Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(10/20/06 9:00am)
Arlen Specter
To the Editor:
Albert Sun's article on Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)'s address at College Hall ("Pa. senator slams detainee bill," DP, 10/13/06) conspicuously omitted a key point: Sen. Specter ultimately voted for the bill he so harshly criticized.
As Dahlia Lithwick and Richard Schragger reported in The Washington Post, the senator justified this reversal by rationalizing that "the Court will clean it up," a particularly ironic excuse for a bill that specifically strips federal courts of authority over such cases.
Whether Specter acknowledged this in his talk or not, fair reporting demanded at least a mention of the contradiction in an article that focused on Specter's stance on the issue.
(10/13/06 9:00am)
Make a TV show
To the Editor:
As a producer on UTV, I strongly disagree with Ali Jackson's sentiments on the supposedly bland content of UTV ("After a show crossed the line, UTV lost its edge," DP, 10/9/06).
Penn's student-run television station simply provides an outlet for students to express their ideas. Jason Miller and the UTV board work extremely hard to provide this opportunity. But any fault with programming lies with students unwilling to express themselves, not with the station that gives them the opportunity to do so.
If Ali Jackson wants a racy show, I invite her to talk to the UTV board, which will provide the necessary training and equipment, at no charge, so that she can make her show a reality.
(10/12/06 9:00am)
Keep the rink
To the Editor:
I appreciate the awareness of Penn's hockey programs raised by the article ("A team on ice," DP, 10/3/06) on the Class of 1923 ice rink. But the author makes some naive assumptions. Granted, the potential tear-down of the rink will not affect any of the current Penn players, or even those for the next several years, but is that any reason to ignore the problem?
Those who are planning the eastward extensions of campus need to be approached now - rather than when it is too late - about changing their plans for the ice rink.
Penn is one of only two Ivies without a varsity program. Isn't that embarrassing enough? Why should Penn be the only Ivy without hockey at all? Let's not just leave the problem for someone else to deal with down the road. The Penn community wants to keep the ice rink, and we need to let it be known.
(10/09/06 9:00am)
A price too high
To the Editor:
I have been attending Penn Hillel High Holiday Services for 30 years. They have been my Jewish place of worship, my linkage to organized Jewish life, through school at Penn, family religious events and many a soulful search.
What a wonderful sight and sound to see more than a 1,000 Jews, from all ages and walks of life, singing in prayer.
The communal feeling was great and part of the inspiring awe. And it was free to worship. For years, I would host my family and friends, some Jewish, and many not. Yes, there was always the request for donation.
As my financial status improved, so did my contribution. So you can imagine my shock and outrage when the Web site for this year's High Holiday Service demanded a ticket price of $180 per individual and $360 per family!
Gone is the tradition and spirit of a donating Jewish community-friendly service that accepts all who want to worship. Thank you Penn Hillel for all the years of allowing me, my family and loved ones, to be closer to Hashem, from the spirit in our hearts. Too bad spending money breaks this tradition.
What one gains in exclusivity, one loses from the community of humankind.
(10/06/06 9:00am)
Real violations
To the Editor:
On behalf of Penn Faculty and Staff Against War on Iraq, I must challenge the accuracy and fairness of your coverage of our Teach-In ("An antiwar evening in Huntsman," DP, 9/21/06).
The opening line "Penn faculty revived a protest technique" carelessly omitted the staff who played a critical role in organizing this event. This is not a minor point: Too often, the vital contributions made by Penn staff go unnoted. Another inaccuracy followed: The Dreams of Sparrows is not a "fictionalized account of Iraq during the American invasion" but a gritty documentary.
We also question a number of disturbing editorial choices made. Why no quotes from enthusiastic student-attendees? Why a photograph that suggested no young people even attended?
And why put educate in inverted commas?
The U.S. government has lied repeatedly and, aided by a largely compliant media, has succeeded in keeping many Americans ignorant as to the true causes and costs of this war. We sought to replace fiction with fact, to explore the grim realities masked by "patriotic" rhetoric. If this is not education, we wonder what is. Finally, we reject your statement that our panelists discussed "perceived" human-rights violations in Iraq. This pre-emptive invasion violated international law.
