Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(02/20/96 10:00am)
Nicole Maloy says picking up after ourselves and our peers is the key to keeping campus presentable. I find this last argument funny because Robbins is a residential advisor in the Quadrangle -- a bastion of cleanliness and responsibility, as we all know. What can anyone, including Residential Living, do? Assign someone to follow every student around with a pooper scooper and a dustpan? Unless the University will pay for a live-in cleaning staff in each dorm to make sure there's never a mess, someone's going to have to stop making one. Has anyone seen the kind of crap people leave lying around, even in their own residences? Pizza boxes with food still in them, cans leaking soda and glass bottles on heating vents are a norm, and someone dares to complain about rats and roaches? I thought they were invited. Those who leave messes in other people's residences leave me speechless. Hopefully they were raised by wolves; if not, there is still no excuse for their behavior, and they should go back to where they came from, where such behavior is obviously acceptable. Look around your classrooms. When people eat or drink in class or in study areas, I don't care -- gum chomping is far more annoying -- but what about when they're done? Are the paper plates, foil wrappers and Philadelphia cream cheese packages supposed to melt away? Someone seems to think so, because every day I see that garbage on the floor and even right on tables and desks. "Well, maybe," I think to myself, "they were so engrossed in the subject matter that they just forgot to take this with them. Maybe they just picked up the coat and the book bag and just didn't see this still here. Maybe?" Maybe they're a bunch of lazy slobs. Some are probably stupid (read: "I'm gonna leave this right here! That's what I'm gonna do! Huh huh huh!") but others are probably spoiled, or rude, or just oblivious. Whatever they may be, they each chose to bring something in, and they each left without taking it back out with them. So? So, to anyone who has ever commented on the appearance of this campus, to anyone who wants more recycling options, to anyone who would like to sit down without worrying about crumbs and butter smears on tables and desks, you owe it to your words, your thoughts and everyone here (including yourselves) to throw away the trash you generate. If you bring a paper plate to class, take it out. Better yet, why not place it in one of the conveniently located trash receptacles at each exit? Why do you think they're located there? Perhaps because someone is banking on the fact that you'll eventually leave the room. However, they're also assuming that you will pick up your trash and have it with you at that time. I know everyone can pick up his or her garbage, if only to carry it where he or she is already going. And if you really become inspired, there are bins around campus for aluminum cans, glass, paper and plastic, some even located inside classroom buildings and residences. Freshmen, please get into this habit now. Spring is coming, and with it, The First Nice Day of the Year. I don't want you to wait until That Day to find out how bad it can get. As the sun sets, you will see the chaos that always overtakes College Green. At midday, it's 65 degrees, people in shorts are eating lunches by the Peace Sign, music is playing and the campus is alive. But picture it a little cooler and a little darker, and you'll see the Green covered with crap. Trash is everywhere, completely blanketing the grass. I cannot believe that the lunch-eaters and the frisbee-players and the DP-readers couldn't carry any of their stuff to a trash can. Even if the closest one was full, I don't care. It looks absolutely sad, it's embarrassing -- and you can ask anyone who's been here if I'm right. If you think I'm some environmentalist granola eater -- well, I happen to think granola is very tasty. Besides, it takes much less effort to take garbage to cans and recycling bins than it does to take the original items to class or to the Green; by the time it's garbage it is smaller, weighs less and can fit in your bag or backpack (or hands!) easily for the trip to the nearest receptacle. Recently I sat down in class near an empty potato chip bag. A classmate sat down next to me, in front of the bag, and pushed it over as if to say "Your garbage, your responsibility." Understanding this, I said simply, "That's not mine." "Oh," he said, and smiled. "Sorry." "No problem," I replied. It wasn't. He could have pushed it to the other side, where it probably would have stayed for the day, a distraction and an invitation for Wild Kingdom in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall. Instead, my classmate politely did the opposite. I could have been offended and made a scene, but honestly, is it hard to believe someone would push garbage over to the seat next to him or her and leave it there? No. It could have been mine, and he deserves respect because he didn't ignore it. My classmate's behavior is a start. Until students hold themselves and one another responsible for the cleanliness of our residences and our classrooms and our campus as a whole, none of us has the right to complain. And yes, administratively, more could be done. And you know what else? We could do more, too. Half of the problem is that we're not. Who is making the mess? That is the question. We have immediate control over what we do, not over what anyone else does. Our primary focus, therefore, should be on making sure we are doing something to remedy the problems about which we complain, whatever they may be. In the meantime, out of respect for all the other people who live near you, go to class near you and share a campus with you, please. Do your part to keep it clean.
(02/15/96 10:00am)
Emily Gold and Stephen Kernaghan know first-hand about the current flawed state of public education in America. They want to fix it before it's too late. People often say that the problems our country faces could be solved if only bright young people went into education. But our educational system has much deeper problems than the quality of teachers or even the commitment of parents. The dilemmas are nationwide and diverse, and they stem from the commitment our society as a whole has yet to develop toward education. One of the things teachers most consistently face is huge class size. In the classroom where I student teach, just outside of West Philadelphia, there are approximately 30 students in each class. Each class meets for 225 minutes per week, so each teacher dedicates an average of 7.5 minutes a week to each child -- less time than most people spend cleaning their contact lenses. And this is a good school district. I'd never realized how truly bad things were until Steve, one of my students, began to comment on how much it bothered him. I decided something definitely needed to be said. However, I am not the one to say it. What follows is a commentary on a scarcely recognized problem in our educational system from the voice of a person best qualified to speak on it -- one of its products. I have been in school for many years, and in the scientific world if you have spent nine years on one subject you are considered an expert, so I consider myself a expert on school. I have made an amazing discovery during my years in school: there are way too many kids in our public school systems today. If I remember correctly, when I was in kindergarten, all I had to do was scream to get the teacher's attention. But that doesn't cut it anymore -- trust me, I've tried. Back then there were smaller classes with fewer children. Nowadays, I have to raise my hand, but usually the teachers are attending to someone else. This annoys me because half the time they're dealing with a kid who could care less about school, let alone about anybody else's experiences at school. A good example is gym class. Knowledge of gym is not needed when you get out of school, unless you are planning to be a gym teacher, which I don't suggest. But the school makes you take it anyway, so twice a week I trudge off to gym, to get thrown onto walls by kids ten times bigger than I. The only reason the teacher does not see this is because she's dealing with someone else. Some people consider me an above average student because I grasp and understand things things quicker than other kids do, which is no problem outside of the classroom. But inside the classroom it is. Let's say the teacher is teaching at an average speed and an average level. This presents a problem for the above-average student, who has already grasped the concept and now wants to move on. During the time that the class is reviewing, the above-average student is deprived of a chance to learn more. Having too many students in the classroom also presents a problem for the slower student who hasn't yet grasped various concepts; the teacher moves on before he or she fully understands them. This deprives the student of the time he or she needs to become comfortable with new ideas. When I was in seventh grade, I had a math teacher who yelled at us constantly because we spent several weeks on one area. It took so long because it was a hard concept, and not everyone understood it; I didn't understand it either. But my teacher didn't understand this, and it gave her another reason to yell -- and man, could she yell! In my health class, which is taught by gym teachers, there are 40 children in one classroom with one teacher. This really annoys me because now I can never ask a question, unless I scream until I get sent to the principal's office. Also, if the teacher is paying attention to one student, this leaves 39 other students to spit spitballs, which is fine as long as they're not at me. Although this column was written in good humor, overcrowding in public school classrooms is a very important issue. So please take notice, because one day your son or daughter could be writing this. Perhaps Steve will find a way to change things.
(11/10/95 10:00am)
It's not everyday that Egypt's President Mubarak and Jordan's King Hussein gather with thousands of tearful Israelis in Jerusalem. Monday's burial of a fallen hero offered the world a brief glimpse of Yitzhak Rabin's dream for peace in the Middle East, and a glorious display of the progress that has been made. There were heartfelt eulogies by heads of state that tried to capture the essence of Rabin, but these are ultimately mere stabs at thin air -- his work is unfinished. In the aftermath of the shock and sorrow comes a gust of uncertainty, bringing with it questions without answers and unspoken anxiety. I, as an Israeli-born Jew, feel the intensity of the moment, but I struggle to relate to either Israelis or Americans -- my identity remains ambiguous. Having been born in Israel, but raised by two Israeli parents mostly in New York, has left me feeling as if I am neither fully an Israeli nor fully a part of American Jewry. During the past few years of my quest to better define who I am, I have adopted the peace movement as the mortar that holds me together. Consequently, Rabin has symbolized this synthesis of my Jewish American side with my Israeli roots, and as I struggle to reconcile his death, I realize that a part of me is gone forever. The two worlds, once united by a fragile hope for peace, have now been wrested apart -- leaving me pained and confused. This pain comes from a familial and emotional attachment to a country characterized by its precarious existence, but defined by its relentless determination and historical-religious connection. Both sets my of grandparents moved to Israel in the years that followed World War II, making aliyah from Poland and Iraq. Their children were all raised in Israel, my father having served as a doctor on the front lines in the Yom Kippur War (1973). My uncles both served in the army, fighting in the Six Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War. I was born in Tel Aviv, lived there until the age of four, and have visited my friends and family there almost every other year since I left for America. Rabin's contributions to the state of Israel cannot be confined to a mere list. Rather, they have shaped both the physical and political character of the country, and have ranged from the most astounding military feats to the previously unthinkable peace accords. He served as a deputy commander in the 1948 War of Independence, and as the chief-of-staff in the Six Day War of 1967. In this war, Rabin commanded one of the most impressive military victories of our time, defeating the Arab world while being severely outnumbered. The nature of Rabin as a politician is one that is unfamiliar to Americans. Rather than being concerned with approval ratings and polls, Rabin spoke his mind, often telling people the opposite of what they wanted to hear. To this day, my mother speaks of Rabin's 1976 diatribe against the many Israelis who had been emigrating to the U.S. His image was a combination a deep monotone voice and severe facial expressions with an Israeli machismo characterized by his frequent cigarette smoking and his predilection for whiskey. Yet today, Israelis, Jews and people all over the world remember Rabin for his vision of peace. There have been other great military heroes in Israel's short, but tempestuous, history, but Rabin stands apart as a man who used his invaluable exposure to the horrors of war and terrorism to go forward. He stood firm, amidst a barrage of criticism and doubt, for the noblest of mankind's goals -- peace. He was, and will forever be, the symbol of Israel's peace movement. It is Rabin's symbolic existence and the emotional attachment of the people of Israel to him that emphasizes a stark difference between Israeli and American cultures. It is extremely difficult for me to explain to many of my friends why this peace movement means so much to so many Israelis, and why it encompasses so much of our lives. In the aftermath of the assassination, televisions were flooded with images of grown men and women weeping uncontrollably for the fallen statesman. It was as if, heaven forbid, they had all lost their own family members. One would be hard pressed to suggest any remote parallel in America today. Americans do not have such ties to their political leaders, as they have become increasingly cynical of politicians motives and skeptical of their abilities. While, Rabin obviously had his share of doubters and detractors, he unquestionably stood for a movement, something no one in America has done for a long time. Perhaps the closest recent parallel was Martin Luther King, Jr. His unfortunate assassination had a gut wrenching effect on the American public, as his death marked the beginning of the end of the civil rights movement. What was left in its aftermath was separatism and schisms, that are still being repaired. I fear that Rabin's death may have a similar effect on the movement for peace. Rabin was the only man who could sell the idea of "land for peace" to the Israeli public. He was regarded as a man of the people, as he evoked a sense of purpose and trust due to his combination of military prowess and political acumen. His war record places Rabin in a class above virtually all others, as in 1967, he commanded the forces that conquered East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. These accomplishments gave Rabin an aura of credibility as Israelis, and Jews around the world, were given reason to trust that Rabin knew what he was doing. Even though my expectations are deflated, I have not given up on Rabin's dream. If anything, I feel an added burden to fight for peace and make the world a more humane place. As I try to make sense of the past couple of days' events, President Clinton's words keep ringing in my head, "Shalom Chaver, Good-bye friend." Indeed Rabin will be missed, Shalom Geebor -- Good-bye hero -- and may G-d take your soul to a better place.
(11/08/95 10:00am)
Ignorant'ig-n(e-)rent adj 1 a: destitute of knowledge or education, an (ignorant) society; also: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence 2: UNAWARE, UNINFORMED. On Wednesday evening, at around 11:30 p.m., a group of black students were congregated in Superblock. Among this group were Zeta Phi Beta sisters who were celebrating after "crossing the line," a term use to describe their initiation. A few ignorant individuals (and, I am using the term in the strictest sense of the word), after yelling "shut-up" from the top of High Rise North, proceeded to throw water balloons and firecrackers down on the students. I would enjoy meeting the individuals responsible for Wednesday's display of blatant ignorance. Did you think your actions were amusing? What did you expect to accomplish as you proceeded to strike the match you used to light the firecrackers? In that one split second when you had the chance to blow out that match, did your conscience make you think, even for one second, that you were unjustified? I can list thousands of questions I have for you, but I know that none of them will be answered. The reason, simply, is that you are cowards. You obviously do not have enough respect for yourself to give a damn about the feelings of other individuals. I cannot offer an explanation for your actions, but I can tell you what you accomplished Wednesday night. You managed to instill anger and hatred within every individual present, including myself. You also managed to demonstrate how the racial tensions that are rampant throughout the nation do not stop at the gates of Penn. Your actions demonstrate how bleak our future is if Penn students are indeed the leaders of tomorrow. Your hateful display of ignorance offended every individual present because of its racial overtones. Stunned and angered by the actions of these (obviously "uneducated") individuals, I could list hundreds of adjectives describing how I feel about them. I could also list numerous adjectives describing what I think of their parents and the society that bred hatred and racism into their consciousness. However, I do not want to use language that would bring me down to the level of ignorance demonstrated by these individuals on Wednesday. I do not believe that anyone on campus can deny that this was a racial incident. My apartment faces a row of white (not the paint color) fraternity houses. Despite the constant noise, fighting, and drunken shouting that radiates from these frats, I have never witnessed anyone "protesting" the noise by throwing firecrackers at the individuals below. However, when a group of Zeta Phi Beta sisters gather to celebrate a society which ties them to their cultural heritage and identity, they are chastised. Penn, a school which seemingly prides itself on cultural diversity and widespread acceptance of this diversity, is obviously not succeeding in its quest for "political correctness." Minority students are often treated as "tokens," and are exploited by universities to make their minority statistics look impressive. Minority students have to establish themselves as equal members of a community of scholars, and not as "token guests." These students have to prove themselves and their "worth" according to the standards set by a white dominated society. However, many educated minorities are often labeled as "sell-outs" by representative individuals of their heritage when they attempt to integrate into this society. Minority students must also prove themselves to their own race, and are consequently torn between two conflicting worlds. Presently, it seems that there is no "happy medium" which is tolerable for the individual and, at the same time, is acceptable to both worlds. Human beings are essentially individuals with different ideas and rationales. These differences often make it impossible for certain people to get along. But a biased hatred for an entire race of individuals based on stereotypes and ill-feelings, cannot be justified along the lines of these individual differences. Acting on these biases and physically endangering other individuals because of these differences demonstrates more than simple ignorance. No apologies can right the wrong that was committed by those individuals in High Rise North. No workshops, letters, articles or seminars can change the impact the ignorant actions of these individuals had on their victims. As a silent observer, I know that I will never forget the anger and hatred I felt as I witnessed the event. Derogatory terms such as "cracker" and "nigger" stem from both ignorance and the inability of most people to accept people different from themselves. I did not invent these terms, and I do not condone the use of them to describe individuals who are "white" or "black." Their presence in our vocabulary is as real as the presence of racism in our society. Many people believe that if you ignore a problem, it will simply go away. I strongly disagree with this statement, and I hope that the individuals who were involved in this incident are forced to face consequences for their actions.
