On Feb. 14, the Department of Education sent out a letter now known as the “Dear Colleague” letter. In this letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor stated that the Department of Education will no longer allow educational institutions to “discriminate against students on the basis of race.”  

This means removing race-affiliated scholarships, financial aid, housing and admission processes. The department gave K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions two weeks to remove their race-based programs or they run the risk of losing federal funding. Institutions use these programs to fund students’ educations for underrepresented communities, so they can achieve higher education. Many universities have found themselves complying or under review, including Drexel University. 

Interim President Denis O’Brien, shared an email on Feb. 19 stating that Drexel is “carefully assessing the implications of the DCL’s assertions…” and they “will formulate a plan to ensure its programs and activities continue to serve our community.” 

There is yet to be an update on what Drexel’s plan is, and there is not much to be known at the current moment. Regardless, students have concerns.

Student diversity club leaders and members may have to make changes, whether that would be club names or overall club adjustments. Although nothing is in full effect, this could greatly affect not only these clubs but also the Center for Inclusive Education and Scholarship programs, Student Center for Diversity & Inclusion services, Lindy Center for Civic Engagement and various other programs that share resources for underrepresented communities and minorities. Through these programs, students receive scholarships, BIPOC counseling centers, mentorship programs and diverse-focused events that include minorities and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. 

In response to Drexel’s statements, the president of the Drexel student organization Latinos for a United Campus said, “It could’ve addressed any questions that [students doing valuable research] may have or provide resources that [student leaders of identity-based organization] may need. That is definitely something that I would want to hear as a student leader of an identity-based organization, especially because things are so uncertain. It would be really nice to hear that from the higher-ups in administration.” 

Further, the LUC President stated that the letter is “…an infringement on students,” which can make this a major loss in their identity-based communities. 

Although there are many unanswered questions, organization leaders are hopeful: “We are like-minded people, powerful, and dedicated individuals to where if push comes to shove, we will know how to respond and we will continue our mission for each of our organizations, and will continue to do what’s right for our members.” 

More recently, federal judges have successfully stopped this executive order; however, nothing is official yet. Trump’s order is awaiting a response from The House, according to the Washington Post. As reported by NPR, many others, including the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and other groups, filed lawsuits alleging that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Many people are opposed to this order, yet others are not. Many other colleges have followed this order and canceled any DEI-related initiatives. 

For most, this takes them back to 2023, when the US Supreme Court found that race-based college admissions were unconstitutional, according to CNN. Colleges and universities previously employed affirmative action to increase the enrollment of students of color at predominantly white institutions.

There are many unanswered questions for students, student leaders and colleges; no one knows what to expect. Drexel has yet to release another statement alerting students on their future plans, leaving the university community uncertain. Students stay positive as they anticipate what the future holds.

Drexel University is preparing for a significant academic overhaul that will reshape its curriculum, academic calendar and institutional structure, set to take effect in Fall 2027. As part of the Academic Transformation initiative, the university will transition to a semester-based system, consolidate academic units and redefine core competencies for students.

This transformation, sponsored by Provost Paul Jensen and steered by Vice Provost for Academic Strategy and Communications Amy Weaver, is being developed through five working groups: Calendar, Core Competencies, Curriculum, Academic Unit Integration/Alignment and Consistency. These groups, made up of members of the Provost’s Office, faculty and other key university leaders, are tasked with designing the implementation of changes that will impact both current and future students.

With such sweeping changes, students are left wondering: What happens to co-op? How will current students transition? How will the transition impact course availability and flexibility?

To gain insight into what this means for the university as a whole, the Triangle sat down with  Steven Weber, PhD, vice provost for Undergraduate Curriculum and Education and a key member of the transformation steering team. As a co-lead of the Calendar, Core Competencies and Curriculum working groups, Weber provided a close look at the coming changes.

The current push for academic restructuring stems from a comprehensive 2023 report from the University Advisory Committee on Academic Structure, which emphasized the need for more student flexibility and a streamlined academic structure. However, Weber acknowledged that the broader challenges Drexel faces also played a role. In the 2024 fiscal year, Drexel faced a $63 million operating loss, alongside a 15 percent drop in fall enrollment. These pressures, combined with national uncertainty for universities, make it clear that Drexel needs to become more competitive and sustainable in the long term.

“It’s evident that this is a hard time for higher education,” Weber said. “There’s lots of uncertainty in that sector. Part of it is long-standing trends, and part of it is more recent developments with the change in the presidential administration.”

The university sees the planned shift to semesters as a way to make Drexel more attractive and accessible to more students — an example being the large population of transfer students, particularly those from Philadelphia-area community colleges.

“Many students finish high school and go to community college for one or two years before transitioning into a four-year program, and the fact is that we’re at a natural disadvantage for attracting those students when we’re on a quarter calendar,” Weber explained.

Drexel’s quarter system has historically been a barrier for prospective transfer students; the university hopes that aligning its schedule with institutions like the Community College of Philadelphia will simplify credit transfers and make Drexel a more enticing option.

Weber shared that another goal for the transition from quarters to semesters is the alignment of Drexel’s academic calendar with not only other universities but also internal programs that already follow a semester model, such as Kline School of Law, which operates on semesters and the College of Medicine, which has multiple semester calendars.

For students, the transition raises different concerns about course flexibility. Under the semester model, students will take fewer but longer courses, which could limit their ability to double major, add minors or explore diverse subjects. 

