Letters to the Editor
Issue date: 10/21/05 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 1
Misleading Editorial
Editor:
I write to correct a serious misunderstanding, voiced in The Triangle, that will unnecessarily upset students and detract from an effort about which we all should be justly proud. Your editorial, "Coercive Culture" attacks a condition that does not exist. Use of the Drexel Cultural Passports is NOT required; we explicitly rejected the idea that students be required to use them. Instead, they are offered as free introductions to area cultural institutions of students' choosing. Many Passports were distributed in UNIV 101, but we did that because, paraphrasing Willy Sutton, that's where the freshmen are.
Some professors in UNIV 101 and other courses may ask (or even require) students to undertake projects based on the free entry the Passports provide; but those are individual decisions related to a particular curriculum. Again, just to be clear: There is no general requirement that students use Passports; they are not "coercive" because they are not required. American writer Wallace Stevens declared, "The accuracy of accurate letters is an accuracy with respect to the structure of reality."
Mark Greenberg
Dean, Pennoni Honors College
Victim Compassion
Editor:
I am writing in response to your editorial, "Accused Administrator," published in the Oct. 7 issue of The Triangle.
Your call for caution in making any assumptions or drawing any conclusions at this point about Mr. Iannarella's guilt is well-taken. We must always assume innocence until proven otherwise - that is how the process is supposed to work.
And I share your support of the University's response to date. It is entirely appropriate that Mr. Iannarella be placed on paid administrative leave as the investigation proceeds.
However, regardless of Mr. Iannarella's guilt or innocence, I am offended by your lack of sensitivity to the charge, and particularly to the alleged victim. You write, "It isn't as if he systematically molested young children; this was one 17-year-old girl." Isn't one enough? Is there no harm in that? And would you say the same to the woman in question?
The fact is, 17 is 17. Sexual molestation of a minor of any age not only raises profound moral and ethical questions; it is a serious crime and should therefore be taken seriously by all parties (including the Archdiocese, also accused of covering it up in the first place).
Why do you feel the need to relativize the severity of the offense? Sure, you may not put it in the category of "serial rapists or child molesters" or consider it "near as bad as the other incidents in the grand jury report." But such an offense is not simply a matter of bad judgment (as you so flippantly suggest); it is reprehensible and it is illegal.
Tim Rardin
Director, Asbury Protestant Ministry at Drexel
Editor:
I write to correct a serious misunderstanding, voiced in The Triangle, that will unnecessarily upset students and detract from an effort about which we all should be justly proud. Your editorial, "Coercive Culture" attacks a condition that does not exist. Use of the Drexel Cultural Passports is NOT required; we explicitly rejected the idea that students be required to use them. Instead, they are offered as free introductions to area cultural institutions of students' choosing. Many Passports were distributed in UNIV 101, but we did that because, paraphrasing Willy Sutton, that's where the freshmen are.
Some professors in UNIV 101 and other courses may ask (or even require) students to undertake projects based on the free entry the Passports provide; but those are individual decisions related to a particular curriculum. Again, just to be clear: There is no general requirement that students use Passports; they are not "coercive" because they are not required. American writer Wallace Stevens declared, "The accuracy of accurate letters is an accuracy with respect to the structure of reality."
Mark Greenberg
Dean, Pennoni Honors College
Victim Compassion
Editor:
I am writing in response to your editorial, "Accused Administrator," published in the Oct. 7 issue of The Triangle.
Your call for caution in making any assumptions or drawing any conclusions at this point about Mr. Iannarella's guilt is well-taken. We must always assume innocence until proven otherwise - that is how the process is supposed to work.
And I share your support of the University's response to date. It is entirely appropriate that Mr. Iannarella be placed on paid administrative leave as the investigation proceeds.
However, regardless of Mr. Iannarella's guilt or innocence, I am offended by your lack of sensitivity to the charge, and particularly to the alleged victim. You write, "It isn't as if he systematically molested young children; this was one 17-year-old girl." Isn't one enough? Is there no harm in that? And would you say the same to the woman in question?
The fact is, 17 is 17. Sexual molestation of a minor of any age not only raises profound moral and ethical questions; it is a serious crime and should therefore be taken seriously by all parties (including the Archdiocese, also accused of covering it up in the first place).
Why do you feel the need to relativize the severity of the offense? Sure, you may not put it in the category of "serial rapists or child molesters" or consider it "near as bad as the other incidents in the grand jury report." But such an offense is not simply a matter of bad judgment (as you so flippantly suggest); it is reprehensible and it is illegal.
Tim Rardin
Director, Asbury Protestant Ministry at Drexel
Be the first to comment on this story