Letters to the Editor

Respect performing arts

To the Editor:

In a recent interview with Dr. Gutmann ("On the record with Amy Gutmann," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 01/30/04), the DP stated that Penn is "not considered strong in student performing arts." We are somewhat disheartened at the DP's insinuation that Penn is weak in its student artistic merit. We feel this comment diminishes the value of the over 1,300 students involved in artistic organizations at Penn, not to mention the 60 student shows a year.

More than anything, we question the barometer by which you judged student performing arts. If it is in numbers, Penn has the largest student arts program on the East Coast. If it is in diversity of performing, we represent a cross-section of almost every culture and religion on campus. If it is in artistic outreach to the community, student performers volunteer and teach in area schools on a weekly basis, in addition to performing benefit shows for local activist organizations. If it is in quality of programming, some of our groups are the most well-known in the student art world, from Mask and Wig to Off the Beat to Penn Dhamaka, a group that wins almost every competition it attends.

We do agree, however, that Penn is weak in the resources it provides to the numerous students who hope to continue performing. Not a day goes by where we don't hope for another theater, for more performance space in Annenberg or for a little bit more money to bring in new workshop artists.

This is an area where we do hope Dr. Gutmann helps. But there is a significant distinction between the resources available to its students and the product, or the art, which Penn students produce. Student performing art groups are one of the biggest contributors in making Penn the vibrant, thriving melting pot which characterizes this institution.

The Performing Arts Council

Executive Board

Ideology matters

To the Editor:

I, for one, applaud the selection of Professor Gutmann to serve as the University's next president. First, the decision is a natural one -- if one assumes that the political orientation of any presidential nominee matters and that such an orientation should match that of the school overall.

One hardly needs to possess an Ivy League degree to understand the political inclination of faculties at the lion's share of academic degree-granting institutions. That Professor Gutmann continues in the liberal tradition of President Rodin means that she accurately reflects the political views of the University as a whole.

Unfortunately, I doubt that any members of the Board of Trustees or the selection committee would confess publicly to such a rubric, for it is often deemed inappropriate for such leanings to be anything other than an open secret -- certainly not for someone expected to lead the University.

Perhaps then there are other, more valid criteria by which to judge, and the Trustees would be willing to speak to them. Indeed, one could only assume that such standards would have permitted the consideration of other equally suitable candidates without the impeccable left-wing credentials. Could such a candidate have led the University without such an anointment? Wasn't it a more responsible choice to select upon the basis of or with heavy emphasis upon her uninterrupted advocacy of liberal positions on virtually every issue of substance to the Penn community?

Elliot Avidan

Law '05

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