In the 1936 short story “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” the famous senator argues with Satan for a man’s soul. The devil agrees to Webster’s request that the case be tried before a judge and jury composed of Americans. Among the jury are such figures as the murderous Wampanoag King Philip and the pirate Blackbeard:

“One and all, they came into the room with the fires of hell still upon them, and the stranger named their names and their deeds as they came, till the tale of 12 was told. Yet the stranger had told the truth — they had all played a part in America.”

In the aftermath of riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, there has been a concerted effort by public figures to distance themselves from the white supremacist protesters opposed to the removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee. While that may seem agreeable at first, this line of thinking is harmful — we must confront the fact that Confederates, neo-Nazis and the “alt right” are indeed our countrymen.

They should be taken seriously. Not because their grievances are necessarily legitimate, but because they have a root cause worth addressing. Racist thought of course is a venerable tradition in America. That’s common knowledge; so much so that the public’s association of people like Lee with the Confederacy (and thus, Jim Crow and segregation) has overshadowed every other aspect of their history.

The more relevant question, then, is why do people still hold racist views today, and how can we convince them otherwise? Some would have us ban online accounts or deny protest permits, or even commit vandalism and assault — in other words, the methods of the censor and the stormtrooper. The problem with this reaction should be obvious.

Our unfortunate professor Ciccariello-Maher recently told The Triangle that “[y]ou cannot debate with fundamentally irrational ideas. … They’re Nazis because they want to have a faith, and you can’t break that faith except by out-organizing them and through making their movements impossible in the streets.”

He does not grant the same need for provocative organizing to his opponents. Nor did he realize that this legitimizes calls to fire him from people who think his own views are repugnant and irrational. No, a free republic requires a just respect for each citizen’s capacity for reason.

We must therefore address the origins of white supremacist beliefs. These are conjectured as economic decline in white communities, discomfort with changing demographics and a disaffection with government. An economic structure focused on giant multinational business, a shift away from familiar religions and languages, and a dysfunctional politics can easily be radicalized into a Jewish banker conspiracy, a threat to white culture and the need for violence. Simplifying a complex system of misbelief to mere “hate” impedes any progress.

One solution to radicalism is to decipher and address the real grievances. This has been done in Charleston, where leaders of the South Carolina Secessionist Party and a Black Lives Matter chapter recently came together on shared concerns like gentrification, and spoke about the need for peaceful dialog. An inclusive discussion builds the common bonds that defend against radicalism.

Yet more important is that there exists a deep internal contradiction among those Americans who distance themselves from the Charlottesville protesters. The group opposite to white supremacists is not those who are not racist — most people equally take for granted that our society is organized based on race.

The census categorizes people by race, employers are criticized or praised based on racial demographics, and in academia we find  scholarships with explicit racial requirements. Popular language even trends toward creating a whole new race, the “Hispanic,” out of what was only a cultural notation. I don’t suppose that this means a feeling of white victimization is accurate, but it does pose a significant intellectual problem. This kinder, gentler racism is hardly an effective weapon..

White supremacism presents us with an ordered, logically consistent structure for society, based only on false premises. How can it be destroyed except with a complete and sound alternative? Our leaders still publicly aspire to the idea of mere racial “equality” rather than speaking of the abolition of race, that false division of our nation.

A just future cannot be one in which we simply strike racists from the record — ignoring our own flaws, and not inviting them to be part of a better society. That was how Webster won over the jury of the damned:

“He talked of the early days of America and the men who had made those days. It wasn’t a spread-eagle speech, but he made you see it. He admitted all the wrong that had ever been done. But he showed how, out of the wrong and the right, the suffering and the starvations, something new had come. And everybody had played a part in it, even the traitors.”

Famed neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky spoke at the Mandell Theater April 13, explaining the many different factors that influence violent behavior.

He eloquently took the audience step-by-step through neurological, cultural and evolutionary processes that can explain strange human actions. While he believes violence seems deeply embedded in humanity, he concluded that there is reason to be optimistic about the future.

Donna Murasko, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, introduced the Stanford University professor.

“One of the strengths of a liberal arts college is that as you take courses outside your discipline, you have the ability to apply that perspective to topics that are very distinct from the one you’re studying now,” she said. “Tonight’s speaker will show us how his discipline is important to us in our everyday lives, and how we can use information to figure out where we are in this world.” Sapolsky is the seventh speaker in the college’s Distinguished Lecture Series.

