks are not a spending priority for any city. Things like public schools and crime fighting are, and the city should not be concentrating its funds on projects, like stadiums, from which few stand to benefit.
(11/13/00 10:00am)
On Thursday, the University's Committee on Manufacturer Responsibility recommended that Penn join both rival sweatshop-monitoring organizations, the Fair Labor Association and the Worker Rights Consortium.
If accepted by President Rodin, the decision would represent a choice of practicality over ideological boldness. Unfortunately, that is a decision that University had to make.
By straddling the fence -- just as 13 other schools, including Columbia and Brown, have done -- Penn would ensure membership in whichever organization proves most capable of monitoring Third World factory conditions, which is important. But the move would also underscore Penn's continued unwillingness to be a leader in the anti-sweatshop movement.
On a practical level, we endorse this recommendation. Joining both organizations provides the best chance that labor conditions at factories producing Penn apparel will be monitored at some point in the near future.
But on an ideological level, however, we continue to support the WRC. We have long supported the organization because of its foundation in human rights groups and its support for a living wage, a feature of Penn's own Code of Conduct but not the FLA charter.
While the University is obviously following the most expedient route, we are troubled by its inability to explain itself.
In explaining the body's recommendation, Committee Chairman Gregory Possehl cited the "complementarity" of the two organizations. This, too, is puzzling. The FLA and the WRC do not support each other, and neither feels the other has a need to exist. The whole equals no more than the sum of its parts.
We hope that President Rodin will be able to communicate a convincing rationale for her decision to accept or reject the committee's recommendation.
Ultimately, whatever Rodin decides, this issue has most definitely not been put to rest. Effective monitoring will come from the one organization that gets business, labor, human rights groups and universities to sit down at the same table, which they are not doing currently.
But as long as that table belongs to the FLA or the WRC, at least Penn -- even if it refuses to abide by an ideological stand -- will have a seat.
(11/10/00 10:00am)
Last year was a banner year for college endowments. Harvard increased 32.3 percent. Yale soared 41 percent. Princeton went up 35.5 percent. Duke skyrocketed 58.8 percent. The combined value of these four endowments increased $10.75 billion.
And the University of Pennsylvania? In the best year in history for institutions of higher education, in the midst of a booming economy, it lost 1.8 percent, or about $60 million, continuing a recent pattern of underperformance. Over the last year, it fell from the 12th to 18th largest endowment in the country, and on a per-student basis, it isn't even in the same league as its peers.
The University dropped the ball, and it did so in a big way.
In 1979, former Investment Board Chairman John Neff inherited a woefully small endowment. Following a "value" philosophy, which emphasizes stocks undervalued by the market, he gave Penn one of the best-performing portfolios of the 1980s and early '90s.
The salad days of value investing ended in the mid-1990s, replaced by the emergence of growth stocks, which as their name implies, augment shareholder value through continued earnings growth. The big-name media and technology stocks of our generation -- Time Warner, Intel, America Online -- all fall into this category and have rewarded other schools quite handsomely.
Many schools also entered the venture capital markets early, yielding impressive results. Twelve of the top 20 schools for which data is known returned more than 30 percent on their endowments last year, largely on the strength of their VC holdings.
Certainly, none lost money.
All the while, the managers of Penn's portfolio were stuck in the past. Like Galileo's inquisitors, who insisted the earth stood at the center of the universe, they have clung to their trusted -- but fundamentally obsolete -- model of the investment universe.
Recognizing its folly, Penn now plans to move aggressively into growth stocks and alternative investments, but the fact is it may be too late. Penn missed out on unprecedented growth in the stock market and will suffer as a latecomer to a sated VC market.
And as a result of this short-sightedness, future generations of Penn students and faculty will suffer.
We recognize that the men and women who manage Penn's endowment work for -- or in some cases, run -- some of the largest investment banks and brokerages in the country. But if they produced these returns for their clients in the midst of the greatest prosperity this country's investors have ever known, there's no doubt they'd be out on the street in no time.
In a recent memo to his fellow Trustees, current Investment Board Chairman Howard Marks wrote "We wish we'd invested in venture capital.... We wish we'd invested more in growth stocks." Us, too.
(11/09/00 10:00am)
With the current uncertainty over who will become the next president of the United States, we are engaged in a moment in history that will not soon be forgotten. While emotions are running high, we would encourage all sides to remain calm as the electoral process runs its course.
The recount of more than six million Florida votes should be completed this afternoon. Overseas absentee ballots should be tabulated over the next 10 days, and a hand count may then be held. Then, and only then, will we know for sure which candidate has won the state's popular vote and its 25 electors.
We hope that both candidates and their partisans accept the result of this process and that concerns over the fairness and accuracy of Florida's electoral procedures are resolved in an expeditious manner.
It is important that whoever wins, we acknowledge the legitimacy of the election and America's rule of law.
Furthermore, the new president must recognize that while he has won the election, he has not captured a mandate to impose his will on a divided electorate. We would encourage whoever should win to make bipartisanship the hallmark of his administration, bringing members of the opposing party into his Cabinet and working constructively with congressional leaders of all stripes.
The closeness of the race between Al Gore and George W. Bush nationally and in many key states is proof of the fact that every vote really does matter. We hope whoever emerges as the new president recognizes that fact, and makes our votes count for something.
(11/06/00 10:00am)
Last week's ruling from the National Labor Relations Board paves the way for graduate student teaching assistants at private colleges across the country to unionize for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Fortunately, this ruling is unlikely to have an immediate impact here, where TAs have expressed general satisfaction with their compensation and working conditions. But it should nevertheless send a message to Penn and other universities around the country that they now have less leverage in talks with their graduate students.
In denying their collective bargaining rights, college administrators have said graduate students attend an institution primarily to prepare for academic careers and that their TA duties are secondary. Students counter that they often bear the same teaching burdens as faculty members but lack any of the same rights.
Still, the important thing administrators should take from this ruling is that graduate students should be accommodated, within reason, to the point where union formation and action is not necessary.
No one -- nor any institution's academic mission -- is well served by conflicts such as those which afflicted Yale University in the early and mid-1990s. There, more than 1,400 graduate students went on strike at any one time over issues ranging from pay and health benefits to collective bargaining rights and the impartiality of grievance procedures. Classes were cancelled, professors were divided over whether they should cross picket lines and the general educational climate of the university suffered.
These lessons should certainly not be lost on University President Judith Rodin, who was dean of Yale's graduate school during strikes in 1991 and 1992. We hope that her office and those of the individual school deans remain responsive to the needs and grievances of graduate students to head off conflicts in the future.
