Your Voice | Letters to the Editor

Too little outcry To the Editor: Afaf Meleis' recent column ("It's about home - not where you're from," DP, 9/10/06) sheds light on the unfortunate issue of discrimination toward Arabs and Muslims in post-9/11 America. What Meleis fails to note, however, is that Arabs and Muslims can do something about it. There has been far too little public outcry by moderate Muslims against the perversion of Islam by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The numerous Arab American organizations that exist in the United States should hold rallies, press conferences and forums to call for an end to extremism and terrorism.

Scott Kahn College junior

Offensive ad To the Editor: Some friends and I were shocked to find a very offensive advertisement in The Daily Pennsylvanian on Monday. This ad was posted by the University Health System to recruit bipolar people for a study. On page 12, the ad reads, "Do You Have Bipolar?" Beneath this headline are two pictures of what I can only assume are supposed to represent the manic up phase of the illness as well as the depressed down phase. Without the pictures, I do not think this ad would be offensive. But the "manic" picture on the left is ridiculous. It is a disgusting flamboyant caricature of what I guess would be a stereotype of a manic person, although really I don't think it even fits any tangible stereotype. It looks like Boy George. It is ludicrous, and the absurd, almost comic nature of the photo mocks the disorder, even if it was not intentional. I feel that this ad is an example of the need to raise awareness in that it presents people as caricatures, which is very insensitive. Think of an ad that reads, "Are you black?" and then shows a picture of tough-looking rapper with gold teeth. It's offensive. Making matters worse, this particular ad was posted by mental-health professionals - the very people who are supposedly the most tolerant - the practitioners - are perpetuating negative stereotypes about mental illness. The DP needs to pay more attention to the nature of the ads they are running in order to screen against offensive ads. Also, if the DP created this ad itself, they need to seriously examine their own policies for appropriate ad content. Either way, you should print an apology.

Dan Berstein Wharton senior

Unionization To the Editor: Your recent Undergraduate Assembly story ("UA backs unions for campus workers," DP, 9/19/06) was entirely misleading. In truth, the Undergraduate Assembly did not back a union for campus workers. The resolution passed by the UA merely encouraged Penn to engage in a dialogue with Allied-Barton and its Penn employees. It acknowledged issues of workers' rights, but purposely did not back unionization because such a proposal would not have passed. The majority of Sunday evening's debate focused on "de-unionizing" the proposal, amending the proposal to remove any statements that implied support for unionization on behalf of the UA, which would have thwarted passage of the resolution. If the UA truly backed unionization, such amendments to the proposal would not have occurred. The ultimate proposal was about creating a dialogue and not about unionization.

Max Reibman and Alex Flamm The authors serve on the Undergraduate Assembly

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