Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(12/01/92 10:00am)
Ronald McDonald wants to help Helaine Greenberg help children. Last week, Ronald McDonald Children's Charities gave Greenberg -- a University Nursing School researcher -- a two-year, $75,000 grant to study the effects of fire on 60 child survivors. The grant is part of a larger $1.6 million federal research program studying the effects of fire on adult survivors that is being conducted by Nursing School professors Ruth McCorkle and Ann Keane. "It is an important topic since house fires as a common, everyday occurence need to be viewed as personal disasters," Greenberg said yesterday. Greenberg added that she became interested in studying how children are affected by house fires while working on the adult study. "[I was] looking at adults and I realized they were extraordinarily stressed even though they did not lose a loved one or had been injured," she said. "I was concerned that reserchers were not paying attention to children." Greenberg said she will be studying the post-traumatic stresses a child experiences after home fires, specifically the changes in children's behavior. In a small preliminary study, Greenberg said she found that children do not sleep as well, are fearful of another fire, and "cling to home more since they are concerned that it won't be there anymore or that people they care about will be harmed in some way." Greenberg said that the Philadelphia Fire Department will provide her with information about home fires that have children survivors. Philadelphia Fire Department Lieutenant William Johnson said "that after 18 plus years in various field companies, it [child fire survivors] is an issue that certainly needs to be addressed." McCorkle said the Philadelphia fire commissioner is a co-investigator in the larger study. Greenberg said that she is "very hopeful that we can generate interventions because there is no organized system for helping people who have been in house fires." In the study, Greenberg said that she will study the differences among children in terms of extent of exposure to fire, displacement from their house, loss of property and life, and demographic variables.
(11/24/92 10:00am)
A University sticker on the back window of the family station wagon can be the sign of a suburban child's success. But if the University loses its court battle in the Mayor's Scholarship suit this week, area guidance counselors are worried that its logo will be displayed on fewer suburban windows. If the University loses the lawsuit, it will have to allocate 500 scholarships to Philadelphia city students at a given time, rather than the 125 it now grants. How this will impact future area admissions -- while not yet known -- has some Philadelphia suburban schools a little anxious. Guidance counselors from some of the area's best high schools said that they do not want the strong relationships they have built with the University to be put in jeopardy. "If it means we would lose numbers [of students] from getting in there, it would conceivably hurt our kids," Council Rock High School Head Guidance Counselor Vance Maneval said yesterday. Maneval added that the Bucks County high school could be affected because the University "is where we have the most number of kids in as far as Ivy League schools go." Bill Loue, assistant prinicipal in charge of guidance at the Main Line's Harriton High School, said that although he was unaware of the suit, he would be "upset" if there were any strain between the two schools' relationship. "We have some pretty top-notch students that we send to Penn every year," he said. "I think Penn would be the big loser." According to Loue, Harriton sends students in "double digit" numbers each year to the University. University Admissions Dean Willis Stetson would not comment on the impact of the suit while it is in litigation. Other guidance officials said that they could not gauge the impact of a University loss in the Mayor's Scholarship suit. But Carol Frieder, guidance counselor at the Abington Friends School, said she has faith in the quality of her students. "I guess we have enough faith in the college admissions at Penn that they are going to be as equitable as they can," she said. "I hope our students will be strong enough and we won't lose out." This week's Common Pleas Court trial is supposed to settle a lawsuit filed in October 1991 against the University over the number of scholarships the University must give annually to students from schools in Philadelphia. The lawsuit -- filed by a coalition of labor unions, student groups and several individuals -- claims that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award high school graduates from Philadelphia schools 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 the rent-free city land.
(11/20/92 10:00am)
Faculty Senate Chairperson Da - vid Hildebrand issued a report this week detailing the events surround - ing the plagiarism case of Veterin - ary School Associate Professor & Robert Whitlock. In this week's Almanac, Hilde - brand goes through the five-year chronology of the Whitlock case & from the professor's first contact with Allen Roussel -- the Texas A&M; Vet School professor whose work he copied -- to his demotion to the rank of associate professor in May 1992 by the University Board of Trustees. Hildebrand based his release on the confidential reports of the Vet School's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility and & Group for Complaint. He said he checked his facts by sending drafts of the chronology to "essentially everybody that was of - ficially involved" in the case. "People were good about saying, 'Hey, that didn't happen quite that way.' But as follows, they helped make changes to clarify things," & Hildebrand said. In his report, Hildebrand also & commented on the problems in the just-cause procedure, the guide - lines the University uses to remove a faculty member. "Part of the problem was not fol - lowing the set procedure, and part of that problem is that the estab - lished procedure is so hard to figure out," he says. Hildebrand added that the Vet School Committee on Academic & Freedom and Responsibility's & forming a subcommittee to investi - gate the Whitlock case in spring 1988 was "one of the major proce - dural errors." In his recommendations, Hilde - brand recommended simplifying & the procedure's langauge and exer - cising caution in modifications. "I think most people agree that the procedure in this case was & clumsy at best, but that's just in this case and I don't want people to leap to the conclusion that, therefore, the current procedure was hope - less," he said. Whitlock was found to have pla - giarized a journal article on chronic diarrhea in cattle which was pub - lished in the February 1987 Irish Veterinary Journal. He was de - moted, but received no reduction in salary and was not fired. His case was the first time a just- cause procedure was used to its end. In addition, Whitlock's demotion was the first time a University pro - fessor received that punishment. Vet School Professor Donald & Knight, chairperson of the Vet & School's Group for Complaint & which brought the charges against Whitlock, said yesterday that Hilde - brand's report was "accurate and I think it was helpful for people to understand what happened." "I thought Dr. Hildebrand's & analysis was quite objective, and I agreed with it," he added. Some members of the Task Force on Just Cause and Other Personnel Procedures, a group of administra - tors and faculty who are drafting a revision to the just cause proce - dure, also said that they were & pleased that the details of the case had been made public. "I think this is very important information for the University com - munity to be made aware of," Vice Provost for Graduate Education Ja - nice Madden said yesterday. Morris Mendelson, president of the University chapter of the & American Association of University Professors, said that even though "complete confidentiality" was in & order during the investigation, the Univertsity know has a "right to know" the facts of the case. Hildebrand said yesterday that & he does not want to "second guess" the decisions of the people involved in the case. "At this stage, its time to think about how can we fix things so if and when these cases come up in the future we don't get so bogged down," he said.