He began by reciting a fantasy about capturing and slowly torturing Adolf Hitler.

This, Sapolsky said, illustrates a human paradox: why does a nonviolent person such as himself have such fantasies? Why does society both criticize and glorify different forms of violence? For that matter, why is our violent species often so altruistic?

To humans, context matters. Sapolsky has extensively studied baboons, and asserted other primates would little understand our behavior.

The bulk of his lecture was an explanation of the latest scientific understanding of violence. The most immediate explanation can be found in the brain, but recent experiences, hormones, social relations, childhood, genetics, the prenatal environment, culture, history, ecology and evolution are all related.

However, Sapolsky tried to dispel the idea that anything determines human behavior. Elevated levels of the hormone testosterone, for instance, does not solely cause aggression but is associated with all forms of social status-preserving behavior.

In the brain, the interaction of the amygdala and frontal cortex make humans adept at sensing danger, even while they encourage suspicion of people who don’t look like us. Both positive and negative human behaviors are part of the same biological structures.

One of the root problems he suggested was that society often rewards violent behavior, and that is why many biological mechanisms result in it. He humorously suggested that giving testosterone to a crowd of Buddhist monks would instead lead to a flurry of random acts of kindness.

Moreover, he said that humans are more changeable than is often believed. The brain never stops forming new synaptic connections, and even the expression of genes is stimulated or suppressed by the environment. Humans can dramatically change their individual behavior. Citing the example of the Swedes, who once were the “scourge of Northern Europe,” Sapolsky illustrated that cultures change as well.

New advances in natural and social science offer the potential to improve humanity in a more directed way. However, “be very cautious when you intervene and do it with a great deal of humility,” the scientist cautioned, referring to the way we now judge past mistakes.

In conclusion, Sapolsky wished the audience “good luck with your struggles with your best and worst behaviors.”

The Triangle

Myers Hall will not be missed for its physical attributes. By all accounts this “temporary” dormitory far exceeded its recommended lifespan. But its impending demolition represents the gradual death of an idea: affordable housing on the Drexel University campus.

“Traditional” dorms like Myers were conceived to house large numbers of students efficiently. Multiple students share a bedroom and multiple bedrooms share common cooking and bathroom facilities. The traditional residence hall is now emblematic of the college experience, but the roots are very utilitarian. The inconvenience of shared living was a small price to pay for a greatly reduced cost of living. Indeed, traditional living is still the best choice among the dorms for students who have trouble making ends meet — and with Drexel’s tuition rates, who doesn’t?

It’s hard to understand, therefore, why the university keeps trying to shift away from traditional dorms. Room and board at Drexel is already the most expensive in the state, and it’s high up on the national charts. Myers will be replaced by a park, which the campus surely needs, but that will be of little use to students who can’t afford to attend. This replacement goes entirely against the university’s professed goal of attracting (and retaining) a diverse student body.

In the past, one often paid a premium for the luxury of moving off-campus into a single room or apartment. Today it’s the opposite, where the dorms are far above market rates.

For the 2017-18 academic year, freshmen can pay $1138 a month ($3,415 per quarter) for the privilege of sharing a suite with five other students. They also have to deal with restrictive university housing policies. With only a glance at the off-campus housing website, upperclassmen can go off-campus and pay $700 plus utilities for a studio apartment or $500 with all included to get a bedroom to themselves.

The distance to campus is negligible, the difference in price is absurd.

Of course, the only way that Drexel can afford to provide substandard conditions above market rates is to simply force students to live on campus their first year. The practice of requiring “approved” housing for sophomores tends to bring them to the high-priced places which can make backroom deals with Drexel, like Chestnut Square or The Summit.

And Drexel has previously made a secret agreement with the Powelton Village Civic Association to make it harder for students to live off-campus. These policies are directly responsible for many thousands of dollars in added student loan debt. This is the essence of the venerable Drexel Shaft.

To be sure, it is good for the community when students live on campus. It makes it easier to participate in student organizations, reduces the burden on Powelton Village and fosters a good college spirit. The university should therefore seek to compete on price to make the residence halls actually an attractive option, instead of a two-year financial hazing.

Although the power lies with the administration, we have a responsibility as students to lobby for change. Current students have already paid the price, but it would be an injustice to let future students be deprived in the same way.

