Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(11/24/92 10:00am)
The Mayor's Scholarship trial began yesterday with an eight-hour procession of witnesses for the plaintiffs, who leveled accusations of racism and inequity in the University's recruitment and treatment of Philadelphia students. The long-awaited Common Pleas Court trial is supposed to settle a lawsuit filed in October 1991 against the University over the number of scholarships the University is required to distribute annually to Philadelphia students. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 scholarships a year for a total of 500 at a time. The University, however, maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land. Both Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney for the plaintiff Tom Gilhool and Arthur Makadon, the attorney for the University, said that their respective arguments would focus on the interpretation of the city ordinance which defines the Mayor's Scholarship. Although Gilhool had previously stated that PILCOP would be focusing on the words of the ordinance, almost all of those who testified had no authority on the subject of the actual ordinance, but spoke of their own personal experiences and problems with the University. Former Director of Minority Recruitment Carol Black and former financial aid and admissions officer William Adams testified against the University, saying that the University was racist and inconsiderate in its recruiting efforts. "The University was not aware that there were good students in places where they had not previously looked," Adams said. Guidance counselors, teachers and principals from Philadelphia high schools testified about scholarship practices and their impact on children's learning, saying that there was a lack of evidence that the University took any interest in recruiting from their respective schools. "The University is a jewel in the crown of the city," Girls' High School principal Marian Street said. "We are very disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to hear from recruiters [from the University]." And several witnesses testified to a climate at the University which is, and was, wrought with racial conflict. This, they claimed, made the 1977 revision of the Mayor's Scholarships program necessary. Lorenzo Sheppard, pastor of Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church, alleged that the University was and is waging a deliberate campaign of expansion and removal of neighborhood families in West Philadelphia. "The University is a very powerful institution, and it usually gets what it wants," Sheppard said. "And the attitudinal aspects of the University as they concern minorities have not changed. In fact, it has gotten worse." But nearly a quarter of the testimony focused specifically on the wording of the ordinance. Gilhool called the words of the ordinance "clear and explicit." "Public bodies should choose their words as they mean them," Gilhool said. "Or else, no person's word would be reliable and chaos would ensue." He said the plaintiff's argument would deal with aspects of the case such as the direct evolution of the contrast between the words of earlier ordinances as compared with that of 1977. But Makadon's opening statement illustrated the fundamental difference between the two sides in the suit. " 'Annually' means that each year, the University will make a new decision [on who should receive financial aid]," Makadon said. Makadon stated that the ordinance "quantifies the amount of aid the University is obligated to provide." He added that if the University had truly quadrupled its Mayor's Scholarship commitment, it would have been publicized. "If the city administration under [former Philadelphia mayor Frank] Rizzo had . . . quadrupled the amount of financial aid it was legally required to give, I could see him chortling with the president of the University, talking about how committed he is to financial aid," Makadon said. "[But there was] nary a word -- ever." Michael Pratt, the attorney for the city, made a brief opening statement expressing the city's siding with the University in the lawsuit. The case was thrown out of Common Pleas Court last April because the plaintiffs did not name the city and the mayor as co-defendants with the University. "What did the University and city intend with the 1977 ordinance?" Pratt asked. "What the city extracted from the University . . . was the promise of 125 scholarships." And at the end of the day, former City Solicitor Sheldon Albert testified on the nature of the 1977 ordinances. Throughout the day, testimonies were punctuated by Makadon's objections, which were most often sustained by Judge Nelson Diaz. Lawyers from both sides said that the first day in court held no real surprises. "This is basically what we expected," PILCOP lawyer Michael Churchill said. "The witnesses made it vivid in terms of what was going on, and helped to recreate atmosphere which helps make it evident why the city and the University would take the action they did." "I didn't really have a set view of what it was going to be like," University General Counsel Shelley Green said. "We'll see what the next day brings."
(11/23/92 10:00am)
The Mayor's Scholarship dispute will become a full-fledged legal battle today as the twists and turns of a year of disagreement finally lead to a Philadelphia courtroom. Since its filing in October 1991, the case over the number of scholarships the University is required to distribute annually has become a seemingly endless process, evolving into a cascade of papers, a tangled thicket of red tape and a thwarted attempt at a trial. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 scholarships a year for a total of 500 at a time. But the University maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land. The case first went to Common Pleas Court in April of this year but was thrown out of court because the plaintiffs did not name the city and the mayor as co-defendants with the University. "The judge ruled that the city is an indispensable party, and that the trial couldn't proceed without the city because city interests are being litigated," said Mike Pratt, attorney for the city. Now, with the city and the mayor standing with the University, the trial promises to be a gladiator match and a dramatic manifestation of ongoing conflicts between the University and its critics. The plaintiffs in the suit claim that the University has not fulfilled its obligation to the Philadelphia community. And, according to Pratt, they will be very much present in a parade of witnesses. "The ordinance, and whether or not the language of that ordinance is ambiguous -- that's what everything will hinge on," Frances Walker, executive director of Parents Against Drugs and a plaintiff in the suit, said last night. "We're looking forward to the court honoring the ordinance that was agreed upon in 1977." Attorneys for the plaintiffs, the University and the city have all stated that today's trial -- which could continue for the rest of the week -- will come down to determining the exact meaning of the generally-phrased words of the 1977 ordinance. "I can see the trial depending on what is the evidence of the deal that was reached between the University and the city back in 1977," Pratt said yesterday. "Our position is very simple, which is that the city and the University agree that our obligation is the 125 scholarships at any one time," University General Counsel Shelley Green said this weekend. "Period. Simple. That's it." The plaintiffs, however, interpret the words differently. "The words of the ordinance are that 125 four-year full tuition scholarships or their equivalent are to be awarded annually by the mayor," Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney Mike Churchill said. One challenge the plantiffs will face is to explain why the University did not announce the agreement in 1977 if, in fact, it agreed to quadrupling the number of scholarhips annually. Sources said last week that PILCOP may argue that the University could not announce the change in the agreement because of labor troubles. The University faced internal strife as a result of a strike which began in August 1977 and continued throughout the fall. The attorneys added that the tone the week's events will take is anyone's guess. But Pratt said he thinks the outcome will not be the end of this lengthy litigation, but only lead to another trial. "I wouldn't be surprised if one of the sides would appeal [the decision reached in this trial]," Pratt said. "We'll have to wait and see." The opening day of the Mayor's Scholarship lawsuit will start today at 8 a.m. in room 906 at 5 Penn Center.