(11/17/92 10:00am)
Despite criticism from political opponents, History Professor Alan Kors was unanimously appointed by the Senate to the National Council on the Humanities. Nominated this July by President Bush, Kors' selection to the advisory board of the National Endowment for the Humanities was approved this August. Kors -- an outspoken defender of personal liberties -- will serve a six-year term which ends in 1998. The 26-member board advises NEH chairperson Lynne Cheney on who should receive NEH grant money. According to NEH spokeperson Cheryl Jackson, the endowment gave out $156,454,000 in grants in fiscal year 1992. Kors said last week that the NEH allocates funds to "various institutes and to individual scholars" and it runs programs for the general public. Recently, the NEH gave funding to the acclaimed television series The Civil War. Kors added that he had taught two NEH summer institutes for high school teachers as well as served on scholarly review panels for the organization. The intellectual history professor said that it is an honor and a privilege to serve on the council as well as an "enormous amount of work." "It gives me a real chance to try to neuter what needs neutering in the humanities and prevent political criteria from being used in the allocation of public funds in support of the humanities," Kors said. Kors said that his nomination, which passed the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the full Senate unanimously, met public opposition by people who equate his strong defense of free speech with anti-minority sentiments. "Often my opposition to mandatory requirements and programs are taken by people that don't know me as opposition to such programs," he said. "At Penn, I have been opposed to mandatory programs that I find politicized or mandatory requirements that remain ideologically charged." Kors said that upon hearing of his nomination to the Council, Eleni DiLapi -- director of the Penn Women's Center -- told the Chronicle for Higher Education that appointing Kors would be detrimental to women's interests. Kors replied that DiLapi's charge was "nonsensical" and "inane." "The Democratic members of the committee investigated my record extremely thoroughly," Kors said. "Any elements of the campaign against me were absurd." He added that Democratic Senators received letters and phone calls from people opposing his appointment and found them "scurrilous and false." Last night Microbiology Professor Helen Davies said she agreed with DiLapi's assessment that Kors' appointment is "bad for women's interests." She said that this conclusion was based on his "history at the University of Pennsylvania." "If he exhibits the absolutism that he does and an absolute need to trash women and minorities," she said. "And if Penn's contribution to the cultural elite had to be characterized by just one person, I would stick to Houston Baker's leadership of the Modern Language Association." DiLapi was unable to be reached for comment. Kors replied to Davies charges last night that she has personal animus towards Kors due to a "harsh exchange with her husband [former Faculty Senate chairperson] about two years ago regarding the harassment policy." "It makes sense to me that Helen would want to stand by her man," he said last night. Kors added that he is committed to the equal rights of all groups, citing his appointment to various University academic freedom committees, his chairmanship of the American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Philadelphia's commitee on academic freedom, and his co-founding of the college house system at the University which included his house mastership of Van Pelt College House -- "the most integrated educational residence ever" at the University. "I defy anyone to find a single act of mine that has not testified to an absolute commitment to the equal rights and dignity to all members of this University community," he said. History department chairperson Michael Katz said that he was "pleased" Kors was appointed to the council. "He's a fine scholar and I believe he will apply the appropriate standards of scholarship to proposals [for grants]," said Katz. "He has absolute respect for academic freedom which is of critical importance in that position." Despite the controversy around his appointment, Kors said that he was not surprised that his nomination passed the Senate unanimously. Kors added that he did find out that some of the Democratic Senators had been "clients" of his taped lectures that are sold through magazines across the country, but he said that this had nothing to do with his confirmation.
(11/15/92 10:00am)
and JASPER REYNOLDS As Election Day approaches, advisors in Little Rock try to speculate what states will go Bill Clinton's way. But there is no guesswork needed at the University -- this is Clinton Country. According to The Daily Pennsylvanian/Ivy League poll conducted last week, the University's undergraduate electorate is solidly behind the Arkansas governor. Of registered voters, 53 percent said they would vote for Clinton and his running mate Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn), 19 percent said they would vote for President Bush and Vice-President Quayle, and 11 percent said they would back Texas billionaire Ross Perot and James Stockdale. Sixteen percent of registered voters were undecided. College Democrats Co-President George Callas said that the wide margin of Clinton's support reflects the twentysomething generation's desire for change. "Young people are ready for a new generation [of leadership]," the Wharton sophomore said. "We are ready to move on to the next stage of American history." Clinton also draws his support from the 16.3 percent of registered Republicans who have left the party fold. Also hurting Bush, 21.7 percent of registered Republicans have defected to Perot. Conversely, a statistically insignificant amount of registered Democrats said they would vote for Bush. Independent voters also flocked to Clinton, with close to half of them, 48.7 percent, stating their intention to back the former Rhodes scholar. "This is not a realignment," said Frank Luntz, an American Civilization lecturer and GOP pollster. "This is a rejection of George Bush, not an acclamation of the Democrats." One of the most telling traits the poll revealed about undergraduate voters at the University is the disparities in political persuasion and ideology between the sexes. More women -- 33 percent to 23 percent male -- are registered Democrats, and almost twice as many men -- 29.3 percent to 15.2 percent female -- are registered Republicans. Falling along these lines, 24 percent of men at the University support Bush, compared to 14 percent of the women. For the other two candidates, the gap is even wider. A huge number of women, 60.1 percent, support the Democrat Clinton, while 43.2 percent of men do. For Perot, 17.5 percent of men and only 6.7 percent women back the independent candidate. "I think what you see here is a gender gap, [but] it's also a time gap," said Marc Laydin, head of Penn for Perot. "Bill Clinton has been out there longer." The poll also reflects a broad-based, overriding concern University voters on the issues of abortion, education, the environment, health care, and the job market, all the issues which were polled. Ninety-nine percent of those polled said that education was an important issue in deciding for whom they would vote. In all the issue questions, a majority of the respondents who felt that these areas were "very important" to their voting decision said they would vote for Clinton. For instance, 68.7 percent of people who felt the environment was important said they would vote for Clinton. Only 8.6 percent of the same group of voters said they would back Bush on the issue of environment. However, Bush does best on economic issues such as health care and the job market, peaking with the support of 20.1 percent of the voters who feel the job market is a crucial issue. Perot also gets his highest numbers of voters from those who think health care and the job market are very important. "I'm a senior," said Laydin. "So I have a problem of who's going to put me in the best economic shape." Bush and Perot supporters also share similar concerns over what they feel are the most and least important issues in the campaign. Both said the most important is the job market and the least important is the environment. Clinton supporters also think the job market is important, but issues such as abortion and environment are more important to them. Of Clinton supporters, 