Women behind feminist 'manifesta' speak out
(04/09/03 9:00am)
"Can I wear a thong and be a feminist?"
Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
Law student groups head to D.C. protest
(04/01/03 10:00am)
(See below for correction.)
U. students arrested at war protest
(03/21/03 10:00am)
Early yesterday morning, at a time when most students were rolling out of bed and staggering to class in the rain, a handful of Penn students and professors were wide awake and heading somewhere else -- to jail.
Panels tackle civil rights, terrorism
(03/07/03 10:00am)
Do you support terrorism? For most, the answer is a simple no. But yesterday, law experts questioned how new laws -- and new interpretations of existing laws -- could make well--intentioned Americans face terrorism charges. At the 22nd annual Edward Sparer Symposium on terrorism and the U.S. Constitution, public interest lawyers and scholars addressed this topic from a variety of angles to a mix of students, lawyers and a couple of local residents. "We thought it was timely," said Rachel Hannaford, a second-year Law student and panel facilitator. Susan Feathers, the director of the Public Service Program, introduced the broad topic by reminding attendees about the symposium's namesake. She also urged members of the audience to hone their legal skills in defense of civil liberties. The four different panels concentrated on four different areas of civil rights law -- criminal procedure, immigration, First Amendment law and human rights. Each panel was followed by a question-and-answer period. While each lawyer addressed different issues, common themes tied the varied discussions together. David Cole, a Georgetown law professor, kicked off the event -- and much of the subsequent discussion -- by challenging the historical framing others have given the war on terrorism. While some argue that America has learned from its past mistakes involving civil liberties infringement, Cole maintained that America has adapted tactics to "repeat the mistakes while maintaining plausible deniability." Penn Law professor Seth Kreimer later picked up on this theme in his discussion of First Amendment rights. He said that the government has tried to shape public opinion by deploying "soft power." Kreimer cited a variety of examples, including government requests to review research papers before printing and pressure on the media to not distribute certain materials. But he also noted that some of the issues are more complex than they appear. For example, the media often has the right to ignore the government's requests. However, he explained that if a news outlet is owned by a company that also produces military equipment, the government then may have more influence in how the story is covered than is beneficial for the public. Overall, those who came to the event left feeling a bit more enlightened. "It provided information I didn't know, especially about surveillance and the freedom of information act," first-year Law student Gia Brock said. "It scared me a little bit," she added. The symposium was held in Penn Law School's Levy Conference Center and co-sponsored by the Public Service Department, Public Governance Group, Public Interest Scholars Program, Alliance for Justice and the National Lawyers Guild.
Veggie regime trumps meats
(03/04/03 10:00am)
Your mother always told you to eat your vegetables. Neal Barnard would tell you to eat nothing else. Barnard, founder and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, made the nutritional case for veganism to a standing--room only crowd in Stemmler Hall's student lounge Wednesday afternoon. It was the third of four talks this semester sponsored by Penn Students for Animal Rights. Barnard kicked off the event with a technical discussion of something many medical students know is a rare occurrence -- reversing heart disease. One of his studies took people with the disorder and separated them into two groups. The control group ate the "best available diet" -- the diet doctors usually recommend, including low--fat meat and dairy products -- while the others adhered to a vegan regimen. The control group showed minimal improvement, while the vegans' arteries reopened. On top of that, they lost an average of 22 pounds. "What struck us was the control group," Barnard said. "They didn't especially like their diet, even though it was fairly liberal." The vegans, on the other hand, "grumbled at first... but after four or five weeks, they liked how they felt." He added that the effect was probably because the control group had to measure portions, but the vegans did not. From heart disease, he turned to a discussion of another chronic killer: breast cancer. He explained that, since vegans tend to eat less fat and have lower body weights, they have fewer problems with this illness. Yet his primary concern was with diabetes, a disorder that many people mistakenly think is benign. "We have an epidemic" of the disease, Barnard said, pointing to studies indicating that veganism reduces the need for insulin shots and other controlling medications. While many doctors urge their diabetic patients to eat protein--laden foods, Barnard took issue with the most pro--protein plan of all: the Atkins Diet. Atkins portrays "carbohydrates as the devil," Barnard said. However, he argued that Atkins supporters cannot explain how traditional Asian diets, which are rich in complex carbohydrates like rice, seem to reduce the incidence of obesity. "We just don't know" what the long-term effects of the Atkins plan are, he said. While the Atkins Diet may contribute to the nation's poor eating habits, Barnard said that the federal government is mostly to blame, thanks to its agreement with some segments of the food industry to promote cheese consumption. "Subway had a few sandwiches without cheese. They put an end to that," he said. Throughout the talk, he emphasized the fact that vegans get enough protein and nutrients to be healthy. While most of his speech was technical, Barnard intertwined anecdotal tales with statistics. He related one lecture he gave on the same topic at Texas Tech University, a school where students learn cattle ranching. He said the heckling was so loud that no one could hear him. "So I said, 'Look, you guys, eating meat doesn't just cause heart attacks -- it also causes impotence,'" he said. "I had their complete attention." Most students thought the talk was comprehensive, but a few stayed later for an informal question-and-answer session. "I wished he had gone into more detail about fish," said Chad Sterbenz, a second--year anthropology graduate student, explaining that he believed there were potential benefits. "It dispelled a lot of myths people tell you" about veganism, he added.