(11/18/92 10:00am)
High school senior Kevin Boyle is clueless. "I have nothing done on my college applications. I haven't taken any Achievements. I filled out like two applications," Boyle said nervously as he sat on the edge of his folding chair in Houston Hall Auditorium last night. "I don't know where I want to go, or what I want to major in." "Anything would help," the Cardinal Dougherty High School senior said. "I'm totally clueless." Boyle hoped to become less clueless about college by attending last night's Futures program, at which University students and administrators offered their assistance to Philadelphia high school seniors with questions about the application process. And many other students came not only with general questions, but with specific questions about the University. "I'm interested in Penn, but at the same time, I just wanted to get some application help," Boyle said. Nursing sophomore Rebecka Mowdy sat with Boyle and joked about the University's application. "We're trying to figure out why they ask these essays," Boyle said with a laugh. "I would have liked a little more help with my application," Mowdy, a Girls High alumna, said. "I basically did everything on my own." West Catholic Philadelphia senior Gion Jones held her essay in a folder under the table with both hands, waiting for a University student volunteer to give her advice. Jones said that she was "kind of scared" about the application process, and that she plans on applying to the University. "Hopefully, they'll help me out," Jones said with a smile as wide as the rim of her studded baseball cap. "It's just that I always go where I have extra chances. If I have an extra chance to do something, I'll take it." Saint Joseph's Preparatory School senior Bill Bandoch, when asked if he was nervous about applying to college, laughed. "Yeah. Oh, yeah," he said, adding that the University is "a pretty competitive school." Bandoch, however, exhibited some competitive tendencies of his own. "I figured I'd come here, and go right to the horse's mouth about Penn," Bandoch said. "Here at Penn, you figure you can get more about what Penn will look for in your application." His father, Bill Bandoch, said that, so far, the application process has not been horrendous. "You figure probably it'll start around the end of December with all of the required financial aid forms," he said. "So far, it hasn't been too bad." Bandoch said he came with his son to find out more about the process. "I wanted to get all the information I could find, I never attended college myself," he said. "I just wanted to see what we're going to have to go through."
(11/18/92 10:00am)
They invited all of Philadelphia's high school seniors. And despite the fact that only 63 students arrived to get help with the college application process in last night's student-sponsored and University-supported Futures program, the program's coordinators said they were pleased with the turnout. "Any number of students coming is a success for us," Wharton senior and Futures co-coordinator Lynda Bearman said last night. "High schools in Philadelphia don't necessarily have the resources to work one-on-one with students." College Access Coordinator Tom Butler, who worked with the various University student groups involved in the project, said that the low volunteer-high school senior ratio was productive. "If nothing else, the program was an opportunity for students to gain a one-on-one experience with students currently in college," Butler said. Last night's program, held in Houston Hall, was billed as a session of workshops on financial aid and college admissions for seniors from all 50 Philadelphia high schools and their parents, was geared to "encourage students to go to college." "We're just trying to give these kids an option," Bearman said. Kite and Key, the Black Student League, Black Wharton Undergraduate Association, the Bicultural Intergreek Council, Delta Upsilon, Alpha Phi Omega and the Nursing Student Forum all provided volunteers for the event. Wharton senior Terrence Alford, vice president of Black Wharton, said that the diversity of the volunteers was an important aspect of the program. "What you have here is a lot of University organizations trying to do something for the community," Alford said. "We hope to expand it in years to come." Wharton senior and Black Wharton President Lincoln Singleton said that the low attendance was probably due to the fact that the program is in its first year, but that in the future it would most likely grow. "I'm pleased to see the students from high schools, and especially that the University of Pennsylvania community has certainly turned out in force," Singleton said. In addition to the student volunteers, who offered their services to individual seniors in one-on-one advising sessions about college applications and essays, representatives from the University offered their assistance to the program as well. Janet Kobosky, regional director of admissions for the Philadelphia area, spoke to students generally about the college application process, and said she would be available to answer any questions about the University. "I'm not here with my Penn Admissions hat on," Kobosky told an audience of 30 or so students. Approximately half of the students raised their hands when asked if they had a definite interest in applying to the University. Five raised their hands when asked if they were attending the session to ask general application questions. Acting Director of Undergraduate Financial Aid Alicia Brill spoke to parents and students interested in financial aid information, answering both general questions relating to filling out forms, and specific questions relating to applying for the University's Mayor's Scholarships. Students were provided with general brochures from College Access detailing the college application process, and University-specific pamphlets detailing the University's financial aid program and Mayor's Scholarships. Coordinators of the program, however, said that the program was not aimed at attracting students to the University specifically. "We just realize the importance of going to college, and how important that is in getting a job," Bearman said.
(11/17/92 10:00am)
They're coming . . . and they are the Futures. Seniors from all 50 Philadelphia high schools and their parents are coming to the University's campus tonight for workshops on financial aid and the college application process. The workshop, scheduled for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Houston Hall, is part of the student group-organized and administration-supported Futures program. A University financial aid official will instruct parents in how to apply for financial aid and University students will help the high school seniors on their college essays. The students will also be able to get general information on the college application and admissions processes. The program this evening has supporters across the University spectrum, ranging from student organizations to admissions officers and administrators. Futures was started this year by Wharton senior Michelle Peluso, Community Projects Coordinator of Kite and Key, and Kite and Key member and Wharton senior Lynda Bearman, who, according to Peluso, felt that University students "could be making a bigger contribution to the community." Futures sent University students earlier this month into Philadelphia high schools to encourage students to apply to colleges, and to help them with the process itself. "We just realize the importance of going to college, and how important that is in getting a job," Bearman said. According to Peluso and Bearman, Futures is geared towards helping students apply to all colleges, not solely the University. "We're talking in more generic terms. We're not talking Penn at all," Bearman said. "If people have asked us about Penn, we'll tell them about it, but the focus is to encourage them to go to college." Both tonight's program and previous off-campus sessions have also been coordinated by Tom Butler of College Access, a Philadelphia college assistance group. Kite and Key, the Black Student League, Black Wharton Undergraduate Association, the Bicultural Intergreek Council, Delta Upsilon, Alpha Phi Omega, and the Nursing Student Forum all have participated in the new program. "One of our foci is community service," Wharton senior Lincoln Singleton, president of the Black Wharton Undergraduate Association, said. "We've chosen the Futures program as an outlet. It sounded like a tremendous program, and I wanted Black Wharton to be part of it." According to Peluso and Kite and Key Vice President Mike Gross, the idea for asking for assistance with tonight's larger program came at the end of October, when Peluso went to the admissions office to request help due to the scale of the program. According to Peluso, the admissions office provided the program with the names of 1500 Philadelphia high school seniors who had expressed interest in the University, and the group sent individualized letters to these students inviting them to attend the program. In addition, University officers offered their assistance to the program and its coordinators. Janet Kobosky, regional director of Admissions for the Philadelphia area, will speak to the students at tonight's program along with Acting Director of Undergraduate Financial Aid Alicia Brill. "[Tonight's program] is really our first involvement with the project," Kobosky said. "It's the only role that we're playing so far. I'm not sure where this will go." Dean of Admissions Willis Stetson said that the Admissions Office's involvement in the program was "as a resource." "Obviously, we are usually asked to be participants [in programs] in order to more accurately, more completely and more officially report on admissions at Penn," Stetson said. "That's the reason for the action here." Peluso said that she spoke to Acting Executive Vice President John Gould, who expressed his support of the program and offered the President Office's assistance in getting public service announcements for the program on radio spots. "They were sent out to all the radio stations," Peluso said. "It's [the station's] subjective decision whether to play them or not. We're hoping some positive feedback comes from it." "This is part of a much larger interest that Penn has in the community, and this is just a super thing that these people are doing," Gould said. Although tonight's program takes place five days before the trial date of the ongoing Mayor's Scholarship lawsuit, in which plaintiffs claim that the University has been negligent in fulfilling its obligation in providing University scholarships to Philadelphia high school students, organizers said that there is no connection between the trial and the program. "The program was devised last semester, before either of us were aware of the Mayor's Scholarship issue," Peluso said. "We felt all the more need, realizing that we could be making a bigger contribution in helping the students." "The Mayor's Scholarship was not a motivational issue behind this program," Bearman said. "We are aware of it, and Admissions and Financial Aid are aware of it, and it will help them, but that wasn't the main focus at all." "As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no connection," Gould said. "This is part of a much larger effort that has been ongoing at Penn and has been strengthened this fall," Kobosky said. "This is one piece of a larger effort, and it needs to be seen in that context. I support their efforts wholeheartedly."
(11/10/92 10:00am)
The University's new Mayor's Scholarship package is unique among several similar institutions in that it is completely grant-based, Ivy League university officials said yesterday. In the new package, Mayor's Scholarships starting with next year's freshman class will not include any student loan obligation. Rather, students who qualify to be Mayor's Scholars will receive grants "that will meet their full need, as determined by the University." Princeton University's Student Financial Aid Director Don Betterton was among many Ivy League financial aid directors who said that their respective universities do not offer any financial aid package which is solely comprised of grants. "There are some students we don't give loans to, and there are some students we don't give [work-study] jobs to," Betterton said. "There are no students that receive full scholarships for their need." "We do only offer financial aid packages with loans," said Jennifer Sprague, staff assistant at Harvard University's Office of Financial Aid. And financial aid officials at Yale and Brown universities and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology echoed their colleagues at the other institutions. All of the schools were part of the Ivy Overlap Group, which met once a year until 1990 to determine the financial aid packages for individual students who were accepted at more than one school. University Financial Aid Director William Schilling said that he is unaware of whether or not other schools have similar financial aid packages because of limits imposed on the Overlap Group by a judgment in a recent anti-trust suit against the Ivy League and M.I.T. "I don't know what other schools are offering since we don't talk much anymore," Schilling said. However, Schilling added that the package is an exceptional case for University financial aid options. "[The Mayor's Scholarship package] is clearly different from anything else we're offering," Schilling said. According to the agreement between University President Sheldon Hackney and Mayor Ed Rendell, students who have been selected as Mayor's Scholars "will receive grants in an amount equal to 125 times tuition for that year." The agreement states that the new package "will be distinguished from any other financial aid program at the University and should enable the University to compete more effectively for students from Philadelphia." Schilling said that while the funding for the Mayor's Scholarship program is drawn from the same source as other University financial aid programs, "a part of the University's financial aid budget, which would be equal to 125 times tuition, would be set aside as the funds for Mayor's Scholarships with this special no-loans package." The announcement of a new Mayor's Scholarship package by Hackney and Rendell came in the midst of the throes of a lawsuit filed against the University which is scheduled to go to trial in Common Pleas Court on November 23. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 scholarships a year for a total of 500 at a time. However, both Rendell and Hackney have said that the new agreement is not in any way related to the lawsuit.
(11/05/92 10:00am)
After the streamers and confetti came down in Little Rock and the balloons deflated in Houston, the day after Election Day at the University was almost like any other. Scattered throughout campus, kiosks uninformed of the latest turn of events still held campaign posters advertising politicians. But while Bush and Perot supporters were inconspicuous amid the crowds on Locust Walk, Clinton supporters were easy to spot with prominent buttons on their backpacks and smiles on their faces. College Democrats President Scott Sher said last night that Tuesday's race was "a great election." "I can't say I'm surprised -- we expected a landslide, and we got a landslide," Sher said. "I think the reason that happened is that Bill Clinton was a better candidate." Many students said they were pleased with the turn that the election had taken. "I'm very, very happy about the election," College freshman Josh Markman said. "I think it'll be great to have a president who is part of a different generation, with a different perspective," College senior Anna Buckingham said. "I think things were getting pretty stale." "I'm quite pleased with the election," Wharton sophomore Jennifer Wu said. "I think that Clinton can definitely help us out of this country's recession, and that's why I voted for him." Wu and many other students said they were surprised that Tuesday's election seemed to be such a landslide. "I was a little surprised, because I thought that Bush would probably have taken more states than he actually did," Wu said. College sophomore Katie Simons said she was surprised that the country had taken a step away from the political status quo. "I was so worried that people would go to the polls and back down, and not be courageous enough to vote for something different," Simons said. "People just had enough, and I think that that is showing." And College sophomore Troy Prinkey said that although he is a registered Republican, he voted for Clinton on Tuesday. "I'm a swing voter, because I thought Clinton stood more for what I believe in," Prinkey said, citing Clinton's college loan payback program and health care programming as examples. Many students commented that although independent candidate Ross Perot did not make a tremendous showing in the election, the fact that he did make a showing at all was a reflection of the nation's dissatisfaction. "I actually thought his showing was pretty impressive, considering he's a third candidate," Buckingham said. "There's a pretty big constituency in the country that is pretty unhappy with the two parties." Wharton senior Aron Schwartz, co-chairperson of Penn for Perot, said the election was a "cathartic experience." "An organization supporting Perot will continue to exist, and while we hope that Clinton is able to fix the problems of this country, we believe that if he is unable to do so, someone from Perot's party or Perot himself will be able to step up to the plate in 1996 and take a swing at the presidency," Schwartz said. College Republicans President Dana Lynch did not return phone calls last night.
(11/05/92 10:00am)
and ALISSA KAYE The candidates were too close for comfort, but their workers wanted to get closer and more comfortable with us. As female Daily Pennsylvanian reporters covering a senatorial race which heightened the country's awareness of gender issues in the workplace, we never thought we would ddpersonally experience sexual harassment right in the candidates' backyards. Unfortunately, we were wrong. Throughout the senatorial race, Democratic challenger Lynn Yeakel constantly highlighted her concern for women's issues and reminded voters of Republican incumbent Arlen Specter's role as a Senate Judiciary Committee member in last year's Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Supreme Court hearings. In turn, Specter defended his actions during the hearings and stressed his strong voting record supporting women's issues. But in spite of both candidates' insistence on equal standing in the workplace -- on the distinction between work and play -- when it came down to their respective election night parties, complimentary wine and beer drowned out all the political rhetoric. Campaign volunteers from both camps made sexual advances on each of us in an ironic twist on the "Year of the Woman" idea. Had we been male reporters with short hair, we wondered afterwards, would a certain male volunteer at Specter's headquarters have insisted on moving his chair closer before he pushed hair out of our eyes? And would he have grabbed our notebooks from our hands so he could write down his name and number in case we wanted "a date . . . or concert tickets because I sell them?" Would two of Yeakel's male campaign volunteers have so avidly pressed to let them buy us drinks? And had we been men, would a male Yeakel campaign worker have had the opportunity to indelicately fondle the locket dangling between our breasts? And would two male volunteers -- and College Republicans from our own University no less -- who were sloppy drunk have followed us around Specter's victory party, saying, "Can I hit on you more? Why don't you like me?" It was horrifying then, and it is mortifying to recall it now. The campaigners' behavior cannot help but cast a shadow of doubt on both candidates' professed concern for gender issues. Maybe it's just guilt by association, but as the proverbial saying would have it, "actions speak louder than words." As we see things, it shouldn't make a difference whether a reporter is wearing a jacket and tie or a skirt and blouse. Journalists should be able to objectively cover the events at hand . . . without having to worry about others' hands on them.
(11/04/92 10:00am)
and CHARLES ORNSTEIN At the start of the evening last night in the ballroom of the Philadelphia Hilton, Democratic Pennsylvania Senate candidate Lynn Yeakel's headquarters pulsed to the tunes of "Celebration,""Roll With It," and "Higher and Higher." Four hours later, the balloons were sinking to the floor and all that could be heard were the sounds of silence. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Republican senatorial incumbent Arlen Specter defeated Yeakel with 51 percent of the vote to Yeakel's 49 percent. And while these numbers reflect the close nature of the race, they only touch upon the emotional roller-coaster that supporters at Yeakel's headquarters rode throughout the evening. "[Specter's] part of the Old Guard," a euphoric Margaret Byrun, a Yeakel supporter, said early in the evening. "Let him go on -- she'll do well in our Senate." "I've prayed about this election, and now everything's just falling into place," Byrun said. Early in the night, campaign workers were also elated, popping open Heineken after Heineken, as the election returns showed Yeakel with a commanding lead of 52-48 percent. "We're fucking excited," campaign staff member Paul Kirk said with a huge smile as returns showed Yeakel pulling ahead of Specter. "I can't believe it." And supporters cheered when Democrats and women won races across the city, state and country, waiting, while the Pennsylvania race remained "too close to call." Senator Harris Wofford (D-Pa.) projected in the midst of the evening that "we'll give a one-two punch for Pennsylvania and make a very good team." Wofford tempered his enthusiasm, however, saying that "it might be a long night" as the race fell into a 50-50 deadlock. As the race continued neck-and-neck, supporters kept on dancing, singing and hoping that the oft-cited "coattail effect" would take hold in Pennsylvania. But as the clock ticked on, the results looked bleak for Yeakel, and the enthusiasm perceptibly died down. As Yeakel supporters watched the Democratic star rise with President Bush's and Independent candidate Ross Perot's conceding victory to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, they saw Yeakel's slow but steady drop. Throughout the crowd, there were hugs and tears, with one woman saying to another, "Don't worry, there's still 18 percent." At midnight, the roller-coaster came to a complete stop. Yeakel conceded to Specter in a speech which left many supporters in tears, yelling "Not yet, Lynn!" from the floor to the podium, and singing "Give me that good time feeling . . . it was good for Ross and George and it's good enough for me." Yeakel, with a bright smile, thanked the 1.9 million voters who "believed . . . and voted for Courage for a Change." "While we did not succeed in capturing the Senate seat, we did succeed in capturing the hearts of thousands of people across Pennsylvania and across the nation looking for new leadership," Yeakel said to cheers from the audience. Yeakel voiced optimism for the future of women in government. "The journey has begun for women . . . finally, we will assume our rightful places in the halls of power in this nation," Yeakel said to her supporters, which she likened to "an extended family." "The fight for what is just and right in this society is only just begun," Yeakel concluded. As she left the podium, Yeakel said that "young women have a key to the future", and that today's young women should "get involved, take a step forward and take a leadership role in our society." And one teary-eyed supporter echoed Yeakel's optimism, saying that "hope is still alive in America." "She gave us hope. She told women that they can take back their life and make choices. If they fail at their first try, try again," said Elaine Jones from North Philadelphia.
(10/29/92 10:00am)
Bureaucracy. Censorship. Discrimination. When these three buzzwords came together at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst this semester, they resulted in a roar of discord and confusion -- and a lawsuit against an individual and an institution. Three foreign students who were editors and writers at the university's independent student newspaper The Daily Collegian have filed a lawsuit against both the paper and Editor-in-Chief Dan Wetzel, accusing the paper of discrimination. According to Wetzel, the three students were not fired from the paper, but were told that they could not hold editorial positions because they are graduate students rather than undergraduates. The students had worked on the Third World Affairs page of the paper, a section devoted to the discussion and coverage of Third World events, until September 10, of this year, when they contend that they were dismissed because they are foreigners. "There is nothing inherently discriminatory in the Collegian," Wetzel said. "We think this paper should be run by 19-year-olds rather than 35-year-olds." Wetzel said that the graduate students were told that they could be on the staff of the Collegian, and that the actual suit is "speculation." "They're not going to have much of a case, because they've never been fired," Wetzel said. However, in response to the suit, Wetzel and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Tom Robinson issued a statement on September 21, in an attempt to smooth over the tensions which had arisen on all sides by dealing in terms of the university's bureaucracy. The statement said the Collegian's constitution was the document "most germane to the questions raised by the three graduate students." In an attempt to answer the graduate-undergraduate question, the statement said that although the university's Student Activities Office has a working policy "severely limiting the role of graduate students in undergraduate student organizations," that policy has been "inconsistently applied." The Collegian's relationship to the university easily lends itself to bureaucratic entanglement. While, according to Wetzel, the paper is a financially independent foundation, it is a "registered student organization." "We have to obey Student Activities Office rules, or else we would no longer be a registered student organization," Wetzel said. According to the statement, the provisions of the constitution permit graduate students to be staff members of the Collegian and to vote in elections. The constitution also specifies that "in the event that there are no undergraduate applicants for a department manager, editor or associate position, a graduate student may hold such a leadership position" -- which is a point of contention in the lawsuit. The statement said, "the question of the appropriate role of graduate students in undergraduate student organizations needs futher review," and that the issue was one that should be dealt with to prevent "future misunderstandings and inconsistency." However, the writers claim that they were discriminated against not as graduate students, but rather, as foreigners, and their lawsuit brings the formidable specters of bigotry and censorship to the bureaucratic melee. Graduate student and Indian national Madamohan Rao said that throughout his tenure as Third World Affairs editor, he was faced with "intimidation and harassment," and claims that the suit is "a clear-cut case of discrimination." "We feel that this is just an attempt to get rid of our opinions," Rao said. "It's an act of discrimination and censorship, and it's outrageous that it's happening to foreign students who have come here on an educational exchange." Rabi Dutta, a fellow foreign graduate student and former writer for Third World Affairs, said that the Collegian had fired the three on the basis of "some bureaucratic excuse," and echoed Rao's claims of discrimination. "This is totally at odds with all the things written in the constitution," Dutta said. Dutta added that prior to the establishment of the Third World Affairs page three years ago, students had complained of the paper's "biased coverage." The accusations of minority intolerance cast a giant shadow over the Collegian, in light of the fact that last year, student protesters overran the Collegian's independent offices, and accused the paper of racist writing and policies. According to the plaintiff's lawyer, Cristobal Bonifaz, the clients are demanding reinstatement to their editorial and writing positions and unspecified damages. Bonifaz said that the university has already sided with his clients and put out a press release saying that the three students would be reinstated to their positions, and that "the Collegian backed off from this agreement one day later." According to Wetzel, however, the university's press release simply dealt with the question of whether or not the students could work at the paper, and stated that the students are welcome to work on the staff without holding editorial positions. Wetzel said that all charges of discrimination brought against him and the paper were false and without foundation. The university's Director of the News Office, Karin Sherdin, said that the university itself has not been named a party to the lawsuit because Bonifaz said that "he felt the university had negotiated in good faith with his clients." Sherdin said that the university had been under the impression that a settlement had been reached in the case. "Before the suit was filed, the university administration had been talking with the Collegian editor and with the graduate students and their attorney, trying to work out a settlement," Sherdin said. "We thought we had accomplished that." "Somewhere between what we thought had been accomplished and what actually came to pass . . . the graduate students were dissatisfied," Sherdin said. Bonifaz said that a judge will probably begin hearing preliminary arguments at the beginning of next month. The lawsuit raises many questions -- questions of freedom of student expression in relation to a university's bureaucratic system of governing and in relation to a multicultural community -- which do not seem to have any immediate answers for college journalists in the 1990s. This complicated cacophony up in Amherst, however, has not made itself heard in Philadelphia. The University's General Counsel Shelley Green said that no discrimination suit of this kind has ever occurred, to her knowledge, at the University. "We've had nothing comparable," Green said. "Certainly no one has sued us saying that they had a right to be an editor at The Daily Pennsylvanian."
(10/29/92 10:00am)
Plaintiffs in the Mayor's Scholarship lawsuit said they are skeptical about the city-University Mayor's Scholarship agreement announced Tuesday by Mayor Ed Rendell and University President Sheldon Hackney. Although both the city and the University denied any correlation between the agreement on a new Mayor's Scholarship package and the ongoing litigation against the University, the plaintiff's attorney and numerous plaintiffs said the timing of the initiative could not easily be dismissed as coincidence. "This cannot affect the questions in front of the court, however the University may try to do so," Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney Thomas Gilhool said yesterday. "They are bound to face judgment at the upcoming trial." In October 1991, PILCOP filed suit against the University representing labor unions, student groups and several individuals, alleging that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to provide 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at a time. The University maintains that it owes 125 awards total during each year. The case is set to go to trial in Common Pleas Court on November 23. While the agreement of the University and the city proposes enhancements in the current Mayor's Scholarship program -- including no student loan obligations, an aggressive new recruitment effort and additional financial assistance to Philadelphia students who are not Mayor's Scholars -- plaintiffs in the suit were not involved in the announced agreement. "Parents and school teachers didn't have anything to do with the agreement," Guardian Civic League member Leslie Seymour said after the press conference. "This is an agreement between the mayor and the University, and it's certainly not an agreement with any of the plaintiffs in the suit, none of whom were consulted," Gilhool said. Gilhool said that while all of City Council was invited to stand with Rendell and Hackney at the press conference, no members accepted the invitation except for City Council President John Street, who "stood mute" behind the Mayor. Gilhool also said that many plaintiffs have told him that they think the University and city made the agreement to try to stop the case from going to trial. "There's no reasonable ground for any such intention, expectation or prediction," Gilhool said. "The only way that it won't go to trial is if the terms of the ordinance are met." Dan McGinley of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, a plaintiff in the suit, said that the timing of the agreement left him with doubts as to the University's and the mayor's motives. "After 25 years of no action, on the eve of a court proceeding, we have an action that at least moves in the direction of what they should have been doing for the last 25 years," McGinley said. "It's a curious combination of circumstances if there's no connection between the two." McGinley also said that the agreement "frequently" refers to the ongoing litigation. Gilhool and several plaintiffs also said that there is nothing in the agreement which makes it binding. Gilhool said the agreement has no binding language, but uses words such as "hope," "expect" and "intend." "There's nothing legal or binding about it," Seymour said, adding that only Hackney and Rendell had signed the agreement. "It can be terminated at any time." "I don't think it's binding because the Mayor cannot bind the city to anything that is more than one year of duration," McGinley said. "And the absence of any action from City Council, I believe, certainly makes this stated agreement less than binding." University General Counsel Shelley Green, however, said that the wording of the agreement reflects the good intentions of the University. "The parts that say 'hope' and 'expect' mean that these are goals," Green said. "Until you make efforts, you don't know whether you'll achieve goals." (CUT LINE) Please see AGREEMENT, page 5 AGREEMENT, from page 1
(10/28/92 10:00am)
Mayor Ed Rendell and University President Sheldon Hackney reaffirmed their agreement on the number of scholarships the University must give Philadelphia students at a City Hall press conference yesterday. "Penn has come to understand its commitment to the city in a slightly different way," Hackney said at the press conference yesterday. "We need to be a Philadelphia institution." At the conference, Rendell and Hackney also disclosed a new Mayor's Scholarship package that will take effect for next year's freshman class. Rendell, in announcing the package, said "this is probably the single best need package offered by any Ivy League institution." The package was a component of the city-University agreement, which states the University's obligation to provide and maintain scholarships to Philadelphia students. The package also includes enhancements for future Mayor's Scholarship recipients and sets higher Philadelphia recruitment expectations. The plan states that starting next year, the University's new Mayor's Scholarship package will substitute grants for the loan component. The proposed program states that "the University will meet its obligation of 125 full-tuition scholarships, or the financial equivalent, by significantly increasing the grant component of the program." The issue of how many Mayor's Scholarships the University is actually required to distribute annually is the subject of contention in litigation filed against the University in October 1991 which is scheduled to go to trial in Common Pleas Court on November 23. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 scholarships a year for a total of 500 at a time. But the University maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land. Another provision of the package is that the University will initiate an enhanced recruitment effort designed to increase the total number of Philadelphia undergraduate students at the University -- including Mayor's Scholars -- to 500 by the 1997 academic year. This recruitment effort, according to the agreement, is already in effect, and consists of extensive on-campus admissions fairs, Philadelphia high school visits and mailings. And the agreement also states that Philadelphia students who are not selected as Mayor's Scholars who matriculate at the University will each receive $500 more of scholarship aid than they would have received had they not been from Philadelphia. According to a University statement, the University "anticipates that its total aid to Mayor's Scholars and other Philadelphians will be at least the equivalent of 315 full tuition scholarships." The press release states that "at the current tuition rate of $15,198, this program would be valued at $4,787,370." Director of Student Financial Aid William Schilling said that the agreement provides for "a considerably more attractive package." "Our Mayor's Scholarship obligation represents the 'floor' of our support for Philadelphia students, and not the 'ceiling,' " Hackney said. "I believe today's agreement is clear evidence of our ongoing commitment." Although yesterday's announcement is only a month before the trial date, Rendell, Hackney and the agreement itself asserted that there was no relationship between the agreement and the lawsuit. "I don't think there was ever a quid pro quo that the litigation [against the University] would be terminated," Rendell said. "[The agreement] is not related to the lawsuit in the sense that it was not designed to settle the lawsuit," Hackney said. "The city is our partner in the Mayor's Scholarship program."
(10/28/92 10:00am)
The plaintiffs in the ongoing Mayor's Scholarship dispute denied University claims that it is fulfilling its financial obligations to the city of Philadelphia in its most recent filing yesterday. "We pretty much deny what [the University] said in their answer," Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney for the plaintiff Thomas Gilhool said yesterday. PILCOP's answer claims that the University has failed to disclose how it distributes scholarships. "The information on practices of the University lies in its control and plaintiffs are without information on whether the University awarded need-based scholarships . . . or whether the University continued to award scholarships based on athletic, scholastic or other abilities after the 1950s," the answer reads. Responding to charges that it had fallen short of its financial obligations, the University in its answer filed at the beginning of this month stated that it "provided over $11 million in undergraduate scholarships to Philadelphians from 1986 to 1990." It also stated that "the number of scholarships never was and is not currently tied to the number of high school students." The University's 68-page answer to the complaints filed against it last October was its first concrete explanation of its position in the Mayor's Scholarship suit. The lawsuit, filed against the University by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at a time. The University claims that it is required to provide 125 scholarships at a time. PILCOP's answer said that the University, in its response, showed "no facts which claim, much less establish, the 1977 Ordinances and Agreement cannot be performed . . . it is the choice of the University whether it chooses to increase the number of students and amount of aid available to compensate for those reserved places." PILCOP's answer, filed on the same day as the press conference with Mayor Ed Rendell and President Sheldon Hackney announcing an agreement on a new Mayor's Scholarship package, was not meant to coincide with the conference, Gilhool said. "The timing of our filing had nothing to do with anything except logistics," Gilhool said. University General Counsel Shelley Green said that yesterday's agreement reaffirms the University's position on the number of scholarships it is required to offer the city. "The agreement reaffirms what the University and the city have already agreed to 125 full scholarships or their equivalent," Green said yesterday.
(10/27/92 10:00am)
For about 1,000 people on Locust Walk yesterday, the grass -- normally the site of mid-afternoon study breaks -- became the unlikely stage for political rhetoric and celebrity aura. The peace sign next to Van Pelt Library made its periodic re-entry into the political spotlight, as many University students did the same -- emerging from the darkness of an apolitical closet-climate of apathy into yesterday's Vote for a Change rally. And while the rally aimed specifically to garner votes for Democratic candidates Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the crowd of students and faculty seemed far from uniform. The more enthusiastic supporters of the event were clustered around the strategically-placed podium, and their applause punctuated the speakers' endorsements -- and the roving television cameras. As the groups of spectators radiated out from the center, however, the onlookers were marked more by curiosity than outright devotion for Clinton and Gore. Many pedestrians took the few steps from the Walk to the Green, and, hands poised on their bookbags, took in a few moments of the television and cinematic stars basking in the sunlight of a Presidential election year, with political endorsements as their latest script. "I was just walking down and decided to stop and listen," Wharton sophomore Dax Basdeo said as he watched from the grass by the Alumni Center. Some onlookers chose not even to get off their bicycles, but paused on the Walk for a few words, with feet on the cobblestones, ready to ride on. Among some spectators on the periphery was an expressed feeling that the purports of political idealism were a gloss over the familiar faces of show business. "I'm not sure whether people came because they wanted to see the Hollywood celebrities, or out of a true desire for change," College freshman Jordan Katz said as he watched from in front of the button. "Who knows whether half of the people here will even vote?" Under a tree nearby, first-year College of General Studies student Derek Schilling expressed similar feelings. "The fact that they had celebrities brought a much bigger crowd," Schilling said between intermittent ripples of applause and cheers. Many students expressed a mild surprise at the large turn-out. Standing in a more attentive knot of people a little closer to the action, College senior Kim Dixon said that the attendance at the rally was atypical of the University's general political climate. "Penn needs more liberals, in my opinion," Dixon said, eliciting nods of agreement from nearby onlookers, including College senior Allison Davis. "I'd agree on that," Davis said with a smile as Elisabeth Shue spoke from the podium about today's comparatively low tide of political activism. "Penn is pretty apolitical on the average," Dixon said. Further back on the Green, Wharton senior Claudia Santoni estimated that half of the students at the rally had planned on attending it, and that the other half had just casually dropped by to see what was going on. "I just hope that the Republican one follows it soon," Santoni said with a slight grin. And from far up on the hill, Political Science Professor Alvin Rubinstein asked this reporter a few questions of his own. "You're never going to have 7,000 people show up to a rally, so what's indicative [of the University's political climate]?" Rubinstein said. Under the shade of a tree and holding a Vote for a Change t-shirt beneath his arm, Rubinstein's optimism for the brightness of the political future was tempered by experience. "I think if students stay here for 5 or 10 minutes or so, that's a sign of interest," he said. "If they vote, though -- that's the real benchmark."