83.3 percent think education is a very important issue in the election. Outside of the horse race between the candidates, a picture of the University electorate also comes into focus from the poll. The undergraduate student body is almost divided evenly in thirds among Republican, Democrat and Independent registrations. Eleven percent of those polled are not registered to vote, and about half are registered to vote in Pennsylvania. Of these voters, 38 percent said they would vote for the Democratic candidate Lynn Yeakel for Senate while 28 percent said they would back the incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter. Yet 34 percent of the University's in-state voters have not made up their mind in this race, and the campus vote could swing to either candidate. Callas said Specter is running strong at the University because of the amount of money he has spent on the race. But Dana Lynch, president of the College Republicans, differs with the Wharton sophomore. "If you look at the Senate candidate [Specter] and the Congressional candidate [Larry Hollin], they are progressive Republicans, and I think they will do well even though Bush isn't," Lynch said. In the traditionally conservative Wharton School, Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one, yet 36 percent of Wharton students support Clinton as compared to 25 percent for Bush. "It's a disaster for the President," said Luntz. "If George Bush can't win Wharton, then he can't win at any university." Callas and Lynch agree that the Bush/Quayle's right-wing stance on social issues probably explains the defection of this Republican group. Twenty-one percent of Wharton students said they would pull the lever for Perot -- the highest percentage of his supporters among the four undergraduate schools. Laydin said this statistic does not surprise him because Wharton students have "traditional Republican sentiments" and there are "big differences in the candidates' economic packages. People vote their pocketbook." Almost two-thirds of College students -- the core of the Democratic ticket's University support -- back Clinton. The College also has the highest percentage of registered voters with 94.5 percent registered. The other schools each have about 82 percent registered. Differences among classes at the University are slight, yet a higher percentage of freshmen -- 17.2 percent -- are Perot supporters than any other year. Laydin remarked that he sees a similar breakdown of the support Penn for Perot receives. Freshmen are "really gung-ho." The newest and oldest students at the University are the least concerned with the job market when selecting a President. Eighty percent of the sophomores and juniors surveyed said the job market is a very important issue to them, and only 68 percent of the seniors and 67 percent of the freshmen listed the job market in the same category. "A percentage of those seniors are not looking to put themselves in the job market," said Peggy Curchack, assistant director for the College in the Career Planning and Placement Service. While many sophomores and juniors are reviewing their options for summer employment, Curchack said, the number of seniors applying to graduate schools this year have "sky-rocketed". "That is an indication of [the seniors'] sense of vulnerability," Curchack said. · The differences between the sexes on the candidates and on the important issues of the campaign point to a growing gulf between the agendas of men and women. The difference is most glaring on the issue of abortion. Almost 20 percent of men feel that abortion is not an important issue in selecting the next president, while a statistically insignificant number of women, 4.2 percent, felt similarly. On the flip side, 69.9 percent of women feel abortion is a very important issue while only 30.5 percent of men agree. "It's disheartening, since abortion is still perceived as a women's issue," said Allison Marinoff, co-chairperson of Penn Pro-Choice. "[It] should be perceived as a civil rights issue." On the other side of the fence, Kevin Welch -- a founder of the Penn Coalition for Life -- said that he too feels abortion should be a concern for both sexes. "Because a man and woman are equally responsible for creating a child, it should be an equal concern for both sexes," he said. Luntz, who last month conducted the largest survey of American college students since the political conventions, said that "abortion is one issue that is driving the gender chasm." Beyond the statistics and minutiae, is what the poll says about the important issues to the country's future leaders. "The Ivy League reflects the greatest number of future leaders," Luntz said. "Imagine how this bodes [for society], how this affects society in the next 20, 30 years."
(11/10/92 10:00am)
If money is the mother's milk of politics, then the University is a supplier to the Washington dairy. According to Federal Election Commission records from January 1991 to July 1992, top University administrators gave thousands of dollars in personal campaign contributions to their favorite candidates. Topping the list of University-related contributors was University Board of Trustees Chairperson Alvin Shoemaker, who donated $12,700 to several candidates and committees between October 1991 and July 1992. Shoemaker gave almost exclusively to Republican causes, topping his donations with a $5,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee. The lone Democrat to receive Shoemaker's money was Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Also supporting the GOP was fellow businessman and Wharton School Dean Thomas Gerrity who donated $8,000 from September 1991 to April 1992, including $5,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a group which allocates money and resources to Republican candidates for Senate. University President Sheldon Hackney and his wife, Lucy, gave $3,500 to national and local Democratic candidates from November 1991 to May 1992. Under Lucy's name, the couple donated $500 to Democratic Senatorial candidates Harris Wofford's re-election campaign in 1991 and $500 to Lynn Yeakel's campaign in 1992. In addition, they gave $1,000 to the "Clinton for President Committee." Under the president's name, the Hackneys donated $500 to Philadelphia-area Congressman Thomas Foglietta and $500 to Altoona-area Congressman John Murtha. Under Federal law, the most an individual can contribute to a campaign is $1,000 during the primary and $1,000 during the general phases of the campaign. The most an individual can donate to a national party committee -- such as the NRSC or Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- is $5,000. During an election cycle, at most, an individual can donate $25,000. All contributions over $100 must be reported to the FEC. The Hackneys said yesterday that their campaign contributions reflect their personal political beliefs and not any institutions to which they are connected. "Sheldon and I try very hard because of institutional affiliation to be publically non-partisan," Lucy Hackney, who is the head of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, said last night. "Our campaign contributions [are made] out of personal funds and personal interest." She added that President Hackney's pre-election endorsement of President-elect Clinton was "quite unusual" since neither Hackney usually publicly endorses a candidate. She added that although she and her husband had a personal relationship with Wofford, they did not publicly endorse him. She said that they support candidates, such as Wofford, that reflect their stance on the issues. "[He had] an agenda that would be good for Pennsylvania," she said. From 1988 to May 1992, the Hackneys backed only one Republican, former Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz, who was killed in a plane crash in 1991. "I have voted for Republicans in my past and probably will again," said Sheldon Hackney. "[Heinz] was an excellent senator." Sheldon Hackney said he gave money to Congressman Murtha because he "has been enormously helpful to the University of Pennsylvania." He added that Murtha, who chairs the Senate Appropriations sub-committee responsible for allocating defense-related research funds, has been helpful "over a long period of time" in helping the University secure these funds, as well as in other ways. "[He] sees the University as an asset for the state," Hackney added. Former University Executive Vice-President Marna Whittington also gave two contributions of $500 to Murtha, as well as two contributions of $250 to Foglietta.
