Letters to the Editor

Open to all

To the Editor:

The accusations that have been leveled against Delta Zeta's national organization in regards to the DePauw University chapter have garnered the attention of the sorority community here at Penn and reminded us of the importance of diversity in our community.

Although we don't know whether the reported facts accurately represent the details of what happened on that campus, these claims have caused us to look back at the history of discrimination within sororities that the members of our community are actively continuing to change.

We will continue to proudly welcome women of all sizes, creeds and colors into our organizations. Much progress has been made over the last few decades to value all women within the Penn sorority system and to decrease discrimination due to appearance.

Penn's sorority community is currently a vibrant, diverse body of women, just as it should be. We remain committed to fostering a positive environment for women, during the college years and beyond. We will continue to hold strong to our values and prioritize diversity within our community.

Alex Tryon The author is the PanHellenic Council president and a College junior

Don't discriminate

To the Editor:

Following a public witch hunt, Penn has rid itself of its convicted sex-offender employees. Congratulations, Penn community, for a job well done. Or not? The employees committed crimes to be sure, but they also went through our legal system and paid their dues to society. Should it be our role to publicly chastise them in our newspaper and force them out?

Despite Penn's assertion that it is non-discriminatory, it no longer employs a single sex offender. Is this coincidence? As a university, we have an important social role to play. Therefore, Penn should take an active stance against the stigmatization and marginalization of convicted felons. Furthermore, felons might feel that checking the 'yes' box on an application eliminates their chances of landing the job. It leaves them with a horrible dilemma: Lie or become jobless, even homeless.

I propose that Penn delete the question about prior convictions from its job applications, but perform background checks. These should be separate from the weighing of qualifications, and used only to determine if applicants pose a tangible threat to those in their immediate working environment. Further, Penn should apologize for what happened and offer the former employees their jobs back.

Utsav Schurmans Sixth-year Anthropology graduate student

Comments (11)

I agree with Utsav. I was disappointed to hear about the employees. The term sex offender automatically brings to mind a pedophile or a rapist. But not all sex offenders fall into those two categories. I vaguely recall a story about an 18 year old black male who was charged with statutory rape of a 17 year old white female classmate (it was on Bryant Gumbel's show on HBO). Her family didn't like the two of them together and there was a racist DA. The young man then had a record as a sex offender. That will stick with him for the rest of his life. If there's one person like that out there, who says there aren't more? We can't take it upon ourselves to continue to punish people b/c they have been labelled a sex offender. Each case needs to be looked at individually.

The saddest thing about this is that the University has shown itself, yet again, to be a business first and foremost, catering to its clients, rather than an academic institution in pursuit of knowledge, reason, understanding, and complexity. "It will have a bad impact on the number of students applying here and our USA Today rankings" - is what they undoubtedly thought, and decided to get rid of the 'shameful' people. Of course, this had to be done as quickly and under the counter as possible. It is utterly pathetic.

As I understand it, lawbreakers serve their sentences and are returned to society (in non-Capital cases) when the Justice Department considers them sufficiently punished. Their sentences do carry long-term effects in that convicted lawbreakers are subjected to much harsher sentencing should repeat offenses occur. What bothers me is that the Daily Pennsylvanian considers it good journalism to expose former lawbreakers under the pretense of making the Penn community safer. This assumes that the personnel in charge of hiring job applicants are incapable of making �?responsible judgments�? as to whether �?applicants pose tangible threats to those in their immediate working environments.�? I trust Penn to make those responsible judgments. I think Utsav and Marie are both correct; the hiring process should be responsible and include background research of job applicants. However if employees are forced to resign after having passed such background checks due to a DP-inspired witch hunt then I completely agree with Utsav. Penn should apologize and those employees should be allowed to resume their jobs. Perhaps I hold the DP to standards that are too elevated, but don�?t we have other events (academic progress, talks given, research results, etc.) that are much more news-worthy of an academic press?

A component of the punishment that the justice system takes into account when it decides what punishment to impose on a convicted felon, is the social stigma of being a convicted felon. The legal system is very conscious of this. If this component of the punishment did not exist, then some other element of the punishment (such as the number of years of prison time) would have to be adjusted upwards. Thus, one way of looking at the matter is to note that, in suffering the effects of social stigma, the felon is in fact serving the very punishment that the justice system decided to impose upon him.

I'm curious about Friend's argument which, while I have no experience with legal theory or interpretation, seems counter-intuitive to the whole process of modern rehabilitation. Why would we bother to expend the considerable manpower and funding for programs to re-integrate and rehabilitate convicted felons if our justice system relied on longterm social ostracization as a valid part of the sentencing? To my understanding, a significant factor in successful rehabilitation, post-incarceration or other sentence, is that individual's employability and self-sufficiency. So what I'm so troubled by is the lack of conscience exhibited by Penn. While it's an employer's legal right and in its own interest to decide employment based on past criminal record, revealed on application or through background checks, Penn is not simply an employer. I think an opportunity presented itself for such a community-centered and socially visionary institution to rise to the challenge of taking the higher morally progressive road of social justice. And I too am dismayed that in this it failed us all.

[QUOTE id="3cff0189-9fd3-4f34-b3da-35cbb74d33dc"]The saddest thing about this is that the University has shown itself, yet again, to be a business first and foremost, catering to its clients, rather than an academic institution in pursuit of knowledge, reason, understanding, and complexity. "It will have a bad impact on the number of students applying here and our USA Today rankings" - is what they undoubtedly thought, and decided to get rid of the 'shameful' people. Of course, this had to be done as quickly and under the counter as possible. It is utterly pathetic.[/QUOTE] Yes - EXACTLY! Penn's "clients" include 18-22 year old females... it's not like they tend to have a pretty high number of sexual assaults committed against them or anything. I wholeheartedly agree: it's pretty "sad[]" that Penn had the audacity to attempt protecting these ladies from the risk of harm by ousting the poor ol' sex offenders in our midst. Just like you said, Penn is "utterly pathetic" for "catering" to these "clients," who I'm quite sure are not here "in pursuit of knowledge, reason, understanding, and complexity." Bring all the convicted sex offenders back! Shame on you Penn. For shame.

Utsav -- I would contend that sex-offenders comprise a special sub-group of felons and do need to be treated differently. That is why there is Megan's Law. Society (and Penn) does not owe them a job or an apology. "Paying your debt" does not subsequently entitle you to erase the repercussions that your crime will inflict on your future life. (It certainly does not erase it for the victim) And it would be irresponsible of Penn to not inquire of prior convictions and to then make an informed judgment of the suitability of the applicant for a particular position.

[QUOTE id="9e507409-0384-4db8-abfa-73fa19ffa827"]I'm curious about Friend's argument which, while I have no experience with legal theory or interpretation, seems counter-intuitive to the whole process of modern rehabilitation. Why would we bother to expend the considerable manpower and funding for programs to re-integrate and rehabilitate convicted felons if our justice system relied on longterm social ostracization as a valid part of the sentencing? To my understanding, a significant factor in successful rehabilitation, post-incarceration or other sentence, is that individual's employability and self-sufficiency. So what I'm so troubled by is the lack of conscience exhibited by Penn. While it's an employer's legal right and in its own interest to decide employment based on past criminal record, revealed on application or through background checks, Penn is not simply an employer. I think an opportunity presented itself for such a community-centered and socially visionary institution to rise to the challenge of taking the higher morally progressive road of social justice. And I too am dismayed that in this it failed us all.[/QUOTE] Diane, if you have that much faith and confidence in the rehabilitative power of the American penal system, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you...

the American effort effectively stopped sometime in the 60s/70s).[/QUOTE] I disagree. From a cursory online search, it seems that active efforts are being taken by both government and private bodies. In 2006 roughly $13 million was granted for rehab/reentry purposes by the dept of justice, up from $2 million in 2004, and a senate judiciary committee reports $375 million devoted to the issue since 2000 by the dept of labor. It also appears dozens of private funding sources like Soros, Ford, etc are throwing money at the issue. Wherever the money actually ends up going and regardless the degree of success in these programs or rates of recidivism, I'm merely suggesting a disconnect between the idea of the value of longterm stigma and efforts, in the US, that may have the effect of decreasing stigma.

Dianne -- The purposes of punishment (both deterrence and retribution) are served by the stigmatizing effect of being a felon. Our justice system has, for all practical purposes and whether for better or for worse, abandoned the goal of rehabilitation (other countries have gone that route, but the American effort effectively stopped sometime in the 60s/70s).

Comments are closed for this item.