(11/01/95 10:00am)
From Scott Mulhauser's "On The ball," Fall '95 These words from my parents rung in my ears two and a half years ago as I watched them drive back home, leaving me and everything I own to start life anew here at Penn. Well, Mom and Dad, this year at the Palestra, standing will not be an option. Throughout my young life, I have learned that if I feel strongly about something, I should take a stand. Standing up is both literally and figuratively a gesture of commitment, respect and importance. On issues of vital concern (and also many trivial ones), I take pride in standing for what I believe. Standing is a sign of honor. It demonstrates that whatever compels you to rise commands a certain dignity for which sitting is not fit. Standing has come to be associated with many events of great importance and pride. I have risen for countless momentous events, from the daily pledge of allegiance in elementary school to court appearances to weddings. I stand in synagogue and I stood at commencement. I stand for the Star-Spangled Banner before every sporting event and for the Red and the Blue following every Penn game. I enjoy standing. In fact, I am standing right now. Now I'm sitting again. During those same sporting events, I often times jump up during heightened moments of action. For a big dunk, a touchdown run or a close play at the plate I can usually be found standing, having jumped out of my seat along with the rest of the crowd to express my pleasure or disbelief over a dramatic event, ridiculous call or idiotic decision. At the Palestra, standing has become a tradition. Students stand throughout the game as a gesture of their support for the Penn basketball team. While standing for the entire game is occasionally tiresome, it seems little effort in comparison to that exerted by the players on the court. As I grow weary towards the end of the game, so, too, do Ira Bowman, Tim Krug and the rest of the Quakers. Standing is my own gesture of support, hopefully in some little way willing the Quakers to victory. The powers that be in the Penn athletic department have determined that those students in the best available seats will be unable to stand throughout the entire game this season. Complaints from alumni in adjoining sections who cannot see the entire court have caused Athletic Director Steve Bilsky to institute this policy. When students stand in sections 115, 116 and 215, alumni and other fans sitting in 114 and 214 have part of their court vision blocked and therefore must stand as well. Does the Athletic Department not realize the dedicated student body committed to their basketball team? Many of these students, demonstrating their love for Penn hoops, have camped out for three days to get seats and will attend every game. Each game these fans demonstrate their support by painting their faces, cheering until they grow hoarse, wearing loads of Penn paraphernalia, and, most obviously, by standing for the entire game.
(10/20/95 9:00am)
Rogers, Schorr and Foldesi have placed personal gain and a private agenda over the real facts surrounding the IAA. These UA members have committed numerous violations of the UA Constitution and Student Activities Council guidelines, and in doing so have abused their position of trust as elected representatives of the student body. In addition, they have instigated unwarranted attacks on the IAA and me personally; these attacks have appeared in The Daily Pennsylvanian, on UTV, in the UA newsgroup and most disturbingly, in the conversation I will detail in this column. From the beginning, Schorr has used the audit as a vehicle for personal gain as opposed to a search for truth. Instead of entering the situation from a truly impartial perspective, he has articulated a position of preconceived guilt without evidence. In fact he told the DP (10/5/95), "[I] think it is common knowledge that a lot of SAC groups do not spend money on what it is allocated for, and somebody has to see that that doesn't happen." He also said that the UA Budget Committee is going after the IAA because "it has one of the largest budgets." Although Schorr entered this investigation with questionable motives, I felt as a concerned and active student and as a member of the IAA, I should talk to him. While working in the Steinberg-Dietrich computer labs early Monday morning Oct. 9, I ran into Schorr. During our hour and a half discussion, Schorr stated that his intent was pure, and that he purported to merely want to find the truth. He added that we were not going to be the only group audited, rather we were just the first in a series of SAC groups to go through this process. He also stated that he went to the DP to get publicity for his investigation. Schorr added that he had heard some rumors regarding financial impropriety, which he was unable to substantiate when I pressed him for specific details. Although I asked him numerous tough questions (such as why he failed to go through the proper channels), I was reasonably secure that he had no ulterior motive. I thanked him for the time spent discussing the issues with me and then we both returned to our work. To even further demonstrate the cordial terms I had with Steve at the time, I even assisted him in a question he had on his paper and the technical difficulties he had at that time with the lab's printer. There is no way this seemingly amicable conversation could have prepared me for the shocking schemings I overheard between Schorr, Foldesi and Rogers a scant 12 hours later. Later that evening, I joined Jamie Hine for dinner at the Class of 1920 Commons. Moments after we sat down, we realized that UA members Rogers, Schorr and Foldesi, were sitting at the table behind us discussing the IAA audit in loud voices. Schorr led the attack by stating the true goal of the audit was "to screw over the IAA." Schorr then stated that their objective was to get the IAA "derecognized, defunded and suspended from SAC for at least one year." Schorr made reference to the conversation we had earlier that same morning. Rogers responded by warning Schorr to be wary of Steven Ebert and stated, "don't let the IAA slip through your hands." Foldesi joined in by making numerous childishly insulting remarks about my intelligence and abilities. Rogers concluded that "Steven Ebert might try to pull something. He might get his Jew Hillel friends and make it an anti-Semitic issue." At this point, I was fuming. If not for the intervention of Jamie Hine, I am not sure how I would have responded to such outright slander. I refrained from committing anything rash and walked away from the dinner table. I spent the remainder of dinner calming myself down and thinking about the dinner conversation. At the time, I could not understand why Rogers, Schorr and Foldesi would make such outrageous statements. I decided at that moment not to confront Rogers, Schorr and Foldesi until I had the opportunity to make this incident public knowledge. Minutes later, I even ran into the three UA members as they prepared to exit the Commons and decided not to bring up the issue. They continued their false front of friendliness despite their most recent conversation. As they exited, I realized that they had no clue that both Jamie and I overheard their entire conversation. From that moment forward, my faith in these UA members and in the integrity of the UA Budget Committee has been completely lost. Schorr and Foldesi make up two-thirds of the auditing body. Furthermore, UA Chairperson Lance Rogers is able to interpret the UA Constitution to suit their needs. At this time, we requested that SAC Finance -- the unquestioned body responsible for performing audits -- to audit the IAA. Rogers', Schorr's and Foldesi's comments clearly elucidate the unethical intent of two-thirds of the UA Budget Committee. Coupled with the UA chairperson's obliging attitude, these comments seriously question whether the IAA can get a fair and honest appraisal of the club's financial practices and organization. What is the real motivation behind the audit? The motivation cannot be oversight because the Office of Student Life must sign for every check issued to any SAC club anyway. Thus, the Schorr-Foldesi audit implies that OSL is incompetent or unethical in its handling of disbursements to SAC funded activities. Is it because there can be a legitimate suspicion of the competence of SAC Finance? The answer is clearly no. Although both Schorr and Foldesi are on SAC Finance, they mentioned neither an inkling of financial misconduct nor did they speak of any forthcoming UA Budget Committee audit during any SAC Finance proceedings. Is this audit a noble search for truth? Absolutely not. Any individual Penn student can go to the OSL and examine the financial records of any SAC funded group. A public audit, centered around unspecified and unsubstantiated rumors and conducted outside the boundaries of our student government's constitution clearly must have other motivations. Then why the audit? Last year, Dan Schorr, Mike Nadel and Lance Rogers were the primary force behind the referendum to change student government. Their proposed plan centered around a reconstituted UA that would oversee the funding of every student organization. It failed miserably. Having failed in their attempt to force SAC under their power, Steve Schorr, Lance Rogers and Tom Foldesi are trying a backdoor route. If these UA members exploit their positions of trust and power to bully the IAA, they could initiate a reign of terror that undermines the independence of SAC, and will allow them to control the amount of funding given to more than 150 campus groups. The unprecedented and unjustified UA audit of the International Affairs Association represents a clear and present danger to all SAC funded campus organizations. The flagrant disregard Schorr, Rogers and Foldesi have shown for ethics and the regulations of student government demonstrate the true nature of this tyrannical threesome. By standing up against the illegitimacy of this improper audit, and the conduct of these three UA members, the IAA is sending a message to the entire Penn campus. Not only is the IAA innocent of any financial impropriety, but it is at the forefront of the battle to defend the integrity of all student organizations from the abuse of power. Stand up for your rights, don't let this happen to you!
(07/20/95 9:00am)
My sister just got married. Which means that I now own a very ugly, very expensive dress that I will never wear again unless they make another sequel to "The Addamms Family.8 It also means my family is growing up. I have the unique honor of having been raised since I was ten, by my aunt and uncle. This means I have had the chance to not only have one sisters but two other siblings in the forms of my cousins. And we're all growing up. A few weeks agog Gabe went to the prom. Seth, whose diapers I changed, just graduated from elementary school. I was Sethts age when I came to live with my aunt and uncle. Last month I graduated college. Andy Heatherqjust got married. Which means, she's a wife. What does all this mean? Why should you care? Because I have been hearing a lot lately about the disintegration of the American family. And I am here to remind people that just because not every home has 2.4 kids and a mom and a dad, it doesn't mean that it's not a home. These people who are growing up are my family. My aunt and uncle took me in, and their sacrifice and love goes without saying. But, my cousins, who never thought twice about allowing me into their family, deserve some credit as well. And my sister, who has always been the force backing up my every step, should be noted. We got a strong dose of what it means to be a family from two people who took a bad situation and made it beautiful. Every one of these people are my role models. The kind that all those sociologists and psychologists and lots of other -ists keep telling us we need. So, why should you care? Because, Seth is only 11, and I respect and admire him. Gabe may be a foot taller than I am, but he's only 17, and I can go to him for moral support. Heather has a job that takes up 15 hours a day, and she has time to talk to me 3 times a week. And my aunt and uncle are two of the finest human beings I've ever known. So, the reason you should care is that we all have opportunities to be like these people. Everyone has a chance to be a role model, to make a difference, despite the numbers that tell us that families no longer exist. And there is no way to know who is out there, who we are effecting. I'm sure my family doesn't realize that I tip my hat to them every day. But I do. Thatws why I try to be as decent and human as possible. Because you never know how much you may be effecting someone easers life. They" may say the family is deadJ and people only care about themselves. But ~~they~~ have never met my family, which is still going strong. And, of course, growing. Emily Gold - 387-1008 graduated CAB 12/94
(06/30/95 9:00am)
2,427 students have enrolled Jericho High School '93 Jericho, N.Y. Only 33 percent of high school applicants were accepted to the University this year, making it one of the most selective classes in recent history, according to Admissions Dean Lee Stetson. Of these, 2,427 students enrolled in the Class of 1999. But Stetson said he expects to lose approximately 100 students before September. He said students typically withdraw for three reasons-- getting taken off of waitlists at other schools, being unable to meet the financial commitment or because they want to take a year off. Regular decision applicants were accepted at a rate of 25 percent, compared to 32 percent last year. Out of the 15,050 applicants, 4,960 students were admitted, Stetson said. "This was the most challenging selection in my tenure of almost 18 years," he added. The number of admitted students climbed 25 over last year's 4,935 accepted students. The average combined Scholastic Aptitude Test score for the enrolled group was 1286 -- 686 in math and 600 in verbal. This total is 11 points higher than last year's class. The average achievement test score was up eight points to 637. And the average applicant ranked in the top three percent of his class versus four percent last year. At least one student from every state was admitted to the University, Stetson said. This includes one from Wyoming, two from both North and South Dakota and three from Montana --the states most at risk of under-representation. Despite the University's efforts, no students enrolled from either North or South Dakota, Montana or Idaho. But four students enrolled from Utah, and nine from Nevada. There will be 217 international students in the Class of 1999. This is up 46 from last year's figure. Of the students admitted, 3,256 were accepted into the College of Arts and Sciences. And 1,505 of these students sent in positive replies. Stetson projected that 1,480 of these students will enroll. Wharton accepted 607 students--up from 571 last year. Stetson attributed this increase to a stronger academic pool, making it necessary to accept more students in order to yield 380 matriculants. There were 425 students enrolled in May. The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences accepted 1,047 applicants up from 1,020 last year. Stetson said he would like to see between 360 and 380 enroll. While 419 of these students accepted, Stetson said he expects to lose some of these students to waitlists. The Nursing School, which suffered a 25 percent decrease in applications this year, accepted 108 of its applicants. Only eight of these were male. Stetson said 78 of these students have enrolled. There were 120 students accepted to the Management and Technology program, and 51 into the International Studies programs. Women will make up 49 percent of the class. Stetson said this number is equivalent to last year's, adding that in the past it has been 43 percent. The number of minorities accepted to the University dropped this year from last year's 1,911 to 1,864 -- making up 37 percent of the admitted students. Of these, 804 enrolled-- which is up from 794. While the number of enrolled black students was down nine to 145, Stetson said he expects this figure to increase by the fall due to continued recruiting efforts. The number of Asian Americans was up 12 to 524 and the number of Hispanic students increased by seven to 130. The University enrolled 120 students from Philadelphia high schools. This number is up from last year's 107.