(11/09/92 10:00am)
The streamers have been swept up, the posters have been taken down and transition teams are being set up. But with the end of Election Day 1992, the question remains of all the "political experts," "special analysts" and "Washington insiders" who told us how the election was going to turn out: who best predicted the election results? According to the Washington Post's "Outlook Crystal Ball" contest, University American Civilization Adjunct Assistant Professor Frank Luntz was the top pundit this time around. According to the Post, Luntz -- the pollster for Presidential candidates Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan -- was the best overall at predicting the popular and electoral vote for President, and the new make-up of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Post's internal pollster, Richard Morin, determined the winner by taking the pundits' predictions and plugging them into a standard equation. The 1984 University graduate beat two-time champion Christopher Matthews of the San Francisco Examiner as well as Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, CNN's William Schneider, columnist Robert Novak, and political strategist Ed Rollins. "I am so pleased to even be included with these people. The idea that my name would be added to [this list] was very special," Luntz said yesterday. "Then, to actually out project them and to do so scientifically, that made it that much so special." Luntz -- who was the second closest in guessing the party breakdown of the Congress -- said that he used a model of the country and of the four states with the largest number of Representatives to predict this number. Luntz projected that the Republicans would gain seven seats in the House. When the votes were counted, the GOP gained nine. He also came within one of predicting the make-up of the Senate. But he was off by 30 in the Electoral College breakdown. Luntz explained that he felt that Texas, which Bush carried, would go to Clinton. Luntz said that his metamorphosis from a pollster to a pundit during this election cycle -- he was extensively quoted by Newsweek and The New York Times -- is due to his background in academia. "I've studied elections and electoral behavior for more than a decade," he said. "So, I have been able to bring historical analysis to electoral behavior that other pollsters may not have had." Luntz added that although his "Penn education didn't help at all" in his rise to the top of the Beltway "punditocracy," his teaching has been beneficial since he is able to talk politics with people who are not "insiders" like himself. "Every Monday I get brought back to Earth," he said. Luntz teaches "Current Controversies in American Civilzation," and will teach "Candidates, Campaigns, and Consultants" next semester. Many of Luntz's students said they feel his new honor is much deserved. "It's obviously a very distinguished honor," said Ron Dermer, a Wharton senior. "It's very cool that someone who won an honor from the Washington Post hangs out with his students." College senior Jefrey Pollock added that this is just part of the "constant acclaim" Luntz gets "from the outside world, the real world." Pollock explained that Luntz's "unconventional" teaching style and "his ability to know students on a personal level" is why he does not receive praise from within the University. "Maybe it's about time the pople in the University gave him the same credit," Pollock added.
(11/04/92 10:00am)
HIGH RISE NORTH FIELD -- Less than 24 hours after the Toronto Blue Jays pulled off an international upset by winning the World Series, the Daily Pennsylvanian's "Unified Team" scored one of the most stunning upsets in University history as they beat the Sports staff in football to win the coveted Kamin Cup. A crack staff led by 34th Street film editor Josh Tyrangiel embarassed the Sports football juggernaut on two touchdowns to DP Finance Manager Harvey "my cleats are so" Fine. The News-Street-Business axis defeated the Josh Astrof-led Sports team, 14 to 7. "For a real asshole, Fine played well," Astrof said with sour grapes Monday night . And team quarterback-amateur evangelist Tyrangiel said he felt a divine presence on the Unified Team's side. About his first-half bomb to Fine, Tyrangiel said "It was almost like an epiphanal moment, the sun kind of shone on him. I have to say that God played a big part in the victory." "I feel like Burt Reynolds in The Longest Yard," Tyrangiel added. "And Kenny Baer's got talent. He was a valuable member of the team." Street staff member and Ottawa native Dan Ages said the victory proves that "heart really does beat muscle." But the Unified Team really shone on the defensive end of the pigskin with the bulk of columnist Jonathan Steinmetz and sales manager Barry Freeman on the line, the wily Rob Engs in the secondary, the Hamburglaresque Justin Foa and the bonecrushing tackles of Associate Editor Stephen Glass and Executive Editor Matt Klein. But grit and intestinal fortitude prompted league officials to name City Editor Margaret "Exit 9" Kane -- who overcame her height and asthma -- the most valuable player of the game. "It's a huge honor. Can I put it on my resume now," the unemployed Engineering senior asked. In the final seconds, Sports -- a team chock full of frustrated athletes -- failed on four tries to penetrate the endzone. On one throw, Engs cleanly slapped the ball right out of Sports Editor Jonathan Mayo's hands. Wide receiver Heath Slawner, one of the two Unified members from the Great White North, said that the victory was bittersweet because 34th Street editors Matt Selman and Dan Sacher were not at the game. "I just think they're lazy bums. They promised that beer was going to be here -- it's not a good example," he said. According to the Unified Team's top strategists, the secret "Three Banana Play" was the key to the victorious team's offensive strategy. The bananas -- Baer, Kane, Street writer Andy Espenshade -- confused and befuddled the Sports secondary. "I was the third banana," said Street editor Josh Cender, who left after the first game between News and Business and will now live a life of anonymity a la the Beatles' Pete Best. Unsurprisingly, the Sports staff tried to find excuses to explain their loss. "It's a disappointing loss, but I don't think the game is ever indicative of a team's talents," said wide receiver Michael Mishkin, one of the few Sports staffers who also played in Sports last loss in 1989. Sports editor Matt Kelly said that Klein "should not have been on the field," saying that "it was a clear conflict of interest" since he was also league commissioner and timekeeper. "It doesn't help when the commissioner doesn't know the rules," he added venomously. Klein -- clothes by Ralph Lauren, glasses by Armani -- replied that in the future, "I would recommend not a referee, but a bouncer." While animosity reigned supreme on the field, it was limited against Sports. "Editorial, Street, and Business overcame common differences to beat the common enemy, Sports," said Selman who missed the game due to an emergency dermatologist's appointment.
