Letters to the editor

Dealing with tragedy

To the Editor:

I woke up Wednesday morning to my alarm clock, which is set to an AM news station. As I drifted in that half-asleep, half-conscious state, the first words I heard were, "a child and cross guard were shot this morning in front of a North Philadelphia elementary school."

That woke me up. It stuck with me all day, and the next; I just couldn't stop thinking about it. I guess we hear about shootings all the time, -- and all are tragedies -- but a child, on the way to school? Imagine if the same thing happened in suburban areas. It would not be tolerated for a split second. There would be a crusade to put a stop to this injustice.

In Philadelphia, the problem is much larger and deeper than can be addressed with additional policemen and patrolling. The problem is embedded in much larger issues. But however complex or hopeless the issues seem, there should be no lack of outrage and despair that children have to fear for their lives on their way to school -- a place that may be one of the only safe havens they have.

There should be no lack of determination on the part of our city leaders to put a stop to these atrocities. No child should remark upon stepping over the bloodstained pavement where his classmate fell to the ground that "it always happens. I'm not scared," like an 11-year-old boy said in The Philadelphia Inquirer. No child should have to wonder if he will make it to school safely when he leaves his house in the morning.

Jess George

SAS '04

Putting partisanship aside

To the Editor: With respect to Greg Bryda's Letter to the Editor ("The need for equal protection," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 02/16/04), I take note of his clear and forceful statement on the issue of gays and the institution of marriage. Clearly, Mr. Bryda feels strongly on the issue, and his passion is admirable.

It is also, unfortunately, symptomatic of all sides in the current debate. Strong emotions have surfaced as partisans cling ever more fiercely to their beliefs, secure in the knowledge that they possess "the truth." Such conviction makes for excellent press and rousing speeches to the faithful but does little to advance society towards a solution -- something I believe all of us would like to witness in the near future.

Leaving aside issues of religion and morality (secular or otherwise), some positions seem largely uncontested. Tens of thousands of gay couples do not have access to the financial benefits that accrue to conventional married couples.

Conversely, the institution of conventional marriage exists in countless cultures around the world and has innate value aside from the religious and ethical paradigms promoted by societies. The biological imperative exists outside the Bible's exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" -- the preservation of society depends on it.

Reconciling these apparently disjointed views requires a dispassionate analysis. Can gay couples receive equal treatment under the law with respect to, say, their economic lives while our society preserves the significance and sanctity of conventional marriage? Does the notion of civil union denigrate same-sex couples or permit conventional married couples to retain their identity? I doubt that either band of happy warriors would consider "half a loaf," and that, in my opinion, is the real tragedy.

Elliot Avidan

Law '05

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