It has killed as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians and left countless more injured and homeless. Iraqi prisoners have been tortured and held without charge.
Five U.S. soldiers currently await trial for gang-raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdering her, her parents and her 5-year-old sister. For whom, we ask, are such violations merely "perceived?"
(09/29/06 9:00am)
Start small
To the Editor:
In your recent editorial ("Don't follow Harvard, yet," DP, 9/13/06), you glibly state that it is "simply not feasible" for Penn to dispense with its early-decision policy altogether.
Yes, Penn does not have the financial and administrative resources necessary to make such a move overnight, but perhaps we all need to think a little more creatively.
Companies often test the market before rolling out a product across the nation. Similarly, Penn should consider eliminating early decision on a test basis through the Management and Technology and Huntsman programs. With their relatively small applicant pools, removing early decision from the equation should not pose a huge strain on the administration while ensuring that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.
At the same time, Penn could use this initiative to justify a more intensive fundraising campaign. If the University moves toward this compromise, I will be the first to commit my annual bonus for the next two years to such a worthy endeavor.
(09/22/06 9:00am)
Too little outcry
To the Editor:
Afaf Meleis' recent column ("It's about home - not where you're from," DP, 9/10/06) sheds light on the unfortunate issue of discrimination toward Arabs and Muslims in post-9/11 America. What Meleis fails to note, however, is that Arabs and Muslims can do something about it.
There has been far too little public outcry by moderate Muslims against the perversion of Islam by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The numerous Arab American organizations that exist in the United States should hold rallies, press conferences and forums to call for an end to extremism and terrorism.
(09/15/06 9:00am)
Strikes do little
To the Editor:
Graduate Employees Together-University of Pennsylvania's Bill Herman suggests ("A Year Later, NYU TAs Back in Class," DP, 9/12/06) that the reason his group hasn't repeated strike action since the two-day protest in spring 2004 is because "things are pretty stable here right now."
It would be more honest to admit that the 2004 strike was an embarrassing flop - a vanity project with incoherent means and unclear goals.
Goodness knows there are genuine reasons for complaint about some graduate-student policies at Penn; but, as the fizzling out of the NYU strike suggests, radical pantomime, while no doubt exciting to the pulse, rarely gets us anywhere.
(09/12/06 9:00am)
Don't support China
To the Editor:
My son recently received advertising from the University of Pennsylvania Computer Connection. It promoted Dell, Apple and IBM ThinkPad laptops.
IBM recently sold its IBM ThinkPad laptop product line to a company called Lenovo. Lenovo is a company whose majority shareholder is the Chinese Communist government.
In an attempt to avoid purchasing products made by an oppressive communist regime, I looked at Dell laptops. Dell has a very interesting Web site, which prominently displays the American flag. Being suckered in by an example of corporate mendacity, I ordered from Dell. When the big day arrived and I began unpacking the newly shipped laptop, I was dismayed to discover that the computer had, in fact, been made in Malaysia. In addition, several peripherals had been made in China. As you know, there has recently been a huge Dell laptop battery recall. Having checked my Dell battery, I discovered that it was assembled in China.
Apple has recently announced a battery recall. I wonder where those batteries were made.
In any event, I strenuously object to the University of Pennsylvania colluding with the Communist Chinese government to sell it's products. Why not just donate money directly to the Communist Chinese military? The Communist Chinese government is a totalitarian dictatorship. It oppresses its people. It outlaws democracy. It disallows freedom of speech and religion.
Several years ago, college campuses and university policies were firmly directed against apartheid. There were demands for the University to terminate any investments directly or indirectly related to companies doing business with South Africa.
The same should be true of Communist China. Why are we doing business with an oppressive regime? Why is there not an outcry among the Penn Community to boycott Chinese products, including laptop computers, until the Chinese government frees its people?