(10/14/92 9:00am)
To Penn Athletics, it is the best thing since sliced bread. But to Quaker football fans, a limit on the amount of toast spectators can bring into home football games is all crumbs. A University athletic official said yesterday that the confiscation of large quantities of toast -- used in the "Drink a Highball" song at football games -- was merely the enforcement of a "two or three year" old policy limiting the amount of toast to four slices per person. Elton Cochran-Fikes, associate director of athletics, said yesterday that the policy was instituted in order to prevent spectators from throwing bags full of toast or any other baked product onto the field. "Our concern was that a few of our spectators were throwing bags of toast and bags of bagels and, in some cases, bags of pretzels," he said. "A bag of those items could cause some damage or be extremly annoying." Cochran-Fikes added that it is a "very small number" of people who throw bags of toast and he said that a "bag of four [slices of toast] will do no significant damage to anyone." "It's actually hard [to say] why four," he said. "I can only say we had a certain comfort level with the number four." Penn Band President Paul Luongo said that University athletics officials told the band at a planned policy meeting yesterday that they would be able to bring in their large bags of toast. "The band has special circumstances since we can't carry four slices on our person and carry instruments at the same time," the College senior said. Luongo also said that the band was told that their bags of toast were confiscated at last Saturday's game because of an "over-zealous Spectraguard." Spectraguard officials were unavailable for comment. Luongo added that he "doesn't believe [the University] should be picking on people who bring toast, but should be picking on people who are bringing frozen bagels." "[But] if the only way to stop the importation of frozen bagels is [to] stop loaves of bread then they have to do what they have to do," he added. Wharton junior Marty Nelson, who said he has been to "90 percent" of home football games since he came to the University, said he never has seen anyone throw a bag of toast. Engineering senior Michael Firstenberg -- who was grabbed by guards while trying to bring a loaf of toast into Franklin Field -- also said he has never seen anyone throw a bag of toast, and he understands that there is a toast policy. "[But] why enforce it first this week and enforce it against a couple of people, and why was I given so many contradictions in policy by so many security guards?" he said last night. Cochran-Fikes said that "it is hard for me to address why there is spot enforcerment of a policy." "It's my understanding that the policy is and will continue to be enforced," he added. Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan said yesterday that he did not recall a slice policy. "It seems to me that four slices is kind of strange," he said.
(10/12/92 9:00am)
It was not only the football team's close loss Saturday that had fans in a crusty mood. It was also because Spectraguards confiscated loaves and bags of toast, used in the traditional "Drink a Highball" song, from students all over the stadium. Hit especially hard was the Penn Band, which had a garbage bag full of toast taken, Penn Band President Paul Luongo said. Luongo, a College senior, said that a guard at the East Gate of Franklin Field took the bag from him. The guard's supervisor then told Luongo that there was not a ban on toast itself, but on the number of slices allowed. "[He said] that the policy was that each person is allowed four pieces per person," said Luongo. "And if we had divided up the toast, it would not have been a problem." Luongo added that the "fact that it was in a garbage bag made it illegal, kind of boggles the mind." Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan said last night that a regulation on the number of slices of toast did not come from the University administration. "[It's] ridiculous," said Constan. "What I suspect is that probably some Spectraguard has been a little zealous." Constan added that "Sheldon Hackney kind of likes the tradition." Wharton junior Marty Nelson said that his "king-size loaf of white bread" toast was also taken away from him when he entered Franklin Field. Nelson said that a Spectraguard told him no toast was allowed in the stadium. "And we told him we have been bringing toast to games for the past two years," he said. Nelson added that he dropped the loaf at the guards feet and went to the game. But after seeing other people enter the stadium with toast, Nelson's friend, Engineering junior Michael Firstenberg, went back to claim his loaf. At this point, Firstenberg said he was followed and grabbed by the guard, and taken to see the man's supervisor. The supervisor told Firstenberg that there is a five-year ban on bringing toast to the games in bags. Firstenberg added that another Spectraguard then told him there was a three-year ban. The Engineering junior added that these explanantions run counter to what the original guard told him -- that there was a "janitorial strike." "I'm a traditional type of guy. I came to Penn since it has 250 years of tradition," Firstenberg said. "I don't understand why spot enforcement is stopping me from observing the foremost tradition of Penn football." "There is no reason to get rid of a fine tradition and toast-throwing keeps a lot of people around to the end of third quarter when a game has been less than competitive," said Nelson, who added that he will smuggle toast in to Franklin Field for the next home game. Luongo said that not only does this rule "put Penn traditions in straightjackets," it also presents a safety concern. "If you take toast away, what's next is the band will be pelted with frozen bagels and that's what I don't want to see," he said. Echoing similar sentiments, Constan said "toast is pretty harmless and it's become a tradition and that's fun, but the line between toast and other objects could sometimes be a narrow one." He added that if one throws frozen food, such as a bagel, "it might as well be a rock." Constan added that of more relevant concern is trying to convert the Zamboni that sucks up the thrown toast "into a bread crumb factory." "I think we can market the stuff," the Wharton professor added.
(10/05/92 9:00am)
Arthur Ross, philanthropist and art patron, will receive an honorary degree from the University on October 21 for his contribution to the arts, including the campus gallery which bears his name. According to Dilys Winegrad, assistant to President Sheldon Hackney, the awarding of Ross' degree is being timed with the 10th anniversary of the Arthur Ross Gallery, which is located in Furness Library. Ross will be honored at a "mini-convocation" in a private ceremony of friends, family and University Trustees held in Eisenlohr, President Hackney's home, she said. Winegrad, who has written honorary degree citations for over 10 years, said that Ross -- who is described as "a corporate director and trustee" -- is "not being honored because he's given money [to the University]." "The reason is because this is a man who has been extraordinarily philanthropic for the arts," Winegrad said last night. Ross, an overseer of the University's School of Fine Arts, is also a trustee of Barnard College, the American Academy in Rome and the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. He is also an art collector. Winegrad added that the current exhibit at the Ross Gallery is loaned from Cooper-Hewitt in honor of the gallery's 10th anniversary. According to University Associate Secretary Duncan Van Dusen, the University Council and Trustee's honorary degree committees "met and concurred separately" to give Ross the degree. Winegrad said that there was "no consideration" to waiting for the University's May convocation when honorary degrees are normally given. She added that with the timing of the Ross Gallery's 10th anniversary celebration this fall, it seemed appropriate to hold a "mini-convocation" to give Ross the degree. Winegrad said that honorary degrees have been given at special commemorative convocations almost every other year. But this practice, she added, will be discontinued in the future. Winegrad said she did not know the exact reason, but that "[the Trustees] probably felt it was becoming too common."
