Letters to the Editor

An equal playing field

To the editor:

I am responding to The Daily Pennsylvanian's editorial ("Leave it to the courts," DP, 12/4/02) which addresses the University of Michigan affirmative action lawsuits. These cases will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court next spring, setting an important precedent for higher education. In requesting that the University refrain from taking a stand on affirmative action, the DP completely misses the most important issue -- racial equity in American society.

Affirmative action was not created because diversity is a "compelling interest" (although both the DP and I agree that it is). Rather, affirmative action, first and foremost, was a set of policies designed to address the long history of racial oppression that characterizes American society. When President Lyndon Johnson introduced affirmative action in 1965, he stated, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." The primary purpose of affirmative action was to make up for the centuries-long headstart that white Americans have had.

Unfortunately, the original idea behind affirmative action has been lost, as reflected in the DP's editorial. For sake of racial equity, what difference does it make whether "qualified" black students chose Penn, Harvard or Princeton? The real goal should be for all of these schools to admit more black students, particularly from low socioeconomic backgrounds. If necessary, the schools should also provide extra academic and financial resources to help these students. It is the least they can do to compensate for centuries of exclusion. And this is the stand that the University should take.

Vinay Harpalani Graduate School of Education '04

Changing his tune

To the editor:

Regarding Professor John DiIulio's retraction of his exposure of the political intrigues within the Bush White House and its absence of thoughtful policy: What did they threaten DiIulio with to exact this retraction? His tenure? His pension?

My question now is: To what degree was Penn, bastion of free ideas, an accomplice to this intimidation of DiIulio?

DiIulio's retraction came only two hours after Penn issued a statement saying that he stood by his original letter. Folks, this was not a soul-searching or a change of heart. It should be obvious to anybody that he was threatened or intimidated in some way.

Esquire bravely stood by DiIulio and his original account. Did Penn stand by DiIulio, defending his safe position within the University, or did it not? I think that we have a right to know this and a duty to find it out.

How much authoritarianism, pressure, intimidation and silencing are we going to put up with from this corrupt, shadowy, unelected regime in Washington, which, as DiIulio exposes, is devoid of anything but political machination and pressure?

Nina Moliver

•

To the editor:

Penn professor John DiIulio cast himself in the James Stewart role as the innocent in Washington's den of wolves -- just like in the 1939 Frank Capra film classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

DiIulio worked with President Bush during his campaign, supplying ideas for "faith-based initiatives" whereby government was supposed to fund and hand over federal good-and-welfare programs to churches and community groups.

To implement the program, DiIulio went on the White House payroll as a special assistant to Bush in January, 2001. Eight months later, a wiser and sadder academic left the Potomac for the Schuylkill, a victim of the behind-the-scenes manipulation of political boss Karl Rove (playing the Edward Arnold role. Hiss, hiss).

DiIulio was only guilty of one indiscretion: he shared his White House experience with Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer-prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter who was working on an article on Karl Rove for Esquire. In the course of briefing the journalist, the professor wrote a letter in which he went on record with a litany of complaints to the effect that the office was a sham and that there was very little compassion in the president's conservatism. In the letter, DiIulio charged, "There is a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded non-partisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism."

He added, "In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues."

When the White House got wind of it, DiIulio, who first defended the story, did a 180-degree turn and said the article was "groundless and baseless," something Jimmy Stewart would never have done. Unfortunately, the professor had sent a letter of record to Esquire which the magazine has just published on its Web site.

The moral of this saga is that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Alan Halpern College '47

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