(10/22/92 9:00am)
The city reiterated last week that it agrees with the University on the number of Mayor's Scholarships that must be distributed annually, but it refused to judge whether the University has fulfilled its financial obligation towards Philadelphia high school students. In its response to the complaints filed by the plaintiffs in the Mayor's Scholarship lawsuit, the city did not side with either the University or the plaintiffs, who claim the University has not provided enough scholarship money to Philadelphians. "[The answer filed by the city parties] has not answered those allegations that have been directed to the University," the city's counsel Michael Pratt said yesterday. "[The answer] has left those questions for the University to answer." The suit against the University, filed last October by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 scholarships at a time. The University, however, maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at any one time in return for rent-free city land. The city -- including several individual government officials and Mayor Ed Rendell -- is a co-defendant in the suit, which is what prompted last week's response. The University also answered the plaintiff's claims in a separate statement filed last week. Pratt said the city is in agreement with the University on the definition of the word "annually," a point of contention in the suit. In its answer, the city denies "that the Ordinances are unambiguous, specifically the word 'annually' as written into the Ordinances." "The city's position all along, has been, they believe the ordinance obligates the University to provide 125 scholarships or maintain that at all times, and we disagree with the plaintiff's position," Pratt said. However, Pratt also said that the dollar amount of the scholarships provided by the University is "another separate issue that the plaintiffs are trying to get heard before the court." The answer repeatedly asserts that the city parties do not have enough knowledge or information to determine whether or not the University has fulfilled its financial obligation. Thomas Gilhool, the plaintiff's attorney from the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, was unavailable for comment yesterday. University General Counsel Shelley Green also was unavailable.
(10/21/92 9:00am)
The plaintiff's attorneys in the Mayor's Scholarship dispute said they see a connection between the Veterinary School's failing to receive state funding and the University administration's response to the scholarship suit. "The University has certainly behaved as if there was a connection," said Thomas Gilhool, a Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney. "All of their failed efforts to get Mayor [Ed Rendell] and City Council to amend the city ordinances seem to have been propelled by the elimination this year of the University's state dollars." The suit against the University, filed last October by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at a time. Gilhool said the University's recently-filed 68-page answer had "no surprises," and the answer "speaks for itself." He added that the University's actions with the city of Philadelphia and its legal actions appear to be coordinated with the Commonwealth's budget schedule. "All of their failed efforts in City Council just follow the Harrisburg legislative clock," he added. And PILCOP attorney Michael Churchill said that "many state representatives" have alleged that there is a connection between the two. "[State representatives] had in fact stood behind the University when it faced the problem [of state funding] a year ago, and told the University they weren't going to stand behind it until they addressed [the scholarship suit] this year," Churchill said. "I assume they mean what they say, and the University has chosen to blame the representatives rather than their own actions for creating the problem," he added. General Counsel Shelley Green denied PILCOP's allegations of a Veterinary School-Mayor's Scholarship connection, saying that state funding did not play a role in engendering the lawsuit. "The proposal, to amend the ordinance in order to clarify it, since some people are obviously confused by it, was initiated by [City Council President] John Street and his request to City Solicitor Judith Harris, so I don't know what they're talking about," Green said. Green said she does not believe Street was concerned with the University's state funding. In the University's response it states that it has lived up to its obligation to provide the required number of scholarships for needy Philadelphia high school students. In the answer, the University responds to charges that it has fallen short of its financial obligations, saying that it "provided over $11 million in undergraduate scholarships to Philadelphians from 1986 to 1990," and also stating that "the number of scholarships never was and is not currently tied to the number of high school students." "This is the first opportunity to respond to some of the specific allegations of the plaintiffs," Green said last week. The University, however, maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land. The plaintiffs insist the University must provide 125 four-year scholarships annually, for a total of 500 at a given time. Gilhool said the dispute over the word "annually" is indicative of the connection between the scholarship suit and the University's efforts to maintain state funding. "In all of their efforts to get the Council to take the word 'annually' out of the 1977 Ordinance . . . they have made those efforts whenever the issue of University funding is recurrent in Harrisburg," Gilhool said. Gilhool said that the University's filed answer "certainly does not" change PILCOP's position in the suit, and that "lots of discovery and other such preparation" would be required before the case goes to trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court on November 23. Churchill said that PILCOP would be filing a response to the University's answer next Monday.
(10/15/92 9:00am)
The University put forth its first concrete explanation of its position in the Mayor's Scholarship suit last week in a 68-page answer to the complaints filed against it last October. In the explanation, the University states that it has lived up to its obligations to provide the required number of scholarships for needy Philadelphia high school students. Responding to charges that it has fallen short of its financial obligations, the University states that it "provided over $11 million in undergraduate scholarships to Philadelphians from 1986 to 1990," and also states that "the number of scholarships never was and is not currently tied to the number of high school students." The suit against the University, filed by labor unions, student groups and several individuals, claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school graduates 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at a time. The University, however, maintains that it is required by the disputed ordinance to provide a total of 125 scholarships at a time in return for rent-free city land the University has received. In the answer, the University responded to one plaintiff's charges that it does not provide need-based financial aid by stating that it is "inconceivable" that the student would not have been provided with information on financial aid upon request. "It's our first opportunity to respond to some of the specific allegations of the plaintiffs," University General Counsel Shelley Green said, adding that the complaint does contain some new factual information. The answer later cited specific efforts made by the University to distribute information about its need-based financial aid and need-blind admissions policies. The answer cited other specifics about plaintiffs involved in the case. One applicant to the University now a plaintiff in the suit, according to the answer, submitted an incomplete application to the University which failed to include essays, SAT scores, or a secondary school report. Another plaintiff in the suit, according to the answer, failed to receive a Mayor's Scholarship or admission to the University on the grounds that his SAT scores were 210 verbal and 290 math, and that his grade point average at West Philadelphia High School was 1.47. The answer also delineates the definition of the word "deserving" as it applies to the Mayor's Scholarships, claiming that the word does not solely mean deserving in terms of financial need, but also means deserving in terms of demonstrated academic merit. The University also claims in its answer that "it stands to reason that since the 1977 Ordinances merely consolidated and continued existing scholarship obligations, there would not be, and was not, any extended discussion or fanfare." In a section of the answer designated as "new matter," the University presents the history of Mayor's Scholarships from the first ordinance dealing with the scholarships in 1882 until the current litigation. In this section, the complaint states that "plaintiffs themselves caused, in whole or in part, their injuries, if any. The University cannot provide financial aid to students who choose not to apply or not to attend the University." The class-action lawsuit will go to trial in Common Pleas Court November 23.