Penn's Computer Connection should stop selling IBM ThinkPads and refuse to buy Dell components made in nondemocratic countries. It should also carefully investigate other computer companies to carefully select products that are not manufactured by the governments of oppressed peoples.
A school founded by Benjamin Franklin - one of the founders of modern democracy - and where the first electronic, digital computer was constructed should be at the forefront of this issue.
I challenge the Penn community to do what is right.
(09/08/06 9:00am)
Barbaro coverage
(03/06/01 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I am writing to condemn the article in Thursday's 34th Street ("Spare change," 2/1/01) that tacitly condoned giving money to panhandlers and portrayed "James" in a sympathetic and favorable light.
While a large number of homeless are mentally ill and therefore not altogether responsible for their actions, James is just the type of person who is hurt most when people give money to panhandlers. This activity is illegal for a reason. It is not only bothersome, but it keeps panhandlers on the street instead of seeking support from social services and shelters.
As James says, "There's some help around, with the government... I just got to get to it."
He will never get to it if he continues to receive handouts on the street.
James did not move to Philadelphia eight months ago. I have been a student at Penn for four years, and he has been around since I got here. He likes to frequent the food trucks around Gimbel Gym where he earns a decent living from the generosity of the Penn community.
The fact that homelessness and poverty thrive in the world's wealthiest nation is abominable. And James is right that probably most people "have enough to spare a little change."
If this is the case, those people should make charitable contributions where they are most effective, to the types of institutions that combat homelessness and poverty, where people in James' situation can find a bed and a hot meal -- instead of directly into the hands of people who are often drug and alcohol abusers.
(03/01/01 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In George W. Bush'sÿfirst address to Congress last night, he outlined his proposed budget,ÿhighlighting the $1.6 trillion tax cut over ten years. In addition, the president spoke of increasing investment in education, law enforcement, Social Security, Medicare,ÿmilitary salaries, spending $2 trillion for debt reduction and leaving another $1 trillion aside as a contingency fund. It's interesting, our new President sounds like a Democratÿ-- tax and spend, spend and tax.
While some Americans want a tax cut, most want the money spent on other priorities. What Bush said in his address last night is that we can have it all. Unfortunately there just isn't enough money. Even with the most conservative budget surplus projections and a booming economy -- like that of the past six years -- it would still be difficult to even balance the budget over the next 10 years. We went down this road in 1981 with Ronald Reagan and fell into record deficits -- must we do it again?
The president says that everyone's priorities are his priorities, but it is now time to be fiscally responsible. So Bush must chose between his tax cut, which would add up to $2 trillion over 10 years once interest is calculated in, andÿpaying down the national debt coupled with increases inÿsocial programs such as education. Unfortunately, at the stroke of midnight, Bush will most likely choose his tax cut and turn back into a Republican.
(12/06/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In his column, "Building a university beyond the Ivy walls," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 12/5/00) Enrique Landa made it sound as if educational programs offered on the Internet would soon be the death of the university as we know it.
I think he ignored a very important aspect of a university: the education derived from our peers and the learning experience of living with them.
Yes, I can read Shakespeare in the cozy corner of my room, but my understanding of his work will be very narrow without the input of teachers and the other students in my class. Many students at Penn share their ideas on life, academia and culture during late night conversations, group homework sessions, forums like the DP and by asking questions during class.
These are all integral parts of an education. When most undergrads come out into the workforce, what is expected of them is not necessarily a thorough knowledge of ABC 101, but the skills developed through four years of interaction within an academic community.
I felt that Landa's column completely ignored this. While the Internet is certainly a useful tool in providing educational access to those who cannot travel, it will never replace today's institutions of higher learning because what they exemplify is a community of scholars who learn not only from their texts, but also from their fellow scholars.
(12/05/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In his column, "Building a university beyond the Ivy walls," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 12/5/00) Enrique Landa made it sound as if educational programs offered on the Internet would soon be the death of the university as we know it.
I think he ignored a very important aspect of a university: the education derived from our peers and the learning experience of living with them.
