Spring Break
Drexel 'homeless' must move
Brandon Ngai
Issue date: 10/12/07 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 2 next >
During finals week at Princeton University, 1970, a professor, teaching a course on the life of Jesus, left a note for his students, explaining that their examination room was relocated across campus. During transit, each of the students was stopped by a panhandling beggar, but in their rush, each decided against helping him. Upon reaching the classroom, the professor revealed that the beggar was in fact an actor, and the students' unwillingness to spare him a few cents was indicative of what they learned, or did not learn, in his class. Each student subsequently received a failing exam grade.
As Alexandra Scheinfeld and Sean Murphy detailed in last week's edition of The Triangle, encountering beggars at the 7-Eleven on 34th and Lancaster seems to be a part of the Drexel experience.
If the aforementioned Jesus class was offered here at Drexel, the failure rate would probably be about 50 percent; seasoned veterans know not to encourage the loiterers with their donations, but there are a few benevolent souls (mostly freshman, I think) who do not mind parting with their small denominations. This is not, however, a case study in altruism. Rather, it's a smaller piece of the bigger picture: Drexel's unsightliness, the same unsightliness that the Princeton Review (unaffiliated with Princeton University, by the way) has made infamous.
Regardless of your opinion on homeless welfare or Drexel's aesthetic appeal, one thing is certain: the 7-Eleven supplicants should not be there. More to the point, the 7-Eleven supplicants should be removed.
According to campus lore, our 7-Eleven generates one of the highest revenues among 7-Eleven's nationwide.
It appears that the would-be doormen are benefiting from this as well; if you pay enough attention, you'll notice they have a rotating wardrobe and dress appropriately for all weather. You might even catch some of them listening leisurely to a CD player or Walkman. Their status as "homeless" is questionable. Granted, these items could have been procured at any shelter, but couple this possibility with their daily quarter scrounging and you'll realize that they are essentially exploiting the charity that seeks to improve their lives, or the lives of unfortunate others.
As Alexandra Scheinfeld and Sean Murphy detailed in last week's edition of The Triangle, encountering beggars at the 7-Eleven on 34th and Lancaster seems to be a part of the Drexel experience.
If the aforementioned Jesus class was offered here at Drexel, the failure rate would probably be about 50 percent; seasoned veterans know not to encourage the loiterers with their donations, but there are a few benevolent souls (mostly freshman, I think) who do not mind parting with their small denominations. This is not, however, a case study in altruism. Rather, it's a smaller piece of the bigger picture: Drexel's unsightliness, the same unsightliness that the Princeton Review (unaffiliated with Princeton University, by the way) has made infamous.
Regardless of your opinion on homeless welfare or Drexel's aesthetic appeal, one thing is certain: the 7-Eleven supplicants should not be there. More to the point, the 7-Eleven supplicants should be removed.
According to campus lore, our 7-Eleven generates one of the highest revenues among 7-Eleven's nationwide.
It appears that the would-be doormen are benefiting from this as well; if you pay enough attention, you'll notice they have a rotating wardrobe and dress appropriately for all weather. You might even catch some of them listening leisurely to a CD player or Walkman. Their status as "homeless" is questionable. Granted, these items could have been procured at any shelter, but couple this possibility with their daily quarter scrounging and you'll realize that they are essentially exploiting the charity that seeks to improve their lives, or the lives of unfortunate others.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 12
Lauren
posted 10/16/07 @ 2:26 PM EST
I can't even believe I just read that article. Really, for once in a very long time I am actually in disbelief. I thought I happened to be at a university with a group of open-minded intellectual individuals, I guess I now know I was being optimistic. (Continued…)
Sam
posted 10/21/07 @ 9:51 AM EST
If homeless have the money to sue, they would not be homeless at the first place...
nadum
posted 10/21/07 @ 11:58 AM EST
I don't want to be harassed by articles like this when I read my paper. And since I lack the wherewithal to say 'no,' or look the other way, the only solution is to remove or relocate this gibberish from the paper. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 10/24/07 @ 11:55 AM EST
Granted these so called "homeless" have rights but I have one too: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" well my pursuit of happiness it visiting an establishment or walking about without bothersome people begging me for my hard earned money. (Continued…)
Heywood Jablowme
posted 10/26/07 @ 12:25 PM EST
I agree, the homeless people suck. i hate being asked for 'a little help' or some 'change change change' everytime i get a taquito.
Talk to these homeless guys at 7-11, ask what they spend the money on. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 10/26/07 @ 2:15 PM EST
LAUREN, alright. you don't like the article. however, your assessment as to basically calling the author stupid because he realizes that the value of a property (not necessarily monetarily but also intrinsic)increases when you don't have all that riff-raff around is ludicrous. (Continued…)
Michael
posted 10/29/07 @ 6:26 PM EST
I find it funny that you all miss the real point of this article - an obviously eloquent student chose a blatantly controversial topic, offering an even more controversial stance, as an opening for him to provoke debate under his name. (Continued…)
kagedmunky
Andy
posted 10/31/07 @ 1:18 AM EST
I happen to agree. All the homeless people outside of 7-Eleven are bad for business. First of all they walk in, get coffee and walk out without even paying for it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment