|
COUNCIL
2000-2001 Year-end Committee Reports
The following
reports were presented at Council last spring.
Final reports for Community Relations,
Facilities, Personnel
Benefits, Pluralism, Quality
of Student Life, and Safety and Security,
were given to Almanac recently for publication.
Report by the
Subcommittee on Perceptions of the Community Relations Committee
May
4, 2001
(CLICK
HERE for theCommunity Relations Committee report)
The
Community Relations Committee/Perceptions Subcommittee, 1999-2000/2000-2001,
consisted of: Karlene Burrell-McRae, Jody Kolodzey, Klaus Krippendorff
and Brian Spooner.
Our
focus has been on symbiotic perceptions. We have been concerned,
that is, not just with how Penn is perceived by the West Philadelphia
Community, but with how the West Philadelphia Community is perceived
by Penn.
We
have observed how certain practices and policies of the University
serve to create perceptions by its students, faculty, and staff
that the surrounding community is hostile and unsafe; at the same
time, these and other University practices and policies foster perceptions
by West Philadelphia residents and business owners that the University
considers them a nuisance and an obstacle to its perceived notion
of manifest destiny. There is mutual distrust, and mutual feeling
that each regards the other as something of a "feeding ground."
Some
of the things we looked at were concrete: i.e., the perceptions
of people who walked their dogs on the site of the planned pre-K-8
school, and had come to consider themselves a "community"
whose members looked out for and supported one another. This group
of West Philadelphians further cemented its sense of communitas
by banding together against a perceived enemy--not just to its habit
of dog-walking, but to its actual existence as a community--and
that enemy is Penn. The threat, as these people perceived it, was
not just individual, but collective, and as such, it proved very
motivating.
Other
things we observed were more subtle and abstract: i.e., the perception
that the subtext of the "Go West" campaign promoting Thursday
night activities on campus indicated that the community was not
welcome. For West Philadelphians, coming to campus means going East.
The perceived implication was that only Center City residents were
invited.
History
The
idea for this subcommittee grew out of some remarks made at the
first Community Relations Committee meeting of 1999-2000. At that
time, a representative from Residential Life told the committee
that her office had initiated van service to take students from
the College Houses to the University Museum on Thursday evenings.
Several of us immediately thought, "It's not very far. Why
can't they walk?" A founding member of our subcommittee said
she was reminded of the first apartment she looked at in University
City when she initially came here as a graduate student. That apartment
had bars on the windows. Rather than feeling more secure because
of the bars, she was terrified: "My God," she wondered,
"What are they keeping out?" Likewise, having such a van
suggests it is not safe to walk three blocks here after dark. We
recalled that a DP guest columnist had written in 1998 that
the University's Escort Service was originally a walking service;
the columnist noted that turning it into a van service not only
increased the perception that the streets were unsafe, but actually
contributed to making them unsafe by removing pedestrian traffic.
We
were also intrigued by a comment made by a member of GAPSA --that
ten years ago, 100% of Penn's grad students lived in West Philadelphia.
Now, 70% of them live in Center City. Our subcommittee wanted to
know: How is this fact related to the concept of perceptions? Do
grad students perceive the West Philly neighborhood as undesirable?
Do West Philly residents perceive grad students as undesirable neighbors?
What role do Penn's own real estate and business practices in the
community play in the grad students' perceptions of West Philadelphia
as an undesirable place to live?
We
decided it would be useful to offer a series of focus groups aimed
at getting a handle on exactly what some of these perceptions are.
One member of our subcommittee is very proficient and experienced
in focus group design, organization, and management. The problem
our subcommittee faced, however, was the same one that addles the
Community Relations Committee as a whole and was discussed in our
last couple of general committee meetings: not enough time or manpower.
It was too much for us to do ourselves. We lost momentum. We lost
heart.
Conclusion
We
are uncomfortable with the perception that our role is to be cheerleaders
and apologists for the University's expansion policies. Rather,
as one member of our subcommittee put it, we "want to make
sure that people who are not Penn staffers are not shafted."
We
believe that perceptions are important and that more attempts should
be made to examine and to heed them. They should never be dismissed
as "wrong." They create their own reality.
--Jody
Kolodzey
Report
by the Subcommittee on Charges of the Committee on Community Relations
April
18, 2001
(CLICK
HERE for theCommunity Relations Committee report)
Summary
In
recent years the Committee on Community Relations has struggled
to define a purpose or manageable task for each academic year. This
struggle for definition was particularly difficult over the 2000-2001
year, and generated considerable discussion and analysis. From this
we have concluded:
- The
Committee lacks a specific purpose or role, in large part because
it has been supplanted by other organizations and committees.
- There
are serious, structural problems contained within the Charges
to the Committee, that make it difficult for the Committee to
perform effectively.
- There
remain aspects of community relations and Penn-Community projects
that are not adequately addressed by existing committees or organizations
within the University.
We
therefore recommend:
- That
the presently formulated Committee on Community Relations, as
defined by the Charges to that committee, be eliminated.
- That
consideration be given to devising sharply focused committees
or organizations to address issues not already addressed by other
entities, with particular consideration for committees or organizations
that would prospectively review/comment-on/react-to/evaluate
Penn-Community projects before these projects are underway.
- That
consideration be given to developing structures for evaluating
the long-term "success" of major University/Community
projects and relations, as well as the total integrated activity
of the University with respect to the Community. Such an evaluation
would require personnel with appropriate time, skills, and resources.
Finally,
leaving aside the recommendations listed above, we draw your attention
to some of the specific structural problems faced by the Committee,
which severely limit its effectiveness:
- The
charge to the Committee is vague. It speaks of assuring that "the
University maintains a constructive relationship with the community",
but does not specify what constitutes the "community".
Nor does it specify what "constructive relationship"
is.
- The
charge to the Committee is overly broad. It includes issues such
as housing, real estate development, economic development, beautification,
safety, policing, health and wellness programs, educational programs
for residents, and educational programs for University students.
No committee with its attention so divided can be expected carry
out its charge.
- The
Committee does not have the expertise to carry out its charge.
For instance, for the Specific Charges for 2000-2001 the Committee
is called to "maintain oversight of the University's impact
on the community, giving special attention to real estate developments
and transactions, and the planned preK-8 school." Impact
"assessment" is a job for experienced professionals
-- with the requisite education, training, and resources--in this
case, urban planners, sociologists, real estate specialists, and
educational specialists. The University places a high value on
excellence; the Committee should not be asked to render judgments
it is unqualified to make.
- Three
of the four Specific Charges for 2000-2001 deal with information
sharing or making "contacts" and "relationships"
with other organizations for unspecified goals and purposes. This
suggests that the Committee no longer has a specific purpose,
or that its original purpose has been supplanted by other organizations.
The
Subcommittee consisted of Daniel Bogen, author of this report, Jeanne
Arnold, and Richard Womer.
(CLICK
HERE for theCommunity Relations Committee report)
Almanac, Vol. 48, No. 6, October 2, 2001
|
ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS:
Tuesday,
October 2, 2001
Volume 48 Number 6
www.upenn.edu/almanac/
|