(04/24/95 9:00am)
Each year, students discard $100,000 of other students' money. They do it as surely as if they had broken into everyone's bank account, withdrawn the money and thrown it in the trash. How do they do it? Through acts of vandalism, which cost, on average, $100,000 of the money that on-campus students pay in rent. Throughout the year, Resident Advisors write incident reports on nearly every imaginable affront to the residential facilities, ranging from chickens stuffed down toilets, to holes punched in walls, to swastikas carved in doors, to feces left in lounges. Some are disgusting, unsightly or annoying; others pointedly hurtful to other students. In the cases of incidents such as shot off fire extinguishers, smashed exit and hallway lights, pulled fire alarms and burned flyers, they are also a threat to the safety of others. All are expensive. Think of all the money that is wasted as painters, housekeepers, masons, plumbers and electricians take time to respond to all these needless incidents. Then think of all the better ways that money could have been used to enhance the residences. One year's vandalism expenditures might have been used to build a residential fitness center, another to create music practice rooms. Think of all the student programs and activities, or improved service, that $100,000 could buy. Vandalism is not only an affront to the pocketbook, but an affront to the spirit as well. It is demoralizing to live in a community that one's neighbors treat with such disrespect. Before even leaving their buildings in the morning on their way to class, students may be forced to pass: a lounge from which most of the furniture has been stolen; a hole in a corridor wall; a stairwell filled with graffiti; and elevators that have been vandalized and are out of service. These daily encounters surely accumulate to create an overall feeling of alienation and apathy towards one's living environment. Residential Maintenance is forced to buy furnishings for the residences that are as vandal-proof as possible. Rather than aiming for style and comfort, we find ourselves testing new surfaces to see how they will look after they are scribbled on or carved with knives. The University must pay more for furnishings that meet these requirements. Increasingly, we are bolting lounge furniture to the floor, and chaining televisions to the walls to prevent them from "walking" into students' rooms. Now I certainly don't expect that buildings housing hundreds of college students will be in as good condition as Buckingham Palace, but I have seen other colleges with residential lounges that are attractively and comfortably decorated and that manage to survive in that state throughout the year. What can be done? When we are able to identify the culprits, we charge them for the cost of repairing the damage (which is generally far more expensive than students would guess) and take further disciplinary action. But because our staff cannot be everywhere at all times, the culprits are rarely caught. I believe that the only way for this problem to be addressed is for students to take a strong stand on behalf of their communities. They need to intervene and demand that those who engage in this behavior stop. They need to be willing to report other students to their Resident Advisor or to the Department of Residential Living (573-DORM). Students' voices are far more effective than administrators' in letting other students know that they do not want their homes trashed and their money wasted. Join together and let other students know that you're fed up with having your money thrown out the window. Demand that you and your Penn home are treated with the respect both deserve.
(03/27/95 10:00am)
Do you want to give more power to the UA? That is what many of the "reformers" who are proposing changes to student government's structure want. Some proposals that are around seek to take the power to fund student groups out of the hands of the student groups (embodied by SAC) and give that power to the UA or some "Undergraduate Senate." This is not real reform. Real reform is changing the way that the UA is elected and operates on a daily basis. Giving the UA the power of funding student groups and doing nominations to University committees will only detract from the real job of elected student government: Lobbying the administration on behalf of students. Reform is needed on the UA, but it is electoral reform and not giving the UA more power. The function of the Undergraduate Assembly, Undergraduate Senate, or whatever the elected student government is, is not to debate endlessly about who should be on what committee or what student group deserves funding. The function is to create solid proposals to give to the administration and lobby for their implementation. Giving the UA the responsibility for funding student groups (which SAC currently does) and nominating students to University Committees (which NEC currently does) will result in even less time being spent on student advocacy. This past UA's accomplishments show that we can fulfill our mission of student advocacy only by devoting our full attention to lobbying the administration. Giving the UA additional powers will not help students feel any more in contact with their student government. Rather, it will only exacerbate the problem of the UA representatives having a "play Congress." Instead of working on student advocacy projects, the UA will spend hours debating about whether or not a student group should receive funding. It took the UA over SIX HOURS to do just FIVE BUDGETS. Imagine if it had to do over 100! It would never get anything done for the students other than merely debate. Also, several reform proposals call for the UA to do nominations. Could you imagine the UA having a "confirmation hearing" for a University committee? That is exactly what would happen if the UA were given power over nominations. The idea of taking the power of nominations out of a meritocracy-based system decided by a non-political body (the NEC) and putting it in the realm of politics and "who knows who" is sure to turn the nominations process into an "old boy's network." The worst thing that can happen is that the UA becomes more political. The funding of student groups will no longer be up to student groups to fight it out for their share of the pie. Rather, campus politicians will try and use funding issues as ways to feed their egos and increase their popularity! Nominations will no longer be a matter of who is best to serve on a University committee, but rather who has friends on the UA. There is no movement to "abolish the UA" right now, only one to replace it with an all-powerful "Undergraduate Senate" that will take the power of student funding away from student groups and the power of nominations away from a non-political body, and put it in the realm of the UA without changing the way the UA operates. The only way to really reform the UA is to change the way it is elected, not to give it more power. The other branches of student government: SCUE, SPEC, SAC, NEC, and Class Boards, all work very efficiently. There is no need to change they way the funding and nominating procedures operate right now. There is a need to reform the way the UA works. The final consideration for you should be: Do you want to give the "Undergraduate Senate" more power or do you want to really reform how elected student government works?