Values in the war on terrorism
(03/04/03 10:00am)
Protests. Activism. Multiculturalism. Some people see these words as defining today's collegiate experience. And Yaron Brook would like to change that. Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, gave a lecture called "Why We Are Losing the War on Terrorism" last night. About 85 students and local residents attended the event in Houston Hall, which was sponsored by the Penn and Drexel Objectivist Clubs. Brook began by arguing that America has targeted the wrong problem in this war. "I do not believe terrorism is the enemy," he said. "Terrorism is a tactic." Instead, he argued that the enemy is really radical Islam. "They seek control and power over people's lives as an end in itself," he said. Brook added that radical Islam is opposed to American values at every level, and that ultimately, "Islam stands for collectivism." After defining who the enemy should be, Brook then examined why America has yet to triumph. He contended that America is ultimately losing the war "because America has abandoned its ideals. The ideas taught in a university are similar to the ideas of our enemy." He argued that universities have a "trickle-down effect" on the ideology of the nation. The ideals he attacked were ideals most Americans value -- multiculturalism and altruism. Multiculturalism -- at least as presented by other liberal intellectuals --"is just stale Marxist nonsense," he said, adding that "to preach the equality of culture is to denounce virtue and extol vice." Brook added that altruism is not significantly different. It "is a vicious ideology that sacrifices the able, the successful and the wealthy," he said. "Altruism and multiculturalism have lobotomized America," he added. In addition to his ideological arguments, he suggested some possible solutions. America should follow Israel's example and assassinate its enemies, he said. Furthermore, if America believes bombing is the solution, it should "bomb ruthlessly." But "the crucial battle must be waged against our homegrown enemies, the professors," he said. "I agree with the overarching theme of moral absolutism in our war," Wharton alum Adam Margolin said, adding that he would have liked Brook to define the difference between radical Islam and traditional Islam. But not everyone agreed. While College senior Paul Flynn said that he liked the objectivist focus on atheism, he took issue with the philosophy behind Brook's comments. Objectivism's basic problem is that "it's narrow and empty," he said. "There's little in the way of substantial human interaction," he added.
Panel revisits Quran's history
(02/25/03 10:00am)
In a post-Sept. 11 America where debates about Islam are often fiery, professors reminded Penn that the "ivory tower" can remain above the fray. Friday, four professors calmly presented their widely differing theories about when and how the Quran was written. "Who Wrote Down the Quran?" -- part of the Humanities Forum's "Year of the Book" and co--sponsored by Penn's Middle East Center -- nearly filled a Wharton lecture hall to capacity with a mix of professors, students and community members. "Universities are where open and respectful conversations are supposed to occur," Associate Dean Walter Licht said, both welcoming the audience and setting the afternoon's cordial tone. Everett Rowson, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies, introduced the topic by explaining the traditional Islamic beliefs. According to Rowson, it is believed in Islam that Muhammad received the revelations piecemeal. As Muhammad was preaching, Rowson explained, his followers were writing. These scattered "scraps of paper" were then collected and turned into book form 30 to 50 years after Muhammad's death, Rowson noted. But in contrast to this traditional view, Andrew Rippin, a history professor at the University of Victoria, argued that there is a difference between composition and canonization. While composition is the physical act of writing a book, canonization is a complex process whereby the book gains authority in a community. To him, canonization trumps the physical act of writing. If scholars date the Quran by canonization, it was completed three centuries after Muhammad's death, he argued. But the next presenter, Temple University professor Mahmoud Ayoub, began his analysis by rebutting Rippin's. Internal structural elements and language "present a fairly coherent picture of a book completed at the same time," he said. While Ayoub believed that the traditional view of the Quran's creation was fairly accurate, he emphasized the reciprocal relationship it had with the community. Turning from the social to the physical, Francois D‚roche, a professor at the Sorbonne, presented the audience with an array of slides featuring Quran fragments. He emphasized that the scribes of the Quran all worked in different ways and had a variety of choices to make in laying out the final form of the codex. The final presenter, University of Chicago professor Fred Donner, did not use slides to educate the audience -- instead, he used tales of homework mistakes. As a graduate student, he was doing his Syriac homework when he made a few seemingly insignificant errors. Those mistakes, however, led him to believe that some of the incongruous words in the Quran were transliterated Syriac. He explained that this led him to conclude that the Quran was written, recited and then rewritten. Patricia Crone, a professor at the Princeton-affiliated Institute for Advanced Study took the podium next and pointed out flaws in all of the presenters' works. Audience members then took center stage as they emotionally challenged the professors' conclusions, asking questions about what these findings mean for the faith. However, the panel dismissed such queries, explaining that the topic of the lecture was solely historical. "I thought it was very ambitious," third-year graduate student David Hollenberg said. "It was fairly representative of the field."