(10/12/92 9:00am)
The city this week will disclose the names of 24 corpses whose brains were allegedly stolen for research at the University in the latest stage of a class-action lawsuit filed against the city's Medical Examiner, the University and Medical School Anatomy Professor Alan Rosenquist. According to Dennis Abrams, counsel for the plaintiff, a status conference held in court last Monday with Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Mirarchi determined that the city would disclose the information within 10 days. The conference had been postponed several times, Abrams said. The suit was originally filed last summer by Emmeline Buell, on behalf of her murdered 23-year-old son Emanuel Johnson. Buell said her son's body was taken to the office of city Medical Examiner Haresh Mirchandani, where his brain was taken out without the family's consent, wrapped in chemical preservatives and shipped to the University for dissection in Rosenquist's classes. Mirchandani's office has claimed that the brain was sent to the University to investigate the cause of death. But Abrams uncovered documents that show that this brain was found to have no "gross pathology" which may have contributed to the cause of death. Mirchandani "had no grounds for believing that the condition of [Johnson's] brain in any way caused or contributed to [Johnson's] death," because the cause of death was found to be multiple gunshot wounds to Johnson's torso, the complaint says. The records also indicate that between December 1990 and May 1991, 25 brains were sent from the medical examiner's office to the University's Medical School and that all of the brains except one were found to be normal. "We filed [the suit] originally on behalf of Mrs. Buell as a representative parent or relative of one of the 25," Abrams said. However, Abrams said that since the public became aware of the litigation through an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, he has received several calls from people who believe that their relatives were also unwitting donors. Abrams contends that he needs all the names to further pursue the suit. "There's a significant amount of discovery that needs to be done," Abrams said. The complaint contends that Mirchandani, Rosenquist and the University acted "beyond the scope of their authority" in the transferral of the brains. This transferral is the point of contention in the suit. Although the Medical School has acknowledged receiving the brain samples, lawyers representing the University have said the school was acting under the assumption that the transfer had been authorized. In addition, the University contends that the school received the brains in order to determine the role of the brain in cause of death, and that the brains were not dissected in Rosenquist's classes. The University's outside counsel William Jantsen refused to comment extensively, and said the case is currently under review. Rosenquist could not be reached for comment.
(10/06/92 9:00am)
A 47-year-old University staff member filed an age discrimination suit against the University last week, prompting the University to accuse him, in return, of sexual discrimination against his employees. William Volz, former associate director of technical support services at the University, demands in his suit to be reinstated because he was replaced by "younger, less-qualified employees under 40 years of age." The suit states that the University harassed Volz in order to force him to resign, and then fired him on July 27, 1991 "upon a pretextual ground of inept job performance." In addition, the complaint demands that the University "make [Volz] whole, by appropriate backpay awards, prejudgment interest, fringe benefits and otherwise," and says that if the University cannot give him back his job, the plaintiff should be awarded a salary, fringe benefits and other compensations until he reaches the age of 70. The University's response to the complaint stated that Volz was dismissed after a four-month probationary period in which Volz himself, according to the complaint, "[gave] proportionately less work to . . . an African-American female who worked for him." It also states he "acted in a bizarre manner by standing around [female employees'] desks without talking." The response states that during Volz's first four months on the job he failed to perform many of his job duties, including submitting status reports and reviews. It says that "it was clear that plaintiff and the job he was hired to do were not a good match." Volz's suit, however, states that "all times the plaintiff's job performance has been at least satisfactory." Volz's lawyer Daniel Weisman could not be reached for comment yesterday and University Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg refused to comment.
(09/23/92 9:00am)
That's not amore. Italian Bistro filed suit against Boccie Restaurants in District Court last Wednesday as a pre-emptive strike in a continuing trademark controversy about the two restaurants' names. Italian Bistro of Center City Inc., owner of the restaurant at 34th and Walnut streets, is suing the Boccie Restaurants corporation over the trademark rights of the name Boccie because of another restaurant owned by Italian Bistro, Baci Bistro on South Broad Street. Although Boccie -- at 4040 Locust Street -- was established before Baci, Italian Bistro has filed suit in anticipation of a suit by Boccie over the use of the similar-sounding name. "We have had negotiations with the owner of Boccie, and we reached an impasse," said Alex Murland, attorney for Italian Bistro. "We didn't object to the similar sounding names, they did." "It was either sue them or wait until we were sued," Murland said. According to the complaint, Baci Bistro "has continuously used its name and mark of Baci Bistro since its first use in commerce on approximately November 1, 1991." The suit, the complaint says, "is for a declaration that the plaintiff's use of its service mark Baci Bistro does not . . . infringe [Boccie's] alleged rights through prior use of the term Boccie for its student oriented pizza services." Boccie Attorney Bonnie Kissler said that in a case such as this one, a preemptive strike is not uncommon. "It's a very common strategy when a suit appears to be imminent," Kissler said. "One side may very well decide to make the first strike." Kissler acknowledged that Italian Bistro "basically beat us to court," and said that a counter complaint would be issued. "We are preparing an answer and a counterclaim which will charge infringement for their use of the Baci name, which we contend is phonetically indistinguishable from the Boccie name," Kissler said. The Italian word "baci" translates into English as the word "kiss," while the Italian word "boccie" is the name of an Italian bowling game. According to the complaint, the word "baci" has a "substantially different pronunciation and spelling in Italian" than "boccie." However, the question of trademark infringement has come about largely because of the similarity of the pronunciation of the two words by English speakers.