(02/24/95 10:00am)
In hindsight, the year 1970 was a major turning point in the environmental movement. Across the nation, citizens worked together to solve the problems which had tormented our natural habitats. On April 22, the first Earth Day was observed, involving 10,000 schools, 2,000 colleges and universities and virtually every community in the United States. This outpouring of grassroots conviction and energy led to tangible results in the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. America's collective voice was heard over the backroom protests of corporate polluters, and positives results emerged. These gains were achieved because of the democratic nature of our country, as the will of the people was heeded by our representatives, and made into law. Twenty-five years have passed, and these popular legislative reforms are now on the brink of destruction. In one quarter of a century, our nation's leaders have succeeded in stumbling backwards, shirking their democratic, ethical, and moral obligations to both their constituents and our earth. It has been said that an economist knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. That appears to be the case of our government, obsessed with the short term economic virility of big business above all other concerns. It is the practice of the business leaders in this country to focus on the quick profit, a criticism sounded many times before in an effort to explain our recent slip from international economic preeminence. Destroying our environment through the stripping of natural resources, while providing temporary raw material stimulus, will have devastating long-term effects. Coupled with this economic environmental slaughter, and embodied in the "Reagan-omics" of the 80s, comes the dismantling of the legislation created in part by Earth Day 1970. Some important facts that you might not be aware of: In the U.S., only 10 percent of old growth forests still stand. More than 50 percent of our lakes and 30 percent of our rivers are not safe for fishing, swimming, and other uses. More than 163 million Americans now live in cities which violate federal air pollution standards and over 900,000 Americans get sick every year from drinking contaminated water. Finally, the U.S. alone generates 582 billion pounds of garbage every day. These grim statistics prove that 25 years have not solved anything, and the time is ripe for actions to save our environment. It may surprise you to know that our "representatives" in Washington are on the opposite track. On second thought, that should not surprise you at all. By using the rationale of "less government," the Reagan presidency formed a concerted attack on environmental protection. Vice President Bush's regulatory reform task force led the head of the EPA, Anne Gorsuch, to ease the burdens of government regulation on business by ending "unnecessary" regulation; also, inviting the regulated industries to take part in rule-making decisions. Environmentalists' hopes of a cooperative Clinton administration have been dashed, and the crisis exacerbated with the continuation of a complete lack of national leadership on environmental protection. Already, in the interest of deregulation, legislators have begun the process of impeding the use of Federal "unfunded mandates," the vehicle of implementation for major environmental policies. Last November the voters of America swept a GOP dominated Congress into power. Led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his "Contract With America," firm ideas were laid out along with a promise for legislative action within the all-important first 100 days. As it turns out, the legislation that would turn these ideas into policy will do nothing less than dismantle environmental laws and turn the "polluter pays" concept upside down. Is this really what the American public wanted when they placed into Speaker Gingrich's hands the power of our legislature? Apparently not. Jessica Mathews, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, reports a staggering 83 percent of those who voted in the November elections describe themselves as "an environmentalist." Nearly 40 percent call themselves strong or very strong environmentalists. Among the high school educated, conservative, white males (stereotypically unsympathetic to environmental concerns) -- only 18 percent say they are not environmentalists. These figures bring to light the environmental concerns of our public, and provide a strong base from which to charge the government with not acting in the interest of the people. Keep them in mind as you continue reading. The centerpiece of the near majority, the "Contract With America," is rapidly swinging into action -- as promised. Interestingly, a survey in December found that more than 70 percent of Americans say they know nothing about the contract, and the contract -- created with detailed polling -- is specific in not mentioning the word "environment." Regardless of the devastating impact the contract is capable of inflicting upon the environment, the term is not even used once. The main offending section of this contract is the "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act." The problem, among several others, is about the definition of private property rights. First, the proposed legislation would require the Government to compensate property owners if a Federal environmental law is found to reduce the property's value by more than 10 percent. Currently, the balance that exists between neighbors and the community at large limits what one can do with private property to ensure that it does not harm the larger public's right to health, clean air and water, and safety. The contract completely dismisses this balance. It would also require 23 new sets of cost analysis before any regulation could be issued. Together, these provisions will nearly eliminate the ability to impose most regulations concerning the environment, health and safety. This shifts the cost of pollution from the polluter to the public. A majority of those who voted for Mr. Gingrich's leadership of our government did not know that the health and safety of families, communities, and a nation would be sacrificed for big business. Furthermore, they could be held financially responsible for this potentially disastrous "Contract With America." A government of the people, by the people and for the people? I think not. There is no time to spare in this environmental crisis. Our leaders in Washington must understand the urgency and necessity of continued and improved environmental protection. The short-term rape of our natural resources and the pollution of our seas will only cripple the future of our economy. Apparently Mr.Gingrich has difficulty looking past his present-day goal of appeasing the American people before 1996. Those who strove to achieve protection of America's people and natural resources in 1970 need to be supported by this generation's ability to reach even greater heights. This weekend, student leaders and environmentalists are coming together to share ideas about Earth Day events, learn more about pressing environmental issues, and receive skill training. The situation calls for action, and this conference has received it loud and clear. It is not merely the desire for some of us to improve our environment, but rather the responsibility of this generation, to guarantee that our children do not have to fight for the basic, inalienable rights of health safety and a clean earth that we are in the process of defending. The situation is too dire, the consequences are unimaginable, and the time is now. Mathews describes the issue of children's welfare, labeled "Boys Town," as reversing our government into a 19th century debate about how best to care for children. "The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act would take us back to 19th century environmental protection, which is to say, none."
(02/03/95 10:00am)
We applaud the WhartonWe applaud the WhartonSchool and the CollegeWe applaud the WhartonSchool and the Collegeof Arts and SciencesWe applaud the WhartonSchool and the Collegeof Arts and Sciencesfor allowing WhartonWe applaud the WhartonSchool and the Collegeof Arts and Sciencesfor allowing Whartonstudents to minor inWe applaud the WhartonSchool and the Collegeof Arts and Sciencesfor allowing Whartonstudents to minor inthe College.We applaud the WhartonSchool and the Collegeof Arts and Sciencesfor allowing Whartonstudents to minor inthe College._________________________ But the need for exposure to all different fields of study does not solely apply to Wharton students. College, Engineering and Nursing students should have this same luxury so that they can pursue a more diverse education as well. Wharton and the College are already working to provide College students with the same opportunities. But we urge the Engineering and Nursing schools to join Wharton and the College in a University-wide program which would allow any student from any other school to hold a minor in the school of their choice. This type of all encompassing program would provide all students with the equal opportunity to experience a wide array of academic fields and would be a perfect fit for the One University concept.
(01/30/95 10:00am)
The Student Activities Council'sThe Student Activities Council'sdecision to deny the Red and BlueThe Student Activities Council'sdecision to deny the Red and Bluefunding because it disapproves ofThe Student Activities Council'sdecision to deny the Red and Bluefunding because it disapproves ofarticles in the magazine is a formThe Student Activities Council'sdecision to deny the Red and Bluefunding because it disapproves ofarticles in the magazine is a formof censorship and cannot be tolerated.The Student Activities Council'sdecision to deny the Red and Bluefunding because it disapproves ofarticles in the magazine is a formof censorship and cannot be tolerated._____________________________________ But in its failure to fund the Red and Blue based on the content of the magazine, SAC has overstepped its bounds. SAC's justification for not funding the conservative magazine reveals blatant censorship that cannot be tolerated by an intellectual community truly in pursuit of the communication of ideas -- no matter the source. This council has control over funding on which many campus groups depend. With this financial power also comes great responsibility. And in this case, SAC members' poor judgment calls into question their ability to allocate funds without bias. SAC has a policy not to fund politically oriented groups. However, SAC ironically chose to fund Generation XX, a magazine with a liberal political stance, while denying the Red and Blue. The concern is clear: SAC tried to stymie one set of beliefs, while fostering another that is more compatible with the values of its members. This type of action not only infringes upon the right of the Red and Blue, but worse, it robs the University community of a true free flow of ideas and opinions. We urge SAC to take this issue seriously, for censorship cannot be tolerated. We encourage the Red and Blue to continue to seek funding from SAC. But even if these efforts prove fruitless, we hope the magazine's staff will continue to publish their ideas. If SAC is left with the power to determine the guidelines of campus speech, the University as a whole will lose its integrity.
(09/20/94 9:00am)
On the morning of Friday, September 16 at approximately 9:15 a.m., we were walking from the High Rises on our way to Houston Hall when the reality of police brutality revealed itself within our Ivy Fortress. While ascending the Locust Walk Bridge, we noticed a police officer at the top stepping into path of a young man on a slow-moving bike. The young man stopped and the policeman lectured. The officer's insistence on driving home his point -- that riding bikes is not allowed on the Walk between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday -- struck us as unusual. In the past, bikers would get off with a short warning to walk their bikes. Today was the first day of strict enforcement of the Locust Walk bike ban, and things would be handled much more aggressively as we would soon see. We continued on our way and a couple of minutes later the young man who had been stopped on the bridge sped past us. We could see another officer at the intersection of 37th Street and Locust Walk, and anticipated the young man being stopped once again. But the biker was riding pretty fast and showed no sign of slowing down. Couldn't he see the officer? Didn't the officer yell "STOP!"? We don't know. We didn't hear the officer yell anything and we were not that far away. Just as the biker was about to pass him, the officer turned to his left, stepped toward the biker and with both hands knocked the young man from his bike. The young man flew to the ground, his long skid slowed only by the friction between his skin and the brick walk. The bike tumbled from beneath him, landing several feet away. We were shocked, speechless, and confused. Did this really just happen? On Locust Walk? Was that actually a University Policeman? While we were both aware of the magnitude of the incident, we felt helpless. We did however, get the officer's name and badge number and the names and numbers of both the victim and another witness. Without even helping the young man up, the officer questioned and lectured him. But the officer's message of safety became lost in his own disregard for the safety of the biker. Is the life of a student on bike less valuable than that of a student on foot while occupying the main artery of our campus? The whole incident leads us to wonder if Officer Newton was aware of the severity of head injuries associated with bike accidents. Was effectively enforcing the bike ban worth risking someone's life? This was at stake in Officer Newton's split second decision, as the biker was visibly not wearing a helmet. We support the bike ban. We also support the use of helmets when biking. This column is not about the bike ban or wearing a helmet. It is about the ways in which University Police Officers choose to enforce all of the rules and regulations of this University. If one officer has the authority to use such a reckless and illegal method to prevent a student from riding his bike, we fear how he or any other officer will take it upon himself to enforce other laws. Until the University responds to this incident with the same outrage we felt when first witnessing it, we will never feel safe on our campus again. Not only do we live in fear of those who seek to hurt us, but now we must be wary of those employed to protect us. The dismissal of Officer Newton from the University Police Department as well as heightened awareness among officers of both their responsibilities and restrictions is the only acceptable response the University can take to this incident. Officer Newton's behavior was nothing short of police brutality and should be treated as such. Jennifer Manion is a junior History major from Provincetown, Massachusetts. Colleen Mastony is a junior Women's Studies and Psychology major from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Fox Chapel Area High School '93 Pittsburgh, Pa. With a revised constitution and a new executive board, the United Minorities Council is looking ahead to another year as the voice of minority students on campus. The UMC represents many campus cultural groups, including the Chinese Students Association, El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, South Asia Society and Black Student League. Other UMC organizations are the Vietnamese Students Association, Japan Cultural Society, Asociacion Cultural de Estudiantes Latino Americanos, Hong Kong Club and Caribbean American Students Association. Six Directions, the University's Native American student group, was added to the UMC this spring, bringing to 10 the total number of constituent groups. "It's wonderful that they have joined [the UMC]," said College senior and former UMC Chairperson Jun Bang. "I think they can contribute things other groups do not have, namely the Native American culture." There has never been a cap on the number of groups allowed to join the UMC, but Bang said she expected the executive board elected last semester to debate the question. The executive board will serve during the upcoming academic year. It was elected under a new procedure developed during the semester-long revision of the UMC's constitution which occurred this spring. In addition, the UMC executive board decided to change the qualifications for membership because its description of minority groups at the University rested on an "ethnic and cultural, not racial" basis, she said. Bang added that the clarification should result in "more focus and cohesiveness" among the UMC's member groups. The constitution also provides for election of the UMC chairperson and vice chairperson about one month before the remainder of the executive board each spring, to insure that new leaders have adequate time to learn from their predecessors, Bang said. Current UMC Chairperson Liz Melendez, a College junior, is the first chairperson chosen under the new system. She said it made her transition much easier. And Wharton senior Jenny Ho, vice chairperson of the UMC, said she is happy with the constitutional changes. "I'm really ecstatic that we were able to put [them] into place before the new year began," she said. "It gives us a really strong base from which to work." The new constitution also creates the non-voting position of member-at-large for "minority" students who want to be involved in the UMC without joining one of its constituent groups, the document states. Finally, the constitution calls for the formation of standing committees which will handle admissions, the celebration of cultures and programs. This year's celebration, co-sponsored by the Greenfield Intercultural Center and the Social Planning and Events Committee, was the largest of the five which have happened on campus, Bang said. This spring, the UMC's Admissions Committee also worked to coordinate Minority Scholars Invitational Weekend. Other UMC members helped to plan a resource fair for students of color, which included dinner, speakers and information from various University departments, and the opportunity to interact informally with administrators.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Glen Rock High School '93 Glen Rock, N.J. Last January, 60 student leaders came together to discuss race relations on campus and to create a one year plan to ease racial tensions. But some have questioned the summit's success, since a one year plan was never formulated and several student leaders say the conference itself was riddled with division and difficulties. Before the summit, organizers and participants alike were enthusiastic about attempting to make a dent in the University's recent problems with race relations. "We have to take into consideration how important our position [as student leaders] is," co-organizer and College senior Jessica Mennella said. "We can come up with a plan so we are all comfortable here." But two months after the conference, students who were involved had mixed feelings about the summit. "We thought other people would spread the message, but that's been a lot smaller than we thought," co-organizer and Wharton senior Lawrence Berger said. Nine working groups were established to discuss and work on issues ranging from the Revlon Center and social get-togethers to diversified group projects and a required class on racism. A social party with the theme of "Culture Shock" was sponsored by forum participants in April. Over 200 people came to the party, held at Chestnut Cabaret on 39th and Chestnut streets. The party cost the University $2,500. Some participants said they were unable to speak their minds during the conference and had to worry about what other attendees would think. "One of the participants disrupted and undermined the conference," College junior and Undergraduate Assembly member Dan Schorr said. Schorr, a former Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, wrote a column earlier in the year about the summit and its problems. "A lot of people, including myself, felt that students had a right to know why the summit they had paid for was not as successful as it could have been," he said. But others felt the column breached the confidentiality of the summit and prevented any kind of real progress. Some student leaders said the conference was a success in that student leaders were able to get together and talk about race relations for the first time. But many agreed the summit was not worth the $24,000 price tag. "I question whether it was necessary to travel out to Sugarloaf to deal with these issues," said College junior Stephen Houghton, co-chairperson of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance and former DP columnist. "I loved the food and my T-shirt, but I'd rather see something more come out of the money that was spent."
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Fox Chapel Area High School '93 Pittsburgh, PA African American residents of W.E.B. DuBois College House and Jewish students living in Cleeman, a dormitory in the Community House section of the Quadrangle, found common ground in the experience of harassment this year. Students were the target of harassing phone calls and bomb threats in DuBois, and students found swastikas taped to a fire door in Cleeman. On the University's campus, where the issues of student self-segregation, free speech and civility arouse strong feelings, such demonstrations of hatred and intolerance indicate the existence of racial tensions, but not pervasive racism, according to visiting Sociology Professor Paul Root Wolpe. "There is an enormous focus on identities which divide us, rather than commonalities which unite us," the University alumnus said. "You're always going to have people who exploit that climate to express their own biases." In a series of events which outraged the University community last October, anonymous bomb threats and racially-motivated harassing phone calls were received at DuBois, forcing an evacuation of the building. "We consider this extremely serious, and we've taken steps to increase the structural and personal safety of the people in the dorm," University Police Commissioner John Kuprevich said at the time. These steps included a "short-term" ban on non-residents in the building, unless signed in by a resident, a policy instituted by DuBois House staff. However, this procedure remained in effect through the fall and spring semesters. College senior Nicole Brittingham, former editor-in-chief of the African American campus newspaper The Vision, characterized the calls as "scary," saying they made campus feel "very threatening." After the first threats were phoned into DuBois, students living in Stouffer College House, Van Pelt College House, Graduate Tower A and an off-campus house at 40th and Locust streets also received harassing calls. Call recipients urged students, regardless of race, to stand together in opposition to the incidents. The perpetrators, however, were not caught. In late March, two DuBois residents were again victims of anonymous calls threatening that "the niggers are going to die tonight." At about the same time, signs saying "The Jewish God Eats Human Shit" and paper swastikas appeared repeatedly, taped to a fire door in Cleeman in the Quad. Community House residents were nauseated and disturbed by the discoveries, which were followed by bomb threats to both Hillel and Lubavitch House. "It makes students more insecure because they have no idea where the threats are coming from," said Nursing freshman Bonnie Sherman. "You should be able to feel safe where you live," agreed Wharton senior Dave Schlosser, the resident advisor on duty during the incidents. Black Student League President Robyn Kent, a College junior, characterized the appearance of swastikas in the Quad as "disheartening and tragic." "It's as if nothing was learned from October," she said. "I see the two incidents as being related. It just goes to show that Penn isn't immune to what goes on in the larger society." Rabbi Howard Alpert, executive director of Penn Hillel, said the harassment did not affect the daily lives of Jewish students on campus. Nevertheless, Interim Director of Victim Support Barbara Cassel urged the University community to respond in a unified manner. Wolpe dismissed the idea that mandatory racial sensitivity classes would prevent future harassing behavior. "Racial tolerance grows through daily interaction and honest dialogue," he said. Acting Vice Provost for University Life Valarie Swain-Cade McCoullum encouraged this type of dialogue about the episodes which affected the campus this year, despite its paradoxical effect. "It both builds and breaks the ties between people," she said. "That's the sad thing."
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Highland Park High School '92 Highland Park, Ill. A total of about 50 students will be invited to participate, and will be selected through an application process, Assistant Director of the Program for Student-Community Involvement Marcine Pickron-Davis said. All first-year students received an application in the mail, which was due by June 17. "I think it's a good introduction to some of the issues that are prevalent in a community like West Philadelphia," she said. "It gives them a good segue to some of the issues?in their own back yard, since this is going to be their residence for the next four years." Pickron-Davis also described the program as a "good hands-on opportunity in lieu of the theoretical stuff that goes on in the classroom." This year, students will participate in a variety of community service activities which take place all around the city of Philadelphia. Organizations that will benefit from the students' help include: Habitat for Humanity, which helps to build and restore houses, the New Ralston House which has programming for the elderly, and Dixon House which provides after-school activities for children. Other beneficiaries include: Project Home which provides support for the homeless, the People's Emergency Center which helps women and children who are victims of abuse, and the Anti-Grafitti Network, which strives to keep the city's walls and buildings free of grafitti. The weekend is completely free for those students who are selected -- including meals and transportation to the help sites. In addition, the Residential Living early move-in fee is waived for all participants, Pickron-Davis said. PSCI also sponsors activities such as Alternate Spring Break and Into the Streets during the school year, so that PennCORP participants can remain active with community service.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Highland Park High School '92 Highland Park, Ill. Mail problems plaguing University dormitories for years continued through last semester, with several hundred students voicing complaints of lost or late mail. Complaints were received from all over campus, but a majority of the problems have been in the Quadrangle dormitory. Residential Living Director Gigi Simeone says the 30th Street Station Post Office is not providing adequate service. But officials there say the University is at fault for the continuing mail problems. Quad residents, caught in the middle of this debate, are receiving their mail days, weeks, even months late -- if they receive it at all. College freshman Amy Kwan echoed the sentiments of many of her Quad neighbors. "I just want my mail," she said. "Is that too much to ask for?" At least 394 letters and cards were never received by the 120 students, and at least $13,064 in checks were lost. In addition, 52 students reported lost magazines or catalogs, and 27 said they lost "important documents" -- plane tickets, bank statements, bills, credit cards, MAC cards and the like. The inquiry into campus mail delivery arose from at least two incidents when University students found garbage bags full of undelivered mail outside the Quad mailroom. These complaints followed an investigation last spring which determined that the University was not responsible for the more than 350 incidences of late or lost mail reported to officials. Residential Living also installed windows in the mailrooms to allow for observation, and video cameras were installed to record mailroom activity. Simeone said she and her assistants are "tremendously frustrated as we know students are" about problems. "We have perceived tremendous inaccuracies with the mail we've been receiving [from the 30th Street Station Post Office]," she said. But Lenore Dash, supervisor for the University's postal zone, said the 30th Street Station Post Office is just doing its job -- delivering the mail to the University. "All we do is deliver bags of mail with a truck to the mailroom," Dash said. "Once we drop it off at the mailroom, it's not our responsibility. We don't know what goes on in that mailroom." Manager of Residential Services Rodney Robinson said the mailroom is comprised of experienced people. "These are people who have been in the post office 30 years and have built their careers around mail," he said. "They're taking a lot of abuse down there."
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Highland Park High School '92 Highland Park, Illinois In a highly publicized event, a group calling itself the "Black Community" removed almost the entire press run of the DP on April 15, 1993, shortly after the papers were delivered to distribution sites across campus. A sign posted at the sites said the Black Community was not willing to accept the "blatant and voluntary perpetuation of institutional racism against the Black Community by the DP" and the University. Special Judicial Inquiry Officer Howard Arnold, who was assigned specifically to this case, declared in September that it was unnecessary to take judicial action against the students who participated in the protest. "Ours is an academic community in which mistakes by students must be seen more as opportunities for education than as occasions for punishment," he said. "Ours is a community in need of healing, not of another protracted dispute." He also found that the "Black Community" was really a group of members of the Black Student League, which was found to have organized the protest. Interim President Claire Fagin and Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson said in a joint statement that they accepted Arnold's decision, but warned that any similar actions by students in the future would be subject to "the full range of judicial sanctions." "This action violated long-held principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech on the University of Pennsylvania campus," they said. "We will respond vigorously to any future violations of those principles." After the initial incident, the Committee on Open Expression found that the removal of the papers was a violation of the University's open expression guidelines. But Arnold said he decided not to discipline the students for a number of reasons, including that the students involved had no reason "to know of the University's Confiscation of Publication on Campus policy since it was not published in the Policies and Procedures manual provided to [all] students." That policy states that people who confiscate publications "should expect to be held accountable" because such actions are "inconsistent" with the University's ideals. Lazerson said the University will assume that all students are familiar with the confiscation policy from now on, because it will be included in all future editions of Policies and Procedures. "We have made very, very clear what the University policy is and we hope that it is a policy that every single person understands," he said, adding that the administration wants to "make it unambiguously clear that restriction of the free expression of ideas as in the confiscation of newspapers is wrong and intolerable." And in a rare public action, the University's Board of Trustees criticized University administrators after Arnold's announcement for not disciplining the students. "In light of our convictions, many of us are not comfortable that charges against those students who confiscated The Daily Pennsylvanian were dropped and agree that all members of the University community from this time forward must be treated equally," the Trustees' Executive Committee said in a statement. During the week of the one-year anniversary of the confiscation, the DP, along with The Vision, an African American monthly student publication, co-wrote a series entitled "On Common Ground: Free Speech and Civility" which examined the complex issues of free speech and civility.