Legal perspectives on women's health
(02/24/03 10:00am)
Prostitution was one of the many topics broached during Thursday's panel -- hosted by International Council on Women's Health Issues and Penn's Global Women's Health Initiative -- entitled "Women, Ethno--Political Conflict, Health and Well-Being." Experts from across the globe gathered in the Nursing Education Building to discuss how women in different countries had disparate, yet strikingly similar, health concerns. Nursing Professor Kathleen Brown kicked off the panel with a discussion of forensic nursing. She said that while the term sounds exotic, the premise is simple: it is "nurses practicing nursing in the realm of law." She then explained that people in this field are trained to document injuries and collect evidence in a way that does not compromise a prosecution's case. Moving from the litigious to the long ago, Taeyoun Ahn, a visiting scholar and lecturer at Penn, gave the conversation a more historical tone. Ahn recounted the history of Korean "comfort women." These women, she explained, were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army and were "treated only as military property." After the war, these individuals had a variety of problems, including venereal diseases, social stigmas and post-traumatic stress. Even today, organizations are lobbying the Japanese government to apologize and raise awareness in the international community. Lee Cassanelli then turned the conversation to contemporary Somalia. Cassanelli, the director of Penn's African Studies Center, demonstrated how political turmoil can negatively impact women's health. He also explained that "a lot of the problems in women's health have to do with the nomadic and rural" character of the population. The picture he painted, however, was not entirely bleak -- a few new hospitals are in the works, the government has taken a public stance against female genital mutilation and immunizations are widely accepted. But the discussion didn't stop with Somalia. Siriorn Sindhu, a Nursing professor at Mahidol University in Thailand, discussed problems that affect Thai women. Rape rates are extremely high, she said, noting that part of the problem is that "punishment is nothing -- three months in jail." Moreover, rates of cervical cancers are unnecessarily high, and birth control is in short supply. Sindhu emphasized that the solution to these problems would not come from medicine, but rather from politics. "The issue is the mass media," she said, explaining that few women are in leadership positions. The result, she argued, is a society that accepts exploitation of women. Hanneke van Maanen, a Nursing professor at the University of Bremen in Germany, wrapped up the panel with a discussion of sex slavery in Europe. Intelligent Eastern European women are lured with job offers to the border, where they are forced into prostitution by pimps, she explained. "These women are willing to do anything to get out of their social and economic misery," she said. Though the topics covered were disturbing, Philadelphia resident Helen Watt -- one of the approximately 75 professionals and professors in attendance -- left satisfied with her newfound knowledge. "It was interesting."
Healing the wounds from a violent past
(02/07/03 10:00am)
Parents always instruct their children to forgive and forget. Now a distinguished psychologist is urging South Africa to do the same. Yesterday, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela espoused a sophisticated version of this message to a diverse collection of 25 students and community members. Gobodo--Madikizela, a clinical psychologist who has taught at Harvard and Brandeis universities, recently released a book on the subject called A Human Died that Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness. The book is the outcome of her work on South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which helped survivors of apartheid communicate their pain, confront those who perpetrated crimes and, ultimately, heal. Her work revolves around interviews with Eugene de Kock, the former leader of the apartheid government's death squads. Gobodo--Madikizela is "convinced he was struggling with a sense of remorse." She and other members of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee facilitated meetings between de Kock and the mothers of those he killed. When de Kock related the details of their relatives' deaths, the women berated and yelled at him. They then calmly addressed him and said he was forgiven. "It was an overwhelming moment," she said. Gobodo--Madikizela then explained her psychological interpretation of the events. "Victims were seeking out apology as a way of getting rid of the burden of hatred," she said. Knowing the full truth about the events surrounding their relatives' death also leads them to "reclaim a sense of control over the past." This control, she maintains, then gives the living victims "a sense of power" concerning whether or not to forgive the perpetrators. But, she was careful to emphasize, the perpetrators must want to be forgiven. "When [the perpetrators] apologize, they share a common humanity that helps the victim reach out and forgive," she explained. The short lecture was followed by an animated question-and-answer session addressing a broad array of contemporary South African problems. She explained that the government needs to give symbolic reparations to victims' families in order to help them heal and also stressed that she does not believe de Kock should be released from jail. "I found the level of understanding [of South African politics] quite rewarding," Gobodo--Madikizela said after the lecture. College junior Pamela Rothenberg, a South African native who moved to America when she was 5 years old, said that she enjoyed the talk. "I think she acknowledged [both] the black and white views," she said. "She was very honest.... Reconciliation is a good thing."
