Letters to the Editor

Blatant disregard To the editor: In reference to Sunday's Undergraduate Assembly meeting regarding affirmative action ("UA takes stand to support race policy", The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/4/03), UA Vice Chairman Ethan Kay recently said, "I wish... that more diversity of thought had emerged from the debate." I couldn't agree more. However, the UA has taken a clearly one-sided point of view on affirmative action, blatantly disregarding the diversity of opinions on Penn's campus. Our student government was not elected on the basis of a political agenda, but, as evidenced by its unanimity in appealing to the University to finance the April 1 pro-affirmative action march in D.C., it has assumed one of its own. The elected members of the UA have unilaterally ignored the conflicting views that the Penn undergraduate body has on affirmative action. According to the UA Constitution, the UA is to "speak as the one representative voice of the undergraduates on affairs of concern to undergraduates." As there is enormous controversy surrounding any political subject and the members of the UA were not elected based on their personal politics, the UA cannot accurately represent the undergraduate community with one voice on this issue. While the University is entitled to its own opinion on affirmative action, its decision to finance the buses to support the march disregards the principle of open academic discussion. If the UA wishes to "get a dialogue on this campus" concerning affirmative action, it should do so with a publicized open forum. However, the University should keep its pocketbook closed when it is obviously supporting only one side of any issue that is so disputed by its undergraduates. John BackesCollege '06 Judicious alternative To the editor: In response to Drew Armstrong's column ("A process that is far too secretive," DP, 2/25/03), we would like to take this opportunity to discuss the role of the University Honor Council in working with the Office of Student Conduct in matters concerning Penn's Code of Academic Integrity and Code of Student Conduct. The UHC is a student government-affiliated organization of undergraduates, charged by the provost to raise awareness of academic integrity and proper conduct within the student body. For this purpose, the UHC organizes workshops on academic integrity that all incoming students are required to attend during New Student Orientation. At these sessions, students are informed of the sanctioning process that the OSC imposes upon code violators. For those not attending the workshops (or for those who entered Penn prior to fall 2000 when the workshops first began), they can access both a summary and a comprehensive outline of the sanctioning process through our Web site. By enlightening the student body of the disciplinary procedures followed by the OSC, we feel that "it keeps those at the OSC honest," a statement questioned by Armstrong. Furthermore, members of the UHC serve as panelists in all integrity and conduct-related hearings sanctioned by the OSC. Hearing panels consist of UHC and faculty members only; members of the OSC take no part in evaluating the outcome of these adjudications. This arrangement allows student punishment to be decided in part by a panel of peers and works to maintain the impartiality of the OSC in cases that cannot be resolved by voluntary agreement. In conjunction with the OSC, the UHC works to ensure that the student body is well-informed about the disciplinary process and that instances of alleged misconduct are resolved in a fair and confidential manner. Before demanding that the OSC make disciplinary sanctions public, one should assess how those who have been sanctioned would feel about having their names and offenses presented before the community. Surely the current process is a more judicious alternative. Dan LandsburgCollege '04 Caitlin O'NeilCollege/Wharton '05 The authors are co-chairs of the University Honor Council.

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