The demolition of Myers Hall cannot pass by unnoticed and we must demand affordable options to replace it.

Drexel University hosted the American premiere of “The Promise” Feb. 3 in the URBN Annex screening room. The romantic drama is set in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide, which occurred parallel to World War I.

Our protagonist Michael (Oscar Isaac) is an Armenian apothecary from a rural village in the mountains of Anatolia, who becomes engaged to Maral (Angela Sarafyan), a woman from a wealthy family, so he can use the dowry to pay for attendance at the imperial medical school. During his time in school she stays behind, but while in Constantinople, Michael meets the beautiful Ana (Charlotte Le Bon), a well-traveled Armenian who is in a relationship with American reporter Christopher Myers (Christian Bale). Together they experience the rising tension between Turks and Armenians and its eruption into one of the genocides less known to the American public.

The cast performs excellently and with deep emotion. The use of a few lesser-known actors is welcomed and gives the characters their proper space. The romance and tragedy is on full display; for example, it is particularly wise is that Christian Bale has limited screen time. Though independently funded, the drama matches any big-budget Hollywood film in this regard, as do the production values.

Costumes and scenery make the Ottoman world come alive and help to identify the distinction between decadent Constantinople and the backward Anatolian hinterlands. A modest amount of CGI enhances Spain, Portugal and Malta to be a very believable stand-in for Turkey. With the Turkish government’s continuing denial of the genocide, it is understandable that filming on location was out of the question.

It’s clear that everyone involved felt the time was ripe for a big film treatment of the Armenian genocide, but though the result is thoroughly enjoyable, it suffers from lack of depth. It is far closer to “Titanic” than “Schindler’s List.” For instance, not once does the film explore why the Turks persecute the Armenians, but instead it leaves the Turks of the film distinctly flat. They are either representatives of an evil empire or, for reasons also unstated, secretly support the Armenians instead. It is hoped that American audiences fully appreciate the film and encourage more ambitious films about the Armenian genocide to explore its meaning further.

Nevertheless, if evaluated as a typical Hollywood epic, the film succeeds on all the standard marks. It has exotic locations and costumes, a love triangle, protagonists that persevere through cruel hardships — and of course, most of the characters don’t make it to the end. Cut down from its original three hours to a manageable 134 minutes, it makes for a great night out.

The screening was organized by the Pennoni Honors College in cooperation with the Westphal College of Media Arts & Design. Honors students had the unique opportunity to sit down with producer William Horberg and Dean of the honors college, Paula Marantz Cohen, before the show. Hornberg, who briefly spoke about the long history of creating such a film despite Turkish government opposition, also took questions from the audience afterward.

The general public will have to wait until April 28 for the film to be released.

Drexel’s main campus is compact, but all of Philadelphia is available for exploration. There are a multitude of ways to get around, but one thing’s for sure — cars are best left at home, because Drexel’s parking fees are killer. Rumor has it that the Philadelphia Parking Authority uses the Drexel campus as its training ground, so flouting the rules is risky. Why not try out the many alternatives?

One of Philadelphia’s most widely utilized facets of public transportation is the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. For those accustomed to public transportation in New York, the SEPTA system will be a welcome reprieve. There’s only two subway lines: the Market-Frankford line (commonly called “the Blue line” or “the el”) goes mostly east-west, and the Broad Street line (Orange or “ahrange” or just “the subway” to differentiate it from the el) goes north-south. They’re supplemented by a network of trolley lines (green) running between City Hall and most of West Philadelphia — don’t confuse subterranean trolley stations with the subway. They also run underground.

SEPTA buses are a bit harder to make sense of, since the lines cross each other and the city grid, but go to major shopping malls and other areas not served by the subway. For travel closer to home, there is the “Lucy” loop around University City, but the University’s own buses are probably a better option.

For now, each SEPTA ride is paid for with a Philadelphia icon, the SEPTA token. A token costs $1.80, but paying cash costs $2.25, so it pays to stock up on tokens. There are token machines in the Creese Student Center and the 30th Street Station el stop. Drexel students can purchase a discounted unlimited monthly SEPTA pass, but frequent travel is required before this is a good option.

When things break down, just remember SEPTA’s slogan: “We’re getting there.”

Drexel University and the University of Pennsylvania both have “shuttle buses” available to Drexel students for free with the presentation of their Drexel ID. Drexel’s shuttle buses go mostly toward the medical campuses in Center City and at Queen Lane, as well as to the Vidas Athletic Complex, but the Penn West line has broad coverage.

Allison Liu

Philadelphia’s bikeshare program, Indego, is another flexible form of transportation available to Drexel students. The Indego bike share system allows a quick bike rental for short trips in Center City and West Philadelphia. Bikes are checked out and returned at Indego stations; there’s one in front of the Daskalakis Athletic Center, and one at the back of Drexel Park. At $4 per half hour ordinarily, a $15 per month subscription looks pretty appealing.

Last but not least is the Flintstone Mobile option. Although Philadelphia is a large city, most of the things worth seeing are in a pretty small area. A walk from Drexel to Independence Hall takes 30 minutes or so and passes by the major attractions. Invest in some comfortable walking shoes.

The post Upperclassmen talk transportation appeared first on The Triangle.

The prime rumor around campus is that Drexel University will cut evening hours and eliminate major stops from the Blue & Gold bus route, which runs west from campus through Powelton Village. Potentially, only the stop on the main campus and at the Vidas Athletic Complex could survive. If social media reports are to be believed, bus drivers have already been told their hours or even jobs are at risk — though the University has not made a formal statement to the student body.

It certainly isn’t hard to believe that the University would do such a thing, however. Drexel rakes in tuition money but spends it just as greedily, so it would be no surprise if there were budget problems (You may have noticed that our new Perelman Plaza originally had turf grass in several areas that was pulled up just a few weeks later and replaced with other plants), but I believe something more sinister is at stake here.

Commuters that live near campus, driven there by cheaper room and board than at Drexel (the fourth most expensive in the country, according to Business Insider), depend on the Blue & Gold route. It takes students to and from their housing, The Fresh Grocer and classes — I doubt Vidas is on most people’s itinerary. That the route is the first to fall to budget cuts shows Drexel administrators’ commitment to keeping people on campus. With it being harder to buy groceries, they might even buy a meal plan. Sodexo, which runs all the establishments where dining dollars can be spent, would love to get its hands on about $22 per student per day (That’s right, the cost of a typical meal plan could let you eat at a pretty good restaurant every day.)

It must not be forgotten that it is President John A. Fry’s personal mission to make it harder for students to live off-campus. As The Triangle reported Feb. 6, the president put his name on an agreement with the Powelton Village Civic Association, committing Drexel to more off-campus housing restrictions, such as a potential extension of the Two-Year Residency Program. Has this backdoor deal claimed its latest victims?

You might call this is a conspiracy theory, and perhaps it is overly suspicious, but when our administration makes secret deals, or decides to get rid of important amenities without even discussing it with the student body, it’s hard to assume that it is always acting in good faith. It doesn’t take much asking around to know that the Drexel administration does not have the students’ trust — the concept of the “Drexel Shaft” has certainly outlived the structure.

The University could do well in my eyes by being significantly more transparent about its actions and consulting the student body about any major proposals. Of course, that means discussion in a public meeting, and not just with the privileged few who sit on deans’ advisory boards or head student organizations. I look forward to an open debate about the Blue & Gold route.

The post Budget cuts mean cut bus routes appeared first on The Triangle.

Last week, I outlined some of the familiar problems with our student government. Since these problems are quite long-standing, I think it is clear that there are flaws of organization and culture which drive the Undergraduate Student Government Association to perform poorly, even beyond the personal deficiencies of certain members.

Let us start at the top. The student government is led by a strong executive branch — the president is not only the chief representative of USGA to other bodies, but together with the other officers, the origin of most of its policies. This leaves little role for the assembly, by which I mean those members elected to represent the students and who act as a parliamentary body.

USGA’s organization turns the traditional democratic model on its head, where the assembly provides neither policy nor oversight for its executive branch.

How has this come about? My observation is that the desire for a strong executive typically comes from the example of our federal executive branch. In America, we are often led astray by the example of our Constitution, which is very well-designed, but only for its particular purpose: The role of the executive branch is to implement policy. Because at the federal level there are great politics involved with that implementation, the chief executive must be elected by the people to maintain the government’s republican character.

In our student government, on the other hand, we have very little to implement. Unlike at some other universities, our government does not operate a student union center and has no binding role in determining policy on academic honesty or other student conduct. It does not even spend a great deal of money on campus activities, since the Student Activity Fee Allocation Committee currently has that charge. The role of officers in USGA that is left, then, is primarily to serve the representative assembly by carrying out its will.

