This Irish fortress was must have been the design inspiration for Huntsman Hall.

We all know that Huntsman Hall wants to keep us mere mortals (read: non-Whartonites) out, but this winter, the imposing structure has become a veritable fortress. After a winter storm, the building’s artillery hurls ice missiles at the innocent passerby, making even a quick stroll by quite dangerous.

Here at Penn, we pride ourselves on playing host to “the world’s most advanced academic center for management education.” Towering over 38th and Walnut Streets is that formidable colossus, known as John M. Huntsman Hall. It is difficult not to gaze up with admiration at this giantess, an aesthetic and financial landmark: The Wharton School. Surely, the $139.9 million educational haven is the perfect model of West Philadelphia’s progress.

While the building’s innovative design may be unparalleled, however, significant flaws in the external structure are posing costs and dangers to the Penn community.

On Saturday, my friends and I were on our way to the gym, and the streets were a delectable mixture of icy brown slush — the expected remnants of the previous day’s storm. Yet as we crossed 38th St., we suddenly faced yellow barricades and circles of caution tape that spanned the entire width of Huntsman. Way above these warning signs, men clung to suspension cords and scraped ice from the uppermost parts of the building. High in the sky, the workers swung from window to window with an expertise that could only rival that of Tarzan himself.

“The window sills are very deep,” said Mark Kocent, principal planner at the Office of the University Architect.

So deep that they become the perfect receptacles and projectiles for dangerous shards of ice. The building’s design is clearly not suitably prepared to weather the aftermath of a significant storm.

Kocent explained that the University is currently weighing its options and meanwhile employing a temporary solution–contracting a private window-cleaning company to manually remove the ice. Long-term remedies could potentially include “snow guards” for the windowsills or “heat tracing” electrical wires to melt the snow before it accumulates.

Ultimately, “there’s some talk about doing design changes,” Kocent said.

Such design changes are essential, and Penn should resolve this issue before another blustery winter increases the wrath of Huntsman. Unfortunately, snowstorms are here to stay, and we can’t revisit the blueprints that bore such a flagrant design flaw in the building’s construction. Instead, the University should invest in a long-term solution that will surely be worth the momentary expense.

For the rest of this winter, however, the fortress will remain armed and intact.

Norman Finkelstein

I came of age in shades of gray. As a liberal girl from a liberal suburb of Washington DC, moral relativism was my native tongue. In my formative years, discussion, discourse and debate was not just a means, but an end. The ultimate end. Everyone had a right to be heard and all opinions were equally legitimate.

And then I got my first high school history paper back with a note on the top that said “Nice rhetoric but facts aren’t the enemy of truth.“

It is this same naivete that the DP Opinion Board showed in today’s editorial which praised the Political Science department for co-sponsoring a lecture by the controversial Norman Finkelstein last night. Earnestly, they wrote that the debate his appearance on campus catalyzed “alone makes Finkelstein a worthy speaker.”

Put aside for a second the fact that it is unclear what productive debate could possibly arise from Finkelstein’s appearance (Do American Jews use the Holocaust to line their pockets?). I take issue with the support of the Political Science department because any debate that the department’s sponsorship spurs is the thin silver lining to a much bigger dark cloud: the legitimacy given to Finkelstein’s scholarship by lending their name to the event.

This legitimacy is undeserved.

Finkelstein brags that he teaches at a “third-rate university” in Chicago because he was “kicked out of every job” in New York. He has written at least two books directly about Israel without ever visiting the country. A judge in Chicago wouldn’t certify him as an expert witness in a criminal trial about Hamas — a classification often given to real academics.

The Political Science department is right and justified in seeking to bring controversial and enlightening speakers with unorthodox views to campus. The problem is that when an academic department brings a speaker the assumption is that while the speaker’s views may be contentious his evidence is sound — the guest is a scholar. While not endorsing Finkelstein’s views per say, the department is attesting to the rigor and factual accuracy of his research.

This faith isn’t justified. Benny Morris, a left-wing Israeli historian Finkelstein quoted in his most recent book, wrote that Finkelstein “selectively quotes from [my books] what suits his purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein’s case, ridiculing what doesn’t. ” In other words, Finkelstein’s writings employ my favorite 9th grade rhetorical tool which also happens to be the cardinal sin of academic writing — he twists and fabricates evidence in an intellectually dishonest way.