Yes, I can read Shakespeare in the cozy corner of my room, but my understanding of his work will be very narrow without the input of teachers and the other students in my class. Many students at Penn share their ideas on life, academia and culture during late night conversations, group homework sessions, forums like the DP and by asking questions during class.
These are all integral parts of an education. When most undergrads come out into the workforce, what is expected of them is not necessarily a thorough knowledge of ABC 101, but the skills developed through four years of interaction within an academic community.
I felt that Landa's column completely ignored this. While the Internet is certainly a useful tool in providing educational access to those who cannot travel, it will never replace today's institutions of higher learning because what they exemplify is a community of scholars who learn not only from their texts, but also from their fellow scholars.
(12/05/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
In her recent column "Don't tell me. I don't want to know," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/29/00) Ariel Horn writes about the dangers of gushing personal information about oneself to those who might not care. While this idea has its merits -- in such cases as bare-breasted table dancers -- the problem on this campus is not so much excessive self-expression, but rather our general adversity toward it.
We walk around campus and categorize peers as mere classmates, study partners, social friends or intimate friends -- and limit both the amount of influence we allow them to have on our lives, and the amount about them we're willing to accept that strays out of those categories.
It's quite pessimistic to see another's self-expression as our own excess baggage. Are we so self-involved and fragile that we cannot deal with hearing what another yet undiscovered person has on his or her plate?
There is something wonderful about each and every person on this campus, something that isn't usually expressed outwardly.
Listening to others with gritted teeth and rolled eyes, as Horn suggests, would be a step up from complete insensitivity, but still just the lowest form of charity.
Listening with an open mind and benefit of doubt is the least one can do. But that listening, as well as anticipating the gift of another's self-expression, could defeat the common current of cynicism and acknowledging one of the miracles of human communication.
(12/01/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
As a lover of rare books, I applaud Enrique Landa's efforts to encourage his fellow students to visit Penn's rare books collection ("Finding treasures in Van Pelt," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/21/00). I must take issue, however, with one of his assertions in the editorial: that the Haggadah and Milton's Paradise Lost have "little in common."
While this may seem a small matter, I believe an essential part of the appreciation of rare books, and of all books, is an awareness of the deep connections shared by much of literature, sacred or secular.
Aside from their obvious common status as priceless books, the two works share many common attributes. Paradise Lost and the Haggadah are deemed by many to be essential reading in their respective milieux. Both works have origins in one of the books of the Pentateuch, or Torah -- Paradise Lost in Genesis, the Haggadah in Exodus. Each commemorates humans passing -- or failing -- a trial, and each imparts a key event in the story of two faiths with common origins.
And perhaps most importantly, both works reflect the struggle to understand the human relationship with the figure of God.
(11/30/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
After reading the article "Race issues divide men in blue," (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/17/00) I realized the dark cloud of controversy had once again appeared over our department as a result of disgruntled employees, former and current. And what good timing, during Unity Week and the search for a new vice president for Public Safety in which Chief Rush is a viable candidate.
Well, once again, you are being used by people who refuse to accept the consequences of their actions and instead claim discrimination or hide behind anonymity.
When the author of the article came to our department, she said that she was doing an article on "law enforcement from a minority perspective." She was provided with a list of officers on various shifts and in various divisions.
Several officers that I supervise said after being interviewed that they felt the author was looking for only negative statements about the department. Some were upset because after making time for the interview, their statements, most of which were positive, were not printed. They were also upset, as was I, by the fact that what was reported occurred in the past. I refer to the article as regurgitated dirty laundry.
Former Penn Police officers who filed discrimination complaints are people who often refuse to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences for the same. I also think of past complaints that may or may not have been substantiated and they are viewed as a way into the "deep pockets" of the University for an easy settlement.
It appears that only ethnic officers were interviewed for this article, as opposed to minorities. With that said, I will tell you that as a female -- a minority, last I checked -- in the sergeant capacity, I make decisions every day that affect the officers, the department and the community. These decisions, whether positive or negative, reflect upon the department as a whole. To say that these decisions are not important is an insult and shows ignorance on the part of officers who think otherwise.
The so-called "growing problems" the anonymous officer alludes to may have been evident in the past, but the department of today reflects quite a difference.
As far as Chief Rush being the problem, I don't see it. Maureen Rush has done more for the development of minorities in this department than any past director, commissioner or chief. If there is any preferential treatment on her part, it is towards those people who go above the normal standards to do their job.
I was disappointed in the article considering the fact that it was Unity Week. I think our department has made significant steps to prevent offensive behavior, harassment and discrimination toward fellow employees and those we serve. For those who have problems of this nature, it is important that they come forward and have the issue addressed and corrected. No one wins when such allegations are made in the form of anonymous statements to someone who is looking for sensationalism.
(11/29/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I'd like to take a moment to address the issues raised by Alex Hurst ("P2B not a high-tech utopia," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/20/00). I appreciate Alex's opinion, but in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I'd like to comment on some of his points.
* Alex is correct that the University "is already rich in entrepreneurial resources," However, P2B and PenNetWorks in particular will serve as an additional outlet for entrepreneurs. It is well documented that successful entrepreneurial hotbeds throughout the country have a critical mass of new companies and support organizations that contribute to the viability of the technology community.
* The incubator model has taken some lumps recently, but a number are thriving despite current market conditions. PenNetWorks is well positioned for success, not because we have a "shiny building," but due to the network in place to support entrepreneurs. We have access to the entire University infrastructure, Redleaf's substantial network and support from world-renowned sponsors.
* Alex discusses the University's motivation behind this initiative. He states that Penn will "cash in on the technology boom with little downside" and that "the entrepreneur assumes all the real risk." The University has already invested in putting together the PenNetWorks facility. Redleaf has devoted almost $1 million to the facility. In fact, if an entrepreneur is admitted, Redleaf provides pre-seed capital as a loan to the entrepreneur. The loan converts into equity upon successful graduation. If the entrepreneur does not graduate, the loan disappears. The entrepreneur is never obligated to pay it back.
* The University's primary motivations behind this initiative are economic development and the provision of resources to students, faculty and staff in order to prevent "brain drain." The administration wants to keep the entrepreneurial talent in our area. Penn will hold no position in, and reap no benefit from, any student-related business.
* Finally, Alex is right: P2B does not guarantee success. Entrepreneurs should explore all options carefully and assess the risks and rewards. However, we feel that our help will maximize an entrepreneur's chance for success and that we can all benefit.
Obviously Alex thinks we're doing something right. He's co-CEO of a company that has recently applied for admission to PenNetWorks.
(11/22/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
I am happy to report that construction of the Penn-assisted pre-K-8 school in University City is not "plagued by delays," contrary to the story that ran yesterday ("Delays plague pre-K-8 school," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/21/00). The project is moving steadily ahead, and groundbreaking is not far off.
There is no change in the plan to enroll several initial sections of kindergarten and first grade next fall, and we eagerly look forward to the school opening its doors.
(11/21/00 10:00am)
To the Editor:
On behalf of the University Honor Council, I would like to commend Ariel Horn for her column ("No bang for the buck," Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/15/00) exposing the inadequacies of term-paper mills.
She makes a good case these papers offer superficial analysis, if any, and are generally substantively void. A rational thinker would be led to the conclusion that it's probably not a great idea to turn in one of these papers and expect to do well in a class. So, from a consumer's standpoint, that information is appreciated.
Ms. Horn makes another good point: the danger of plagiarism. And plagiarism is one of the six or seven deadly sins of an academic institution.
She also notes that professors are taking academic integrity quite seriously these days; I agree. In my few years serving the UHC, I have seen an increase in faculty engagement in these issues, as well as a growing reliance on technology to detect cheating. This goes to show that these term-paper mills are a prime example of why these short cuts can leave you with a higher price to pay than $5 to $14.95 per page.