(10/02/92 9:00am)
Veterinary School Associate Professor Robert Whitlock received a research report from a Texas colleague, copied substantial portions of it and then published it under his own name, a chronology of events detailing the incident states. Whitlock -- who was demoted for plagiarizing parts of the paper -- received the report on chronic diarrhea in cattle in March 1986 from Texas A & M Vet School Professor Allen Roussel, the chronology states. Roussel sent it to Whitlock for feedback and, possibly, co-authorship. The chronology, which details the more than five-year investigation into Whitlock's plagiarism, was presented at a March 12, 1990 meeting of the Vet School faculty at which professors decided to form a Group for Complaint to look into the incident. It details the actions and correspondences of Roussel, Whitlock, then-Vet School Dean Robert Marshak, and current Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews. · March 4, 1986: Roussel sent a letter to Whitlock thanking him for agreeing to co-author the paper on chronic diarrhea in cattle. Roussel enclosed his paper entitled "Chronic Diarrhea in Cattle -- Differential Diagnosis." · August 1986: Whitlock presented the paper to the World Congress on Diseases of Cattle in Dublin, Ireland. The paper then appeared in the Proceedings of the 1986 World Congress and in the Irish Veterinary Journal. This article was entitled, "Chronic Diarrhea in Cattle -- Differential Diagnosis" and included substantial portions plagiarized from Roussel. Whitlock was listed as the sole author. · October 1986: While at a continuing education program in Texas, Roussel's department chairperson, Ronald Martens, asked Whitlock about Roussel's paper. Whitlock sent a letter to Roussel saying he would forward the paper "very shortly." · April 14, 1987: Roussel wrote to Whitlock saying he assumed Whitlock was too busy to comment on the paper. In the letter, Roussel added that he would look to publish it elsewhere, but said that if Whitlock "had invested some time in the paper, I will certainly include you as a co-author with permission." · Summer 1987: While revising his paper for research, Roussel discovers Whitlock's paper of the same name. Martens contacted Vet School Dean Marshak who then turned the issue over to his successor, Andrews. · November 25, 1987: Whitlock and Roussel spoke on the telephone. In a December 1, 1987 follow-up letter, Roussel declined an offer to re-publish the paper with his name also on it. "I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you published the paper . . . without my permission or acknowledgement," Roussel wrote. "I feel strongly that the offense was deplorable." · Spring 1988: Whitlock told the section chiefs of the Vet School's Clinical Studies Department that Andrews had investigated him, but had dropped the charges. · January 1989: Whitlock resigned as Clinical Studies department chairperson. The chronology points out that in 1987, Andrews inherited the incident from Marshak and later started an investigation into it. But he dropped the plagiarism charges in 1988, the chronology states. "I think that he got very bad advice . . . from a number of different areas," said Vet School Professor David Knight, head of the Group for Complaint. "I think he was inexperienced in this sort of thing as most of us were. It was badly handled the first time around, which didn't make it easier the second time." Andrews was unable to be reached for comment and Whitlock has not returned several phone calls in the past week. Roussel and Martens could not be reached. According to Charles Benson, chairperson of the Vet School's Department of Clinical Studies, a group of Vet School professors drew up the chronology as part of a complaint against Whitlock. Then, former Faculty Senate Chairperson Robert Davies used this chronology in his presentation of a motion to form a Group for Complaint against Whitlock, Benson said last night. After the March 1990 meeting when this chronology was presented, a Group for Complaint and the Vet School's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility found Whitlock guilty of plagiarism. Upon the recommendation of this committee, the Board of Trustees demoted Whitlock, making him an associate professor. They did not take away his tenure or lower his pay. Whitlock's demotion was the first time that a University professor was demoted for any reason, Davies said last week.
(09/25/92 9:00am)
Veterinary School Professor Robert Whitlock was demoted for committing plagiarism in a journal article after an over five-year investigation concluded this summer. Whitlock, an equine medicine professor, was demoted to associate professor after the University Trustees voted in June to approve the recommendation of the Vet School's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility. As part of the sanctions, Whitlock is also forbidden from serving in any administrative position. Whitlock did not receive any reduction in tenure or salary. According to former Faculty Senate Chairperson Robert Davies -- who called a meeting of the faculty to form a Group for Complaint in this case -- this is the first time the University has demoted any faculty member for any violation. Davies added that this is the first time that the "just cause procedure," established in 1959, has gone the whole way. In the past, people usually resigned before the Trustees made a decision about the charges. Davies added that he knows of no other University that would not fire a faculty member for plagiarism, rather than just demoting him. In a letter written by University President Sheldon Hackney in the July 14, 1992 edition of the Almanac, he wrote that the Board of Trustees "would have preferred a more severe penalty." But according to the Suspension and Termination Policy in the University's Faculty Handbook, the Trustees may not impose a harsher penalty than that recommended by the school's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Faculty and administrators said this week they strongly oppose the retention of a plagiarist on the University's faculty. "Plagiarism is one of the most serious offenses that can occur in the University," said Provost Michael Aiken. "When it occurs, it should be dealt swiftly and in ways that are commensurate with the seriousness of the action. It did not happen in this case." Morris Mendelson, chairperson of the University chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said he was not familiar with the details of the Whitlock case, but "if you are a plagiarist, you have no place on the faculty as far as I am concerned." Mendelson added that "the use of demotion as a punishment [in a case of plagiarism] is outrageous" and is not "an acceptable punishment." Faculty Senate Chairperson David Hildebrand said yesterday he is "a little disappointed that there wasn't a more severe action in this case." "[Having a plagiarist on faculty] does some damage to the University reputation. That's for sure," he added. Davies echoed the wider implications of the Whitlock incident. "The reason anyone should listen to [professors] is because they are honest and they have integrity," he said. "If you can't trust what they are saying, then it affects the whole profession." According to Vet School Dean Robert Andrews, another University initially accused Whitlock of plagiarizing in an article that appeared in a scholarly journal. Then, as specified in the Handbook, a faculty-elected Group for Complaint proceeded to prosecute Whitlock. According to Hackney, this is the first time the Group for Complaint has been used. Whitlock did not return several phone calls this week.
