Letters to the Editor

Money and God

To the Editor:

Jooho Lee's reference to a $5,000 one-time grant from the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life ("Discriminatory funding practices, The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/6/02) represents the vice provost's support for a creative and thoughtful student initiative. However, the grant is in no way the only support for student religious groups, and it was made to the Student Programming for Education Concerning Interfaith Activities and Life, not to the Chaplain's Office.

Our office does provide funding to student religious activities as a regular part of its ongoing complement of support for student and university life. Groups typically approach the office with requests for funding and the determination of whether to co-sponsor or underwrite depends on a variety of factors.

We are especially eager to fund programs that are interfaith, educational and that intend to increase understanding among Penn's many vibrant religious communities. Our budget for activities is not comparable to that of the Student Activities Council, but we do offer modest financial support to as many religious activities as possible.

It is true that Columbia and Princeton universities provide funding for some student religious activities through their Chaplain's Office and Religious Life Office, respectively. However, the big institutional difference between these two peers and Penn is that those offices are not the only place religiously affiliated students instinctively turn for funding support.

I fully support SPECIAL in its efforts to encourage SAC to modify its guidelines, which have discouraged some student groups from approaching it with religious programming. It has led to a belief that any proposal for religious programming is ineligible for SAC funding.

Support of these activities is important because they advance the mission of the University by encouraging the exchange of knowledge and experiences about a phenomenon that has been essential to all cultures throughout human history. These activities also encourage interactions that strengthen and help develop the capacity and sophistication to respect and engage people from divergent religious points of view -- great practice for leadership in our global society.

William Gipson University Chaplain

•

To the Editor:

I wish to clarify the misstatements Jooho Lee's opinion article raised in regard to the Student Activities Council's funding practices. The Executive Committee of SAC believes in dynamic dialogue and was saddened by the uninformed manner in which the article was written. The issue of funding religious groups is an important one and one I would like to address objectively, fairly and most deliberately.

A number of points in the column were simply untrue. SAC must make it absolutely clear that no group is ever denied recognition based on content, religious affirmation or the like. Our recognition procedure is based primarily on viability, student interest and group uniqueness.

Once recognized, however, funding is allocated to those groups that are open to all, foster and address diverse, vibrant interests and do not cater to sectarian groups. To this end, political groups, special interest groups and religious groups are not funded because they promote one belief or principle over another; they are however eligible for recognition.

Secondly, while I was somewhat entertained by the cartoon depicting hoards of reserves, SAC allocates, to the very best of our ability, every penny of our limited budget. It is unfortunate that budgetary requests far exceed our available resources. We are however, working toward ongoing solutions in this regard.

In conclusion, the SAC Executive Committee's philosophy is to hear, and to act upon, every suggestion that comes our way. We therefore look forward to hearing from the parties concerned and ensure that open dialogue will occur and that practical solutions are reached.

Simon Bland Wharton '04 The writer is chairman of the Student Activities Council.

Gunning for the truth

To the Editor:

Jeff Millman's recent column ("Stop Terrorism with Ballistic Fingerprinting, DP, 11/01/02) is fundamentally inaccurate and presents a grossly incorrect view of terrorism and so-called "ballistic fingerprinting."

First, Millman erroneously labels the Washington-area killer a terrorist, arguing "his murders paralyzed an entire region with fear." But that criterion no more makes this killer a terrorist than it does Son of Sam or Jack the Ripper.

A terrorist uses murder and mayhem to create fear in a population for political purposes. There is no evidence that this killer meets that definition. Millman's definition would collapse the definitions of terrorist and serial killer into one another.

His misuse of the term "terrorist" is a shameful attempt to champion an otherwise objectionable policy -- the establishment of a national ballistic information database for newly sold firearms.

Millman is confusing two entirely different concepts. Some have called for a national registry of ballistic data from all newly-sold firearms, so-called "ballistic fingerprinting." However, evidence from programs in Maryland and New York demonstrate that such databases solve no crimes. This is because the markings change over time by normal use and can be deliberately altered by marring the gun's breech face or replacing the barrel.

The ATF program to which Millman refers is entirely different. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network collects only crime scene information. It allows police to compare crime scene data from around the country, linking crimes from different states to the same suspected murder weapon.

"Ballistic fingerprinting," however, would amount to nothing more than a vast national firearms registry. It would not prevent crimes, since criminals often obtain their weapons through theft, not at the local gun shop. Instead it would impose upon gun owners the spectre of widespread confiscation, which is the inevitable result of comprehensive registration schemes.

Daniel Schmutter Wharton '86

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