Wrestling principles on the path toward non-violence
(01/31/03 10:00am)
Could you be friends with a Nazi? Timothy Sams doesn't know if he could. But last night, the Swarthmore assistant dean argued that such friendship is central to Martin Luther King Jr.'s version of non-violence. The workshop, which was hosted by a variety of groups including La Casa Latina, was held in the Arch building. Approximately 15 people attended the event, nearly filling the cozy room. "There are multiple forms of non-violence," Sams said, adding that he was only an expert in King's version. After graduating from Union College, Sams learned about King's beliefs from the New York State Martin Luther King Jr. Institute for Non-Violence. "Is non-violence no violence?" he asked, kicking off the discussion. "That depends on how you define violence," one student responded. "I hate postmodernism!" Sams exclaimed with a chuckle. He explained that he wanted the audience to "wrestle" with the principles, not just blindly accept them. It was this conversational style he then used to elucidate King's six principles and six steps. "The first principle is that non-violence is active resistance to evil," he said. He added that the other principles involved transforming an opponent into a friend and believing that one's opponents are victims. Non-violent advocates of change will accept violence being done to them without retaliating and choose love over hate, as "the non-violent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win." King's six steps are concrete ways to enact these abstract beliefs, he explained. They entail information gathering, education, personal commitment, negotiation, direct action and reconciliation. "You end a conflict with some symbolic action" that creates a closer community, he said. Sams emphasized that "there is a difference between being non-violent and being stupid." He cited a personal anecdote in which he unsuccessfully used non-violent methods to stop a mentally ill woman from harassing him for money. But when she became belligerent, he eventually succumbed to shouting at her. Sams also explained that non-violence can be used in non-political spheres of life as well. "Start with the cashier," he said. "Don't slap them when they throw your change on the counter." At one point, the talk was interrupted by his cell phone. "That was my mother-in-law. Talk about a challenge to non-violence," he quipped. Though the discussion soon resumed, for some, there was a little too much talk and not enough action. "I think it would have been nice if we could have engaged in some sort of activity where we could use the skills we learned," Wharton junior Joanna Glauser said. Still, it "was a good opportunity for the Penn community to learn more about the steps and principles of Martin Luther King Jr.'s work," she added.
Experts discuss the science of terror
(01/24/03 10:00am)
Move over, James Bond. Fighting international terrorism is not just for spies anymore -- the intellectuals want in. Last night, about 45 Penn students attended a panel discussion on bioterrorism. It was the second in a four-part series funded by Citicorp and Penn's Career Services designed to showcase security jobs. The first panelist, Law Professor Eric Feldman, gave an overview of the legal issues pertaining to bioterrorism. "What rights do you have?" he asked. If you are a terrorist, "which of these rights ought to be suspended?" Should Americans harmed by anti--terrorism initiatives "be able to sue the government?" he asked rhetorically. Feldman then proposed that some of the government's actions stemmed from the threat of tort. President George W. Bush's decision to vaccinate medical staffs after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act was based on this fear, he said. Feldman explained that the bill prevents most lawsuits against the government and vaccine manufacturers and administrators. In closing, he said terrorism "opens up an array of career options that I wish didn't have to exist." Panelist Jacqueline Merill, a Columbia University doctoral nursing student, turned the discussion away from hypotheticals and emphasized the history of public health. "Public health has been programmatically funded," she said, pointing to AIDS, cancer and other research projects. "All have been built up independently, and they all have their different standards." She argued that in order for bioterrorist threats to be effectively countered, public health officials need to have unified standards and training. Easier access to medical records are also necessary, she said. Harvey Rubin, director of Penn's Institute for Strategic Threat Analysis and Response -- which was created last year in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 -- said that much of the analysis has to do with math and science. "The way we teach science informs the way the nation sees science," he explained. He went on to say that many bioterrorist jobs involve using high-level mathematics, especially game theory. The final speaker was Eric Olson, an account manager for Roche Pharmaceuticals. "I kept my career path open," he said. He explained that he was initially pre-med, went into research and then decided to work on the business aspect of pharmaceuticals. But when the question-and-answer period ended, some students still had unanswered questions. "I think it would have been interesting to [have heard them discuss] the agricultural aspect of bioterrorism," said College sophomore Tyler Gerstenfeld, referring to the outbreak of mad cow disease. "I didn't know they would have all the different professions represented," he added. "That's pretty cool."
Operation Santa goes into full effect
(12/12/02 10:00am)
Santa Claus may be a myth, but Operation Santa Claus is not.