A natural place to start reform is by gelding the president and returning his power to the student government at large. Since the executive burden is very small, we do not risk having an indecisive executive — instead, we strengthen the policy-making power when we disperse it, because it becomes more democratic. Thus I foresee a USGA where the president and other officers do their best to implement policy proposed and approved by the assembly.

In this organization, it is no longer even necessary to elect the officers or to give them a vote in the assembly. The students are best represented by an assembly that reflects their diversity of opinion, and it is impossible for any individual to do the same. If instead the officers are nominated and elected by the representatives, it becomes obvious that the officers must serve the assembly, and not vice versa.

In fact, this arrangement would strengthen what is left of the executive role. In the current scheme, each officer is elected individually, so the students have empowered them to act on whatever platform they ran. When their platforms conflict, a problem arises — if you elect me as archivist I will sometimes need the services of the communications director, but what if that person disagrees with me on policy? Both our positions are equally valid, since we were both elected. This indecision is removed when the sole source of policy is the majority vote of the assembly.

By changing the legal structure to reflect that officers should serve representatives, a cultural change will follow as a matter of course. The representatives will be empowered to act, while the officers will have their policy clearly laid out for them. Our student government will be both more representative and effective, a step closer to the American ideal of self-governance we strive for.

Kim Post is the Staff Manager at The Triangle. He can be contacted at Kim.post@thetriangle.org.

The post Power distribution in USGA appeared first on The Triangle.

Undergraduate Student Government Association elections are this term. They have rarely been paid much attention to, and indeed several people have said to me that they unaware we even have a student government until I brought it up. That should tell you enough about how well the institution functions. I will be seeking election as archivist (secretary) on a platform of change, and until at least Election Day (May 20 was said at the April 1 USGA meeting — but to my knowledge nowhere else), I’d like to consider the political philosophy, or lack thereof, behind student government at Drexel University.

I prefer to focus on solutions rather than criticism, but since USGA is a fairly obscure organization, I shall take this first installment to discuss the varied and bizarre ways it does not serve students.

First of all, the organization is highly secretive. Until very recently it was hard to find out when any USGA meeting was, and I attribute it to my coverage of USGA in this newspaper and pressure from several friends of mine that this is beginning to change. Beyond meetings, the records are largely secret: Even the organization’s bylaws or rules of order are not public information (per President Kevin Murray, it is not necessary for others to know them), and its constitution is available only because the Office of Campus Activities mandates an annual upload to DragonLink.

It is not merely a question of incompetence but a very willful strike against representative government that would make our City Council blush. For example, when USGA members take a vote (which is quite rare for a deliberative assembly), all non-members must leave the room so they cannot hear what the members’ opinions are. The lone exception is USGA’s staff adviser: It is surely criminal that the Drexel administration has more access to the government than the students it claims to represent.

If you run against an incumbent this year, which I encourage, you will have a hard time criticizing that person’s policies: Their voting record is not available. This brings into question the legitimacy of elections, since voters cannot make an informed choice. What’s more, I suspect that turnout among students is extraordinarily low — but I cannot prove it, since I have not been able to find vote tallies for any recent elections.

Even someone duly elected will have to overcome the challenge that USGA is dominated by its executives. Most meetings consist of the president announcing what will be done, while the others meekly report on activities without being expected to propose substantial actions of their own. Presumably, all of the executive proposals are rubber-stamped in short order.

All this is to say that our student government is not at all the legitimate representation of undergraduate students, through its prior actions and fundamental flaws in the way it is organized that encourage this misbehavior — I will write on those flaws in the following weeks. I call for the ouster of those who support its continuing mediocrity and a large-scale reform during the summer term. Make this election count.

Kim Post is the Staff Manager at The Triangle. He can be contacted at kim.post@thetriangle.org.

The post USGA policies alienate student involvement appeared first on The Triangle.

Photo Credit: USGA

Drexel University’s Undergraduate Student Government Association met Feb. 18 in a rather small-scale session as most members were absent. USGA discussed their ongoing efforts to host “town hall” events, the upcoming Student Life Awards and the addition of new representatives. The proposal to add a freshman representative, though, did not receive its scheduled vote for lack of quorum.

USGA President Kevin Murray, who was himself late due to an appearance at an event for student organization leaders, indicated that the low attendance was due to various members’ scheduling difficulties, and the chosen date represented the best one during this part of the term.

A debriefing on the Feb. 2 event where President John A. Fry answered students’ questions, revealed some dissatisfaction. Though Murray was pleased with the breadth of topics covered, the turnout was disappointing. USGA members suggested changing the venue (last time, a classroom in the Papadakis Integrated Sciences Building) to something more public, like the lobby of the Recreation Center or the Handschumacher Dining Center, and also moving away from the town hall name to something more understandable such as a “Q&A.”

The project is of importance to Murray. “I really want to advertise this much more heavily,” he said of the next meeting involving Fry, slated for early spring term. He mentioned that past town hall events were USGA-branded but in fact entirely organized by the Dean of Students, and said it is good that USGA has recently taken more control. The next such event will be March 2 with Donna Murasko, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

Vice President James Gordon reported on the organization of the Student Life Awards, some of which are presented by USGA, encouraging members to submit nominations of themselves or friends. The theme will be “excellence through the ages,” spotlighting a slate of successful Drexel alumni throughout history. The deadline for nominations is March 1.

The last major topic of consideration was the potential addition of two members. The existing position, a representative for inclusion, is vacant; and is to be filled until the spring term election through a USGA vote. Murray said that leaders of “inclusive” and “diverse” student organizations would be invited via email to apply.

USGA is also considering whether to add a representative specifically for freshmen. Murray, who is in favor of the proposal, decided at the last meeting that a vote would be held Feb. 18. With a mere 10 representatives present, though, the assembly found itself without a quorum, the minimum amount of members present needed to do business. The USGA constitution does not define a quorum, but two-thirds is traditional.

The representatives nevertheless discussed the topic, at which point spectators were asked to leave, as they keep the opinions of members on any issue to be voted upon a strict secret.

The next full USGA meeting will be March 9 at 7 p.m. Meetings generally start in Room 051 of the Creese Student Center and are open to public.

The post USGA discusses ongoing issues and updates to “town hall” meetings appeared first on The Triangle.

Photo Courtesy: Bobbie McKenna

Undergraduate Student Government Association President Kevin Murray stated in an email Feb. 12 that he supports Drexel University’s controversial project to restrict off-campus living, which The Triangle reported Feb. 6. “The ultimate goal of University housing and a campus with a residential focus is to create a community and a culture that spurs social interaction and academic excellence. The idea that President [John A.] Fry has laid out for the future of Drexel student housing is one that will create a culture and a community in and around our campus that is not only beneficial to our students but also to the greater Powelton Village and Philadelphia community,” Murray wrote in response to an inquiry.

Murray was also asked whether the topic will be discussed at the next USGA meeting Feb. 18, and whether the organization was previously aware of the recently revealed commitments Fry made to the Powelton Village Civic Association to limit off-campus housing in exchange for PVCA’s lack of opposition to construction of The Summit, but Murray did not respond to those questions. The student representative indicated the statement represented his own thoughts.

“I wholeheartedly agree that every attempt must be made to provide lower priced housing to students, but that should never come at the cost of safety. Local buildings and houses do need to fit a certain code, and our students should not be living in houses that don’t follow code,” he added.

The latter statement is apparently in reference to the ongoing lawsuit in the Commonwealth Court, Sheldon v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, over a city ordinance that prohibits more than three unrelated people from living in buildings not approved as “rooming houses.” Opponents of the law are chiefly Powelton Village area property owners, who rent to Drexel students. The University, however, is siding with the PVCA in defending the law, which would make it harder for students to live off-campus if enforced. It should be noted that the dispute is over the zoning and planning code, which deals with land use, rather than the building construction code, which deals with safety.

Students are typically driven to off-campus housing through the cost of on-campus living, a perennial complaint at Drexel, which has the highest cost of living among Pennsylvania universities. As a resident assistant in Caneris Hall, Murray himself receives free housing. He shares more than an opinion with the University president; Fry recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he was a resident assistant for two years at Lafayette College.

An anonymous commenter on The Triangle website noted that it “seems strange that the University would meddle with zoning requirements as all they’d have to do is simply require all students to live in University housing.”

Per Fry’s commitment to the PVCA, the University will be considering doing just that, exempting only seniors.

The post USGA President supports off-campus living restriction appeared first on The Triangle.