(09/22/92 9:00am)
In her standard stump speech, Lynn Yeakel recounts her family's reaction to her decision to run for the United States Senate: Nobody knows you. Yeakel, the Democratic candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania, now retorts with a smile, "They do now." Last night, approximately 150 supporters paid at least $50 to attend a cocktail hour at the Institute of Contemporary Art in order to get to know Yeakel better. Remarking that, "1992 is a turning point," Yeakel said that this year is an opportunity to "change from the predictable to the possible. From a government of crisis to a government of courage and consensus." Yeakel then called for an economic recovery plan stressing education and job retraining as well as affordable healthcare which she believes with the election of a Democratic President could happen within a year. After blasting her opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter, Yeakel appealed for contributions stressing the large amounts of money Specter has collected and is willing to spend on the race. "He [Specter] has been in Washington for 12 years, and by every standard of measure I can find the quality of life in tis life is worse off," Yeakel said. Yeakel later added that Specter has not made inroads in core Democratic groups such as labor, blacks, and Jews, adding that Specter's questioning of her ties to an allegedly anti-Israel church was "very much a smokecreen." After her speech, Yeakel said that she supports the National Service Trust Fund concept -- which will enable students to pay back college loans through national service or a percentage of their future income -- to revamp the way students pay for higher education. In addition, Yeakel said she favors an increase in funding for Pell grants, the current federal grant program. On urban problems, Yeakel, who released her position paper on the topic this Saturday, said she favors a program in which local residents will help allocate funds targeted for their neighborhoods. Yeakel added that she favors tax breaks for companies that invest long-term capital gains into retooling plants and investing in the inner cities. Vermont Governor Madeline Kunin first introduced Yeakel to the crowd welcoming her to a "very small club [of female politicians] that is rapidly acquiring new members." "We all sort of stand on one another's shoulders," she said after Yeakel's speech. Kunin stressed the different perspective a woman gives on issues such as Family and Medical Leave, and the importance of electing a woman like Yeakel. "I believe . . . that she will make a significant and meaningful contribution to the political life of this country," Kunin said. College senior Melanie Hirschfelder, a volunteer at the event, said she decided to work at the fundraiser due to the other choice in the race. "She is a very, very big improvement over Arlen Specter," Hirschfelder said. And Powelton Village resident Robin Larsen said that she supports Yeakel since "she took a negative reaction [to the Clarence Thomas hearings] and turned it into a very positive moment in Pennsylvania history."
(09/17/92 9:00am)
In a rare move, the University rescinded a recently-awarded master's thesis this past summer from a graduate student who plagiarized the work. Vice Provost for Graduate Education Janice Madden, the administrator in charge of the investigation, said this is the first time a degree has been rescinded by the Univeristy. She said an individual -- who she does not believe is associated with the University -- alerted the Graduate Council of the Faculties about alleged plagiarism in the thesis. Then, the dean of the school involved, appointed a faculty investigative committee which studied the case. The committee found that the allegation was true and the Graduate Council voted to rescind the degree this past spring, Madden said. Madden would not specify the identity of the person nor the school involved, and said she did not know if the person had since pursued a career in academia. Larry Gross, the head of the Annenberg School of Communication's graduate program, and Janet Theophano, head of the College of General Studies' Master of Liberal Arts program, said that the plagiarized degree was not awarded by their schools. The committee's report was then presented to the student who decided to waive the right to a hearing. The student returned the degree, which was later rescinded. Madden added that throughout the process, the student was represented by a member of the faculty. She said that the rescinding of a degree is "very sad," but she added that it "will happen again to anyone who plagiarizes." "It doesn't make any difference how long the degree was standing," she said. "This strikes at the very central mission of the University. I hope we never face this issue again."
(09/17/92 9:00am)
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee began their year last night with a reflective look back on continuing problems facing the University and an ambitious look forward to the future aims of the organization. SEC members also decided to hold an extra meeting in two weeks to discuss burgeoning health benefits costs and "how it impacts overall compensation," SEC Chairperson David Hildebrand said. Past Faculty Senate Chairperson Louise Shoemaker said this is a "very critical issue" and that the SEC does not "have many extra meetings." A major portion of the two-and-half hour meeting was spent discussing the status of the University's effort to regain funding from the Commonwealth with President Sheldon Hackney, Hildebrand said. Shoemaker said that during Hackney's presentation on the University's state budget woes, he had a "very serious tone." But, she added, compared to other universities, the University's "fiscal situation is pretty sound." Hildebrand said that "the clear sense of what President Hackney was saying was 'don't hold your breath waiting [for state funding]. This may be a long one.' " He added that having the president in the SEC meetings helps in "reducing an us versus them" attitude. In addition, Hackney discussed the current legal battle concerning the University's Mayor's Scholarships to Philadelphia students. The SEC then debated whether the Faculty Senate should focus on immediate problems or begin voicing its concerns about long-term issues. History Professor James Davis, who initiated the discussion, said he wants the body to look at issues that answer the question, "What kind of university we will be 25 years from now?" Davis brought up the possible purchase of the Civic Center for the Medical School and the future role of that school to the rest of the University. "It's very big and has ambitious plans for the future," said Hildebrand. "And something like one-half the faculty in the University are affiliated with the medical school." Other issues brought up by Davis included the status of Locust Walk and the huge start-up costs associated with adding new physical science faculty. But on the big question on what the focus of the Faculty Senate should be, leaders of the organization differed. "I don't think it's a particulary useful exercise to hope for a 25 year plan . . . but if people have the time to do it, it would be an interesting thing to do," Microbiology Professor Helen Davies said. Past-chair Shoemaker said that "it's a matter of balance" since some leaders "felt frustrated at not being able to get at some of the big issues." Hildebrand said he felt that looking at larger issues is important, but he wants to do it in "such a way that has an impact, not just windy generalities."
(09/04/92 9:00am)
Paying back the institution where they may have found their spouse, career, or higher calling, University alumni gave millions of dollars to their alma mater during Alumni Weekend this May. Alumni from all schools and centers gave approximately $10.8 million in unrestricted funds to the University's Penn Fund, said Jerry Condon, the fund's director. And the quinquennial reunion classes -- those graduating in years such as 1987 and 1992 -- donated more than $15 million in restricted and unrestricted gifts, Condon added. Condon said that Penn Fund contributions are "running ahead of last year" and that class contributions "compare favorably" to previous years. Fund raising is tabulated from July to June of each year. Last year's voluntary contributions for July 1990 through June 1991 ranked fourth out of all U.S. colleges and universities, according to a report published in June by the Council for Aid to Education. The University may spend the unrestricted Penn Fund dollars whereever administrators decide the money is needed. Those areas include student financial aid, faculty salaries, library books, classroom and laboratory equipment, campus maintenance and programs in research and education. The reunion classes presented ceremonial checks to University President Sheldon Hackney at a ceremony after the alumni parade on Saturday, said Joanne Hanna, the director of the 25th reunion class gift drive. But Condon added that there were some standouts this year as well. The classes of 1927, 1952 and 1977 set records for amounts given by a class in their respective years with respective donations of $171,000, $6.4 million and $367,000, said Condon. Condon also noted that the class of 1967 set a record for most people contributing from a single class. He added that the amount of money on the checks presented to Hackney is the amount of money given and pledged by members of the class at that time only. Earmarked gifts donated by the reunion classes include $1 million courtesy of the class of 1967 for a lobby in the new Revlon student center, the new 37th Street walk donated by the class of 1962, and a term chair donated by the class of 1942. Condon said that the University's development office presents potential donors with a list of suggestions for class gifts, emphasizing areas where the money is most needed. Hanna added that although the primary focus of Alumni Weekend is "to bring people back to Penn," it is "true that we highlight class giving since it is the end of Penn's fiscal year." She also said that all the money that was donated to the Penn Fund and in the form of class gifts will count additionally towards the Campaign for Penn, the University's five-year, $1 billion fundraising drive that is progressing toward its target.
(05/21/92 9:00am)
Paying back the institution where they may have found their spouse, career, or higher calling, University alumni gave millions of dollars to their alma mater during Alumni Weekend. Alumni from all schools and centers gave approximately $10.8 million in unrestricted funds this year to the University's Penn Fund, Jerry Condon, the fund's director, said this week. And the quinquennial reunion classes -- those graduating in years such as 1987 and 1992 -- donated more than $15 million in restricted and unrestricted gifts, Condon added. The University may spend the unrestricted Penn Fund dollars in areas where University administrators determine the money is needed. Those areas include student financial aid, faculty salaries, library books, classroom and laboratory equipment, campus maintenance and programs in research and education. The reunion classes presented ceremonial checks to University President Sheldon Hackney at a ceremony after the alumni parade on Saturday, said Joanne Hanna, the director of the 25th reunion class gift drive. Condon said that Penn Fund contributions are "running ahead of last year" and that class contributions "compare favorably" to previous years. But he added that there were some stand outs this year as well. The classes of 1927, 1952 and 1977 set records for amounts given by a class in their respective years with respective donations of $171,000, $6.4 million and $367,000, said Condon. Condon also noted that the class of 1967 set a record for most people contributing from a single class. He added that the amount of money on the checks presented to Hackney is the amount of money given and pledged by members of the class at that time only. More money could be donated for the campaign year, which does not end until June 30. Earmarked gifts donated by the reunion classes include $1 million courtesy of the class of 1967 for a lobby in the new Revlon student center, the new 37th Street walk donated by the class of 1962, and a term chair donated by the class of 1942. Condon said that the University's development office presents potential donors with a list of suggestions for class gifts, emphasizing areas where the money is most needed. Hanna added that although the primary focus of Alumni Weekend is "to bring people back to Penn," it is "true that we highlight class giving since it is the end of Penn's fiscal year." She also said that all the money that was donated to the Penn Fund and in the form of class gifts will count additionally towards the Campaign for Penn, the University's five-year, $1 billion fundraising drive that is progressing toward its target.
(04/23/92 9:00am)
And the envelope please . . . The envelopes have been sent to the eight winners of the senior awards -- some of the oldest and most prestigious University awards bestowed upon seniors by their peers. The winners of the men's awards -- the spoon, bowl, cane and spade -- are Harold Ford, Kirk Marcolina, John Gamba and Ira Hillman, respectively. Barbara Lewis, Christina Smith, Maureen Hernandez and Helen Jung won the Hottel, Harnwell, Goddard and Brownlee awards respectively. The winners said yesterday they are excited about their honors, which will be presented on Ivy Day, May 16. Nursing student Smith, whose activities included positions on the Senior Class Board and Nursing Student Forum, said she was "excited" to win since "[I] can't remember another Nursing student winning this." College student Lewis -- former president of the Kite and Key Society -- said she was honored to win the Hottel award, especially after learning that it was the oldest women's award on campus. College student Marcolina, who chaired Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Days this year and was the station manger of University Television, said he is pleased to know "that the class supports me and what I value." "I am really excited and happy that the Penn community could show its appreciation to an openly gay member of the class," he said. Many of the winners said they are also excited to meet the Ivy Day speaker. "I am excited to be on the same stage as Candice Bergen," College and Wharton student Hillman said. Assistant Director of Student Life Activites and Facilities Albert Moore said he is very "impressed" that the senior class "chose to recognize people who made contributions in many areas." He said the men's awards are wooden and hand-carved by a University alumnus. The women's awards are also wood-carved plaques featuring a certain theme, such as the University crest and an Ivy leaf. Moore said that other student awards were also announced this week. Wharton senior Howard Radzely won the Weiss Memorial Award; Eric Zabinski won the Penn Student Agency Award; and Lewis won the Class of 1946 award. The three Sol Feinstone Awards will be presented to Wharton seniors Brian Butler and Marek Gootman; College seniors Margery Jacobs and Melissa Karz and College junior Rachel Miller; and College senior John Shu. (CUT LINE) Please see AWARDS, page 4 AWARDS, from page 1
(04/23/92 9:00am)
And the envelope please . . . The envelopes have been sent to the eight winners of the senior awards -- some of the oldest and most prestigious University awards bestowed upon seniors by their peers. The winners of the men's awards -- the spoon, bowl, cane and spade -- are Harold Ford, Kirk Marcolina, John Gamba and Ira Hillman, respectively. Barbara Lewis, Christina Smith, Maureen Hernandez and Helen Jung won the Hottel, Harnwell, Goddard and Brownlee awards respectively. The winners said yesterday they are excited about their honors, which will be presented on Ivy Day, May 16. Nursing student Smith, whose activities included positions on the Senior Class Board and Nursing Student Forum, said she was "excited" to win since "[I] can't remember another Nursing student winning this." College student Lewis -- former president of the Kite and Key Society -- said she was honored to win the Hottel award, especially after learning that it was the oldest women's award on campus. College student Marcolina, who chaired Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Days this year and was the station manger of University Television, said he is pleased to know "that the class supports me and what I value." "I am really excited and happy that the Penn community could show its appreciation to an openly gay member of the class," he said. Many of the winners said they are also excited to meet the Ivy Day speaker. "I am excited to be on the same stage as Candice Bergen," College and Wharton student Hillman said. Assistant Director of Student Life Activites and Facilities Albert Moore said he is very "impressed" that the senior class "chose to recognize people who made contributions in many areas." He said the men's awards are wooden and hand-carved by a University alumnus. The women's awards are also wood-carved plaques featuring a certain theme, such as the University crest and an Ivy leaf. Moore said that other student awards were also announced this week. Wharton senior Howard Radzely won the Weiss Memorial Award; Eric Zabinski won the Penn Student Agency Award; and Lewis won the Class of 1946 award. The three Sol Feinstone Awards will be presented to Wharton seniors Brian Butler and Marek Gootman; College seniors Margery Jacobs and Melissa Karz and College junior Rachel Miller; and College senior John Shu.
