Letters to the Editor

Got the numbers

To the Editor:

A Daily Pennsylvanian reporter recently asked University President Judith Rodin why Penn, along with Cornell, had the lowest percentages of black freshmen in the Ivy League ("University plans to boost black enrollment", DP, 10/24/02). President Rodin replied, "the percentages are more skewed because Penn and Cornell are bigger." Penn must attract a larger number of black students in order to produce percentages that are equivalent to those of its competitors, she said.

But this explanation is refuted by experiences elsewhere. The University of Virginia, a highly selective university with only slightly more places in its first-year class than Penn, enrolled 295 black freshmen this year. This is more than twice the number of black freshmen at Penn.

The University of Michigan and the University of North Carolina each have much larger first-year classes than Penn. Both of these universities are considered among the 25 highest-ranked universities in the nation. Each of these universities was able to find more than 430 black freshmen who were qualified and willing to enroll. This is nearly three times the number of black first-year students at Penn. All three of these high-ranking universities have a significantly higher percentage of black freshmen than Penn.

Robert Bruce Slater Managing Editor, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Targeting Israel

To the Editor:

In referring to Israel, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick recently claimed that "no country has taken more risks for peace than Israel -- and received so little for those efforts."

While current Israeli policies are not laudable, they need to be taken in context. Israel has reached out in peace to each of its neighbors, and today Israel remains under siege. Israel's presence in the West Bank is a result of war and terrorism that it did not want, and it remains there only because of an unprecedented wave of terrorism. To boycott companies that help Israel safeguard its civilian population is simply wrong.

Unlike other countries far more deserving of divestment, Israel has taken concrete actions hoping to achieve peace. In the South, Israel returned the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt in exchange for a "cold" peace. Now, the Egyptian government supports anti-Israel and anti-Semitic campaigns based on pre-holocaust propaganda.

In the north, Israel withdrew to the U.N.-mandated border with Lebanon, but the Lebanese government refuses to even patrol the border. Instead, Israeli civilians and soldiers remain targets of cross-border attacks.

To the east, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made serious offers to Syria and the Palestinian Authority that were flatly rebuffed. By various estimates, he offered upwards of 98 percent of the West Bank. As The New York Times' Thomas Friedman asserts, if these offers were insufficient, surely negotiation could have resolved these differences. Instead, Israel today faces a wave of terrorism that is more systematic and brutal in its assault on children and the elderly than any other in recorded history.

As Angela Migally ("Getting past the fog over divestment," DP, 10/31/02) asks, "why focus on Israel?" Imagine for a moment the reaction of any other country faced with over 100 suicide attacks on busses, restaurants and cafes?

As Israel uses the bulldozers from companies Migally would like to boycott, consider the following. These bulldozers are literally Israel's last ditch effort to save Israeli children, like the two 14-year-old girls who went out for a walk yesterday and were gunned down by a terrorist from Arafat's al-Aqsa Brigade.

Maurice Schweitzer Assistant Professor of Operations and Information Management

•

To the Editor:

Angela Migally claimed that the divestment campaign is not specifically aimed at Israel, but acts "out of concern for all human rights," and "demand[s] that the University stop support for human rights violations anywhere."

There is no basis for such a claim. Does this petition also target the United States? It has been calculated that an average of 41 to 47 civilians died every day between Oct. 7 and Dec. 10 in Afghanistan -- almost 3,000, the same number that died in the Sept. 11 attacks. Does that qualify as a violation of human rights?

Does the campaign also target those who support the Palestinian Intifada? Or is the right of an Israeli to ride a bus without fear of being blown up no longer considered a "human" right? Let there be no mistake about it -- this campaign is about Israel, and Israel alone.

It is convenient to throw in "any nation... including Egypt, Turkey, Colombia or any other" because it allows for the claim that this is "a global matter." But where were the petitioners when Egypt imprisoned Saed El-Din Ibrahim, the foremost liberal and democracy advocate in the Arab world, for absolutely nothing? Where were they when schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia were driven back into a burning building last year to die? Or when American warplanes were destroying entire towns in Afghanistan?

No, this has nothing to do with human rights -- it is about Israel. Does anyone believe that if the University would actually divest from companies that promote the "illegal Israeli occupation," the divestment campaign would really move on and focus on another country? The answer to that question should tell you all you need to know about this campaign's real intentions.

Elliot Weiner College '05

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.