Letters to
the edTto►
Greek
sponsorship of
Brownie Mary
Dear Editors,
I am writing in response to the
article featuring Brownie Mary in the
November 13th issue of the
Collegian. The Collegian wrote a
thorough article about the concert, but
failed to include a major component:
how was this all possible?
Thanks to the hard work of Shanna
Cotti and Tim Lasko, Presidents of
Theta Phi Alpha and Tau Kappa
Epsilon, respectively, this second
annual event took place at Behrend
on November 7th, 1997. Beginning
last April, these organizations
petitioned SGA for funds to suppport
this event. When sufficient funds
were not provided, the members of
Theta Phi Alpha and Tau Kappa
Epsilon fund-raised all summer and
even dug into their own pockets to
bring this show to Behrend again.
In all reality, we were very lucky to
even have Brownie Mary come to our
campus, especially now since they
have signed with The Blackbird/Sire
Productions. And it was obvious to
anyone who attended the concert that
is was sponsored by Theta Phi Alpha
and Tau Kappa Epsilon.
It is hard enough for Greek
organizations to keep a positive image
on this campus and it is even more
difficult when the things we do go
unrecognized.
I regret to say that this is not the
first time that Greek contributions
have been overlooked, but hopefully
it will be the last.
Sincerely,
Amanda Horner
Vice-President
Theta Phi Alpha
ASA's 10th
anniversary
Dear Editor,
An article was recently submitted
to the Collegian about my sorority's
ten-year anniversary. This article, for
some reason, was not printed. I feel
that there is a lot of bad press about
Greeks. This celebration could show
that Greek life can be a very positive
experience.
Alpha Sigma Alpha, Epsilon Theta
Chapter is celebrating our ten-year
anniversary this fall. My sorority is
very active in the community. We are
involved in Adopt-A-Highway,
Special Olympics, and the MS Walk.
We have grown over the past ten years
in spirit and sisterhood. Involvement
in the sorority teaches time
management and leadership skills. It
gives confidence to the women
involved.
Greek life is what you make of it.
There are many stereotypes of Greek
life. I admit that I had many
preconceived ideas of what Greek life
was about. But I found out for myself
that joining a sorority or fraternity
does not mean you are "buying your
friends." It means so much to those
involved. I encourage those of you
who "lump" Greeks into a party
animal, don't-care-about-life category
to look a little deeper. You may be
surprised at what you will find.
Perhaps not printing an article about
a positive Greek event is a result of
the ignorance of people. There have
been articles printed in the past that
offer a distorted, one-sided view of
Greek life. Now the burden is put on
the Greek population to clear this
image. By not printing our article
about our celebration, the Collegian
is creating yet another obstacle that
we must overpass, rather than
providing an outlet for our voices to
be heard.
Sincerely,
Sally Pfeufer, 05 Accounting
Alpha Sigma Alpha Sorority
Editors Note: The press release
submitted by Alpha Sigma Alpha
about their tenth anniversary was
printed on the Calendar page of the
October 30th issue of the Collegian.
New nanny verdict makes no sense
By Kathleen Parker
To the list of where we were when
we heard the news of JFK's
assassination, O.J.'s verdict and
Diana's crash, we now may add the
nanny's new verdict.
I was standing Monday in the
magazine section of Books A
Million, watching the television that
runs continually for the sake of news
junkies away from home. Around me
swarmed others, men and women
interrupted from their browsing by
the breaking news. As anticipated,
Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel
reduced Louise Woodward's
conviction from second-degree
murder to involuntary manslaughter.
Zobel was going to let her walk.
Woodward, the 19-year-old British
nanny, whom a jury 11 days earlier
had convicted of murdering 8-month
old Matthew Eappens by shaking
him and banging his head, was free.
Zobel reduced her sentence from a
mandatory life term to time served.
In other words, the 279 days she
spent behind bars awaiting trial was
sufficient compensation for little
Matthew's unfortunate demise.
"Unbelievable," came the chorus
from bystanders in my immediate
circle of strangers.
Unbelievable, too, has been the
bizarre public response to
Woodward's trial, conviction and
sentencing. Brits and Americans
have been as divided in their
appraisal of the case as blacks and
whites were in the O.J. Simpson trial.
In the latter, a majority of whites felt
the evidence convicted Simpson of
murder, fair and square, while a
majority of blacks saw a police
conspiracy.
In this judicial round, Americans
saw evidence that Woodward caused
sufficient harm to her helpless charge
to kill him. Yes, she has a cute, round
Got something to say? Submit a letter to
the editor by emailing us at
behreoll2 e aol.com
face and a British accent, for which
Americans are incorrigible suckers.
But the prosecution established,
apparently adequately for a jury, that
Woodward was responsible for the
baby's
death.
said Woodward never called the
hospital to ask how Matthew was
doing. The baby lived five days after
Woodward's emergency call to
Matthew's mother to say the baby
was unresponsive and that she
thought Matthew might have choked
Brits, who hugged and kissed each on his vomit.
other upon word of Zobel's ruling, Matthew hadn't choked on his
saw only the sweet, neighbor-girl vomit, and Woodward knew it. She
they all thought they knew. She lied. So maybe she's not malicious,
couldn't have meant to hurt that baby, but hindsight tells us she's deceitful.
they said, and so she should be Woodward also knew her actions,
released
Zobel's reasoning is as scary as the
Brits' is baffling. In his 16-page
ruling, the judge said he was An innocent person would have
compelled by the evidence to reduce been at the hospital, praying for that
the verdict: child, begging forgiveness for not
"I believe that the circumstances in paying close enough attention when
which Defendant acted were "the accident" occurred, hanging
characterized by confusion, onto any word that the child might
inexperience, frustration, immaturity improve. Woodward never did any
and some anger, but not malice (in of those things. She never spoke to
the legal sense)," Zobel wrote. the Eappens again. Young and
Well, no joke, She was all of, those confused, or guilty and afraid?
things, apparently, but that doesn't I can understand the legal
excuse her actions. Plenty of killers distinction between involuntary
are confused, frustrated, angry, manslaughter and second-degree
immature. Susan Smith, whose two murder. The latter requires malice,
sons drowned in a South Carolina which doesn't seem to apply to
lake when she allowed her car to slide Woodward's case. Reducing her
down a boat ramp with them inside, sentence is defensible. But to let this
was also confused, frustrated, angry woman walk because she is young
and immature. She's spending the rest and confused effectively nullifies a
of her life behind bars. Bad accent? precious life that ended painfully and
Not cute enough? A tad on the rural inexcusably.
side, she was not quite nanny By his "merciful" ruling, Zobel
sends a bizarre message to parents
material
Evidence in Smith's trial suggested
she had no malice toward her
children. She loved them, by all
accounts, and continues to express
remorse from her prison cell.
Woodward, by contrast, has never
shown any remorse nor even any Kathleen Parker, an Orlando
interest in the baby she supposedly Sentinel columnist, can be reached
cared for
In a recent interview with Larry kparkerl @aolcorn
King, the Eappens, both physicians,
whatever they were, caused
Matthew's condition and subsequent
death.
and caregivers. Hired sitters shouldn't
kill babies entrusted to them, but if
they must -- better they be cute,
young and watch how they speak ye
olde mother tongue.
SIGNE
PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS
\
Philadelphia
USA
1
Thursday, November 20, 1997 The Behrend College Collegian - l'og(
Problems of
choice
By Gary R. Galluzzo=Special to
The Washington Post
The privilege for parents to
choose their child's education is
probably an inevitability in the not
too-distant future. As the advocates
of vouchers and charter schools
pile up more survey data, it is not
too hard to conclude that choice is
in the future of our education
system. This is not just because of
dissatisfaction with the
performance of our nation's public
schools, but also because
education just might be society's
last outpost of non-choice and that
is anachronistic.
But just because choice is a
feature of late-20th century
American society, does that mean
it is the right thing to do when it
comes to educating our children?
I have a beautiful 14-year-old
daughter who attends our
neighborhood school. Every day
she meets the other middle
schoolers in the neighborhood and
takes the bus to the same school.
The only choice my wife and I had
in this came when we chose where
to buy our house.
Like any parent. I want what is
best for my daughter. I might even
like to choose where she goes to
school, but current conditions
make it such that I cannot. Is that
What happens when individual,
ideological pursuit is the game,
and our children are the pieces
we move about?
Certainly, schools supported by
vouchers or charter schools
provide opportunities to explore
alternative arrangements, which
are sorely needed on the education
landscape. The idea of choice also
provides options beyond selecting
the school, and they compel me to
wonder where the choosing stops.
Most discussions of choice are
focused on parents choosing the
school. But if I can choose the
school, I should be able to choose
the curriculum. It is easy to
imagine poor parents having the
freedom to choose the school in the
wealthier part of town. But what
if they don't like the curriculum
offered there? What if they don't
like the more concept-driven
approach to learning in that
particular school? Or, what if they
don't like the core curriculum at the
local school? A choice advocate
might tell them to keep looking --
the marketplace eventually will
create the school they want.
If parents can choose the school,
can they choose the teachers with
whom their children will study?
And if they find that they don't like
.
WISIDEIg
... ii=.... .. iii , m ,S
Ei ti Gil '
;' 41! ----- '' . -s' \•
;,), *fUaGESIEP Tig:::,
~ ,
01.'',. ~ I ago° ' "re WAI
OreW
ixoccrle taVeAT
.t r WO woe, ROW
s - Ifq, • , , e liegto
1 11 ~. : • i'j' zi-5ii7 , ...,.,A/' ~ , glicov uP e
11
T....... 1
' • \ ...) =s - , - --1 7 "- - - - - 7,:si ,/,4 , ',.'
_ ,
one or two teachers, Call they
choose different ones in October?
Teacher choice sounds a hit far
fetched, but why not?
What about parents who don't
particularly like standardised
testing for their children, another (A .
the latest cures to our education
system. Some parents won't want
their children taking those state or
national tests, but they like the
school curriculum and the teachers.
Can they choose not to have their
children participate in the testing?
Is this choice available to them? A
good advocate of choice should say
yes.
Can the school that receives state
and federal funds choose not to gi‘e
the state and national tests to attract
more students? Can it choose that
and still remain accredited'?
If the answer to each question is
yes, then we are approaching a
system of education in which
choice is the basic value. Before
that, we all loosely subscribed to a
curriculum as the basic value. But
if choice is our future. then what is
it that makes our nation or any state
in the Union a commonwealth?
What will bind us together other
than the pursuit of choice!
In this new public marketplace of
the commonwealth, our greatest
strength will be the fact that nothing
holds us together other than the
freedom to choose to he together.
What then happens to our definition
of democracy or a democratic
republic? What happens when
individual, ideological pursuit is the
game, and our children are the
pieces we move about?
Nothing would make me happier
than to see the resurrection of
public education in America. But
it was based on a kind of naive
kinship of the '4os and 'sos that told
us we were one before it told me I
was one. Those days are gone. and
in our contemporary society and
economy, school choice is one
result.
I have little reason to believe
choice will cure the ills of our
education system in the way its true
believers tell us it will. Choice will
only create a new set of problems
to solve in a new arena, and it too
will be as tyrannical as the current
monopoly on compulsory
education without choice, just in
different ways.
Galluzzo is dean of George
Mason University's Graduate
School of Education.