It may be true, as Professor Goldstein asserts in his column in today’s paper that some small minority of scholars back Finkelstein’s work and that he has been published in an academic journal. This article on Finkelstein’s website seems to dispute that claim. Regardless, even if Finkelstein does have a sprinkling of supporters, that’s not enough. There are also many Creationist professors. That doesn’t mean that the Biology department should spend money and invite them to present the evidence behind their Creationist research. There are groups elsewhere on campus to serve that role. The same is the case here.

The Political Science department has should not deputize any schmuck with a PhD as a scholar. Co-sponsoring this event does so in the minds of students and, given the prestige of Penn, in the minds of the world as well.

There was another speaker on campus last night. Nonie Darwish, daughter of a shahid grew up in Cairo and Gaza. When she spoke about the power of education in combating anti-semitism, she said “[Education] doesn’t meanthat all ideas are right and no ideas are wrong. There is truth and there is fabrication.”

Norman Finkelstein’s writings are clearly the latter. The Political Science department has no business indicating otherwise.

After four years of witnessing the acrimony that follows the selection of any commencement speaker at Penn, I have come to realize that the ordeal is as cyclical and reliable as clockwork:

First, the speaker is announced to the unsuspecting student body, beginning the gradual process of enlightenment. As a rule of thumb, the speaker’s name recognition among Penn students is inversely proportional to the number of things he or she (but typically he) has actually accomplished. We are told just who this person is in one or two articles in The Daily Pennsylvanian, which are usually accompanied by an explanations of this year’s selection process (”last year we used a dartboard, but THIS year we used student input in dart throwing”). Next, The DP publishes several articles detailing the first round of complaints about the speaker, which are then met immediately with retaliating complaints from the speaker’s supporters. Then, as inevitably as the sun sets and the budget deficit rises, someone takes note of the complaining that has gripped the campus, and — you guessed it — starts complaining about the complaining.

One week and several hundred dead trees worth of newsprint later, we predictably find ourselves right back where we started: with a commencement speaker that some students like, some hate and most have yet to notice.

With that, I offer a new chapter to this annual epic — supplementing acrimony with action, and submitting for public consideration a new, improved list of speakers for Penn’s commencement:
(ul)

Editor’s Note: for more alternative ideas for commencement speakers, check of “A Damn Good Man” on page 6 of the DP or online

Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, said on Friday that his government already is at “war” with dissidents (AP Photo).

With QPenn 2007 just around the corner, it’s worth noting that the rights we take for granted in the US are a lifetime away for millions of people across the globe — nowhere more so than in Zimbabwe. There, male homosexuality is illegal and the government has organised anti-gay campaigns against both men and women. But that’s not all the people of Zimbabwe have to live through every day.

Imagine opposition leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama having their skulls cracked and their legs broken for holding a protest against President Bush. Imagine wanting to move abroad but being told by the government that they don’t have the paper to make you a passport. And even if they did, they wouldn’t let you leave anyway Imagine gas prices increasing so fast that by the end of the week you can no longer afford the bus to work.

Welcome to the formerly “Great” Zimbabwe, a country that is no longer great (and indeed hardly functioning) thanks to the disastrous 27 year regime of Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, was a British colony until 1980 when Mugabe wrested control from the white colonizers. He promised a stable and prosperous future for the black citizens of Zimbabwe. However, over a period of almost three decades, Mugabe has transformed the country from an economically powerful exporter of tobacco and cotton into a desolate land, crippled by economic mismanagement.

By nationalizing the commercial farmland confiscated from white land-owners and giving it to his black government officials, Mugabe single-handedly destroyed the bread and butter of the Zimbabwean economy. Gripped by paranoia, Mugabe continues to purge all opposition. Last week Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition MDC party (Movement for Democratic Change), was arrested along with a number of others. He was beaten so severely that his skull was cracked. His crime was protesting against Mugabe.

The UN and much of the western world has been critical of Mugabe’s regime for some time, but done little to curb his dictatorial tendencies. South Africa and other surrounding countries have been toothless, choosing quiet diplomacy and arguing that Zimbabwe should sort out its own problems. But the recent brutalities struck a chord across the developed world and brought about a marked change of position by South Africa, with Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad calling on Harare to respect the law and the rights of all political parties. Ghana went further, describing the situation in Zimbabwe as “an embarrassment”.

Many see this as the beginning of the end for Mugabe. Fellow bloggers around the world hope this to be the case. But there is a very real possibility that he will hold on to power for many years yet. This should not be allowed. The UN needs to demonstrate that it is not just a diplomatic show-pony. Increased pressure should be put upon Mugabe’s government to hold elections and allow the election of a new Zimbabwean President.

It’s unlikely this will happen soon, and even if the UN does start to exert more pressure on Mugabe, the process of finding a replacement will no doubt be long and painful. But with the people so oppressed and downtrodden, change is unlikely to come from within unless the Zimbabwean army abandons its current loyalty to Mugabe. The future of Zimbabwe now lies in the hands of the UN.

So, if and when you see the posters, read the hand-outs and attend the talks of QPenn this week, remember how far behind Zimbabwe is. Devoid of any kind of human rights, the people need help soon. It’s already too late.

This picture of stolen DPs appeared on the front page of the paper back in the Stone Age when the DP was printed solely in black and white.

Can you steal something if it’s free?

Two Rowan University students will find out soon enough. The
campus newspaperThe Whit ran a front-page story implicating students in a drug bust. Two friends of the accused, upset that the names were published, responded by allegedly
stealing 600 newspapers from the student union. The students face repercussions from the university, and the legal ramifications are currently being evaluated. In the end, the whole disruption only served as a PR stunt.

Stealing newpapers in protest is nothing new. In 2002, a Temple student stole thousands of copies of The Temple News. Unlike the Rowan paper-snatchers, the Temple student sought to cover her own criminal tracks. In an open editorial, the editors estimated a $10,000 loss for the paper.

The DP has also fallen victim to paper snatchers. In 1993, students stole almost
14,000 copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian, almost its entire press run. In a semester of heated racial conflict stemming from the infamous “water buffalo” incident and the dearth of minority DP staff writers, tensions finally erupted. Specifically, George Pavlik’s “controversial and conservative” column, which claimed lighter treatment for the campus Black Honor Society, spurred the protest. But in this case, the protesters didn’t merely take the papers, they replaced them with a statement. The posted signs explained their charge of institutional antagonism by the DP, ending with an identification of the actors as, simply, the “Black Community”.

Whether or not their method of protest was appropriate, the actions of the so-called “Black Community” were much more noble. In contrast to more recent protests, where the motivation was selfish, a productive debate came out of the ashes of the lost DP circulation. The students engaged in this act did so not to protect a reputation, but to protect the larger rights of others.

It comes down to this: stealing college newspapers is a high-visibility, high-consequence act that can censor the student press. The Rowan students need to reserve their most serious tactics for our most serious and wide-reaching issues.

Water, water everywhere.

I have a confession: I am a water snob.

It’s ridiculous I know, because I can’t taste the difference between a 5 day old Franzia and a 5 year old Cabernet. Still, I insist on only the finest Brita-filtered water, forgoing the convenience and low-cost of the tap. And given the explosion in the bottled water industry in recent years, I’m not the only one with discriminating tastes.

You won’t hear this from me often, but I’m wrong. Not just wrong. Stupidand Wrong. Bottled water isn’t any healthier, but that hasn’t stopped me and millions of others from chugging Aquafina or Dasani like a sorority girl on a crash diet. Which is why I’m so excited about March 22nd — my chance to make amends also known as United Nations’ World Water Day.

This year’s campaign is more than just an effort to teach about the “more than 21 percent of children living in developing countries who do not have access to clean water” (booring) or the fact that “80 percent of all illness and infant mortality is due to waterborne disease. Lack of clean water is the second largest killer of children under five” (yawn). This year,Esquire Magazine, UNICEF.and NYC based ad agency Droga5have teamed up to create the Tap Project . Through the Tap Project hundreds of NYC restaurants will ask patrons for a $1 for tap water, a subtle reminder that what comes free and cheap to most Americans is unavailable to close to 1 billion people worldwide.