Weber acknowledged this concern but pushed back against the idea that students would receive a diminished academic experience, stating, “You’re not getting less education. You’re just breaking up your education into different-sized buckets—smaller for quarters, larger for semesters.”

However, the shift inevitably means that instead of taking around 60 courses over 12 quarters, students will take closer to 40 courses over 8 semesters. While each course may cover more material in-depth, this change raises questions about whether students will have as many opportunities to customize their degree paths. 

In addition, while it may be the goal that every class becomes a deeper and more rewarding experience, Weber shared that “it would be outside the scope of my job here… to mandate or legislate what happens in the classroom. That’s at the discretion of the instructor, or the curriculum committee for the course department.”

Although, the university does plan to “incentivize and reward excellent teaching” by putting in place structures that foster “strong pedagogy, interdisciplinary teaching and learning,” Webber disclosed.

The biggest concern for many is the fate of the co-op, which has been at the heart of Drexel’s identity since its introduction in 1919. Initially designed to give students real-world experience while still in school, co-op has grown into the defining feature of Drexel’s experiential learning model.

“I also think that the thing that Drexel is known for is co-op, and we should continue to keep co-op as a centerpiece of our institution,” Weber emphasized. “It’s a central distinguishing part of our value proposition.”

Drexel’s six-month co-op cycle will remain unchanged under the semester system. Unlike Northeastern University, which offers four-month co-ops as an option to its students, Drexel has prioritized maintaining its signature six-month rotations.

“One thing that was not on the table was the six-month co-op. We’re not touching that,” Weber said.

However, the exact structure of co-op within the semester model has not been disclosed. While Weber confirmed that a solution has been worked out, he declined to share details, stating that the information has not yet been made public.

“We did make sure that everything still works, so nothing would break,” he assured.

In addition to maintaining current co-op structures (four-year, one co-op and five-year, three co-ops programs), Drexel plans to introduce a new five-year, two-co-op option. 

“Maybe you want to use some of your summers for something other than working or studying,” Weber said. “Maybe you want to go study abroad, travel, do an internship, or work at a nonprofit.”

The goal, according to Weber, is more flexibility in the student academic experience — a recurring motivator throughout the transformation.

Weber noted that while co-op will remain at the forefront, the university hopes to better highlight other experiential learning opportunities in which Drexel excels. 

“We do really well in research experiences for undergraduate students, global experiences, civic engagement and collaboration with local industry on projects. But prospective students and their families often aren’t aware of that,” Weber stated, emphasizing that part of the transformation’s goal is to ensure these opportunities are more visible and accessible. 

The hope is that “Recognizing there’s a broader landscape of experiential education beyond co-op… might broaden the appeal of Drexel to other students and their families for whom co-op doesn’t seem like the right mix initially.”

Beyond co-op, Drexel is also redefining core competencies, which will establish university-wide learning objectives — “hallmarks of a Drexel education,” as Weber describes — without enforcing a rigid core curriculum. Weber described them as a way to unify the academic experience while making it easier for students to change majors without losing progress.

“Drexel asks too much of an 18-year-old who doesn’t know exactly what they want to do,” he said. “There’s 14 schools and colleges, 120 degree programs, all manner of co-op opportunities… and you’re expected to decide everything before you start.” 

The intended result is that by standardizing key learning outcomes, students will feel less locked into rigid academic tracks.

A major aspect that comes along with the standardization of learning is course consolidation. Drexel plans to reduce redundancy in its course offerings by merging similar courses across departments. 

“We have many, many more [course variations] than we need,” Weber said. “This is an opportunity to redesign every single course to fit a semester model and consider—what makes sense?”

The idea is to create a more cohesive, less fragmented curriculum. However, the trade-off is that some niche or specialized courses may be eliminated or merged into broader categories, potentially limiting highly specific academic pathways. 

Faculty played a significant role in shaping the transformation through Faculty Senate nominations. “We put out an announcement to faculty and staff that there would be these five work streams, and we invited all faculty and staff to nominate themselves and describe their credentials,” Weber explained. 

Each workgroup has two or three co-chairs—always including at least one faculty member—and consists of six to eight faculty members alongside a small number of staff. 

However, when asked about how student voices are being included in the restructuring process, Weber shared that student involvement has been limited. Undergraduate Student Government Association representatives participated in one discussion. The majority of students have not had access to planning documents or contributed to any decision-making processes.

For students already enrolled at Drexel, the transition raises questions about how their degree progress will be affected. While specific details have not yet been finalized, Weber assured that the university is committed to a smooth transition.

“There is every commitment to make sure students are not in any way disadvantaged by living through that transition,” he said. “The details of that will have to be shared publicly in due course.”

Advising services will play a critical role in helping students navigate the shift. Drexel plans to provide clear written guidance to ensure students understand how their credits, schedules, and degrees will transfer into the new system. However, given historical student concerns about the reliability of academic advising at Drexel, it remains uncertain how smoothly this process will unfold.

As the Fall 2027 transition approaches, Drexel communication emphasizes that while this is a massive undertaking, it is meant to enhance, not disrupt, the student experience. 

“We will put out a transition plan that will work for the students, and the end result will be a better Drexel,” Weber affirmed.

Shortly after being sworn in for his second term as president of the United States, Donald J. Trump explained his plans to enforce a multitude of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods used to protect domestic industries from foreign competition and encourage citizens to consume local products. However, such tariffs often have the effect of increasing the costs of what consumers buy when the added tax on companies is passed on to students. This has a particular impact on college students with limited budgets, as Drexel students have shared. 

If enforced, one industry that will be impacted severