Last week, 40 students came to the Undergraduate Assembly to voice their concerns about the proposed building of a casino in Chinatown. In response, the UA debated whether to request a study on the possible effects that a proposed casino could have on Penn students - who live almost 30 blocks away.
Is it just us, or were there too many contingencies in that sentence?
The UA is the sole elected representation of all students on campus. It's responsible for improving student life, but when large issues arise, it must shout when the rest of the students can only speak.
And though the UA handles the day-to-day tasks well, this tentative stance on a major issue is disappointing. The casino debate is one that will shape the economy of Philadelphia, and therefore also of Penn, in a substantial way for several years.
Tentatively suggesting a study about how Penn students will be affected - a weak link to the issue to begin with - is an ineffectual step.
Obviously the UA should not shout from the rooftops on every issue. It isn't a bully pulpit, and it is rightly concerned with the day-to-day issues of governance.
But when a debate in Philadelphia politics becomes so controversial that many students take notice, the UA should raise its voice.
Almost every influential organization in Philadelphia has weighed in on whether placing a casino in Chinatown is a good idea, and the UA should join the chorusing crowds.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.