Now I know what you’re thinking. That’s all well and good for those highfalutin’ New Yorkers, or second semester senior with the time and signing bonuses to hop up to New York for a meal, but what does the Tap Project have to do with me? I thought you’d never ask. You can go online right now and make a donation. Whether you want to give $1, the donation that New York restaurants will be requesting, $16.39, the cost of 3 Brita filters on amazon.com,or more it’s easy to give and easy to help.

Next time I take a drink from the tap it won’t be lead or chlorine
I’ll be tasting, but instead the sweetness of smug self-satisfaction

by Wilson Tong

As a member of the Undergraduate Assembly, Penn’s elected branch of student government, I strive to ensure the accurate representation of the interests of the entire undergraduate student body to the University community and administration. This past Sunday, a proposal — not on the official agenda — that surfaced from objections to University funding and support of Norman Finklestein’s appearance on campus was presented to the UA only hours before the meeting. An attempt to suspend the agenda rules to force the UA to debate and vote on the unexpected proposal failed. The outcome of the UA’s process to add this proposal to the previously established agenda has since triggered much frustration and disappointment.

Many are arguing that the UA did not succeed in representing the concerns of a portion of the student body. However, I contend that this is not the case. A vote on the proposal, which was fundamentally politically-charged and politically-loaded, would have ultimately forced the UA to take an official for/against stance on the University’s backing of one controversial individual’s appearance on campus, which the UA decided not to do within its purview. At its core, the UA would have had to issue an official opinion on a religious and cultural disagreement. I was not elected to take a stance on a religiously- and culturally-politicized issue, and I do not believe I would have honestly represented the student body if I had. Furthermore, forcing the UA to discuss and vote on the proposal would have undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the UA as an impartial, representative body of all undergraduate students.

The content of the proposal, presenting only one of many sides of the argument, would not have allowed members of the UA to make an informed and unbiased vote on an extremely divisive, yet obviously significant issue. It is wrong, irresponsible, and unwise for the UA to initiate and engage in a formal debate and vote about a proposal that presents one-sided and limited information and only would or would not have been supported by secondary information, hearsay, and opinions, rather than an objective and comprehensive set of facts. The UA meeting is positively a place for free speech and open discussion. On the other hand, a UA vote can only occur on those topics that the UA can address within its ability, right, and jurisdiction deemed appropriate for, beneficial to, the entire undergraduate student body.

I believe that the role of the UA fundamentally entails serving the undergraduate student body as a whole, addressing issues that behoove the entire student body. Making official stances, either directly or indirectly, on highly-politicized, highly-religious, and highly-cultural topics is not why I was elected to serve on the UA. However, I was elected to listen and to act accordingly, and that is what I did. I listened, and I acted accordingly.

I believe that the UA seeks to unify the student body and not to divide.

Wilson Tong is a College and Wharton sophomore from Cheltenham, Pa. He is also the Chair of the Facilities and Campus Planning Committee of the Undergraduate Assembly

by Zachary Roseman

A group of over forty students attended the UA meeting on Sunday night with a problem that so affected them that they were ready to give up the entirety of their night in order to sit through the meeting and wait patiently for the opportunity to be heard. They came with a purpose, with conviction, and with a great sense of urgency. They knew that as the elected officers of our student body, UA members are charged with representing undergraduate interests, their interests, to the University.

Sadly, the UA members must have missed that memo. They were given a golden opportunity to take a stand on an important issue, much like the University of Pennsylvania Student Government did when it issued a referendum calling for the “complete and immediate withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.” They chose instead to hide behind rhetoric and procedural shenanigans, deflecting criticism with cries of lack of preparation and insufficient time; another venue, another time — anywhere but here. They debated not the issue at hand, but whether that issue deserved debate. They had the audacity to say that had they allowed said debate the room would have turned into a circus, as if the mere presence of non-UA members degraded the very legitimacy of the meeting itself. They argued that the UA must steer clear of political debates, but by their inaction they have made a statement that can be taken as nothing less than political in nature. They posited that every speaker who comes to campus has an inalienable right to free speech, yet they stifled the speech of those who only asked them to listen.

In response to an email I wrote Sunday night expressing my extreme dissatisfaction and embarrassment at what occurred, I was told that they believed they were upholding the “integrity” of the UA by deciding not to hear the voices that assembled before them. I challenge them to explain how the silencing of their constituents demonstrates their integrity as a body. I further challenge them to explain how it is “inappropriate” for us, the tuition-paying students of this university, to criticize the decisions and beliefs of our professors. Finally, I challenge them to explain how their inaction on Sunday night can be construed as anything less than cowardice.

,p>When did the sole visible role of the Undergraduate Assembly, the representative assembly of the student body, become fixing the laundry machines?

Zachary Roseman is a College freshman from West Hempstead, Ny. He can be reached at Roseman@sas.upenn.edu.

Huh…interesting. (State of Alabama)

I’m proud to announce that over spring break, I became a licensed driver. Yes, at twenty-one going on twenty-two, I finally tasted the freedom that most of you gained at the tender age of sixteen.

In Pennsylvania, as in many other states, when you get an ID card (including a driver’s license), you’re asked whether you’d like to become an organ donor. (If you were a teenage driver, your parents probably made the decision for you.) To be honest, I had been too preoccupied with my parallel parking to give it much thought. Of course, it’s the Good Samaritan thing to do, but then there are always those who say, “Don’t check the organ donor box, because if you’re in an accident, they won’t try as hard to save you.”

Maybe they’ve heard just one too many horror stories about the trafficking of human organs on the black market. But according to one Washington Post article, these fears aren’t completely unjustified.

When a donor is on his deathbed, organ removal can’t begin until doctors have officially announced his death. Thank you, Captain Obvious, right? Unfortunately, it’s not as straightforward as it sounds. The controversy, of course, revolves around the technical definition of death. Since the 1968 report by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School, the general consensus has been to define death as “irreversible coma” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain,” as opposed to the traditional definition, which only calls for cessation of heart and lung activity.

In recent years, however, a procedure called “donation after cardiac death” (DCD), in which organs are removed just minutes after a donor’s heart stops beating, has become a growing medical trend. Over the past three years, the number of DCD donors has doubled to 600, and many medical centers are developing policies to allow the procedure.

Surgeons like Francis L. Delmonica of the United Network for Organ Sharing, advocate DCD by citing the over 95,000 people in the U.S. waiting for organs.

But many other experts say that they are hesitant to “blur the definition of death,” adding that DCD has a “ghoulish,” “macabre” feel to it. After all, admits Jerry A. Menikoff, a University of Kansas professor of law, ethics, and medicine, they are “starting to remove the organs a few minutes before [the donors] meet the legal definition of death.” In addition, DCD usually involves patients on life support, which suggests that families of donors, when presented with the option, feel pressured to prematurely terminate treatment.

The thought of DCD is unsettling, to say the least. Organ donation itself is a wonderfully generous and compassionate act, but I simply can’t support a procedure that tweaks the definitions of life and death. As Gail A. Van Norman, a bioethicist at the University of Washington, so aptly puts it, “It’s worrisome when you stop thinking of the person who is dying as a patient but rather as a set of organs, and start thinking more about what’s best for the patient in the next room waiting for the organs.”

So although becoming an organ donor doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll be a DCD donor, I decided not to check the box just yet–and I can only hope that potential DCD donors out there will stay out of my way on the road.

Here in our urban utopia, we often miss out on the latest suburban trends—namely those involving automobiles, vast expanses of parking lot, and rich white kids acting “ghetto.”

Well, home dawg, you in luck! Ur bro’, da’ Bricks, gotz da’ fo’. Translation: My connections have told me just what we’re missing out on. It’s a trend sweeping the nation out of their cars and onto the roofs, literally. Put the car in drive, let it roll, dance around it, and Ghost Ride da’ Whip!

If you’ve got a strong stomach, you might want to check out these “Ghost Rides Gone Wrong.” Otherwise enjoy the following. Personally, I think the minivan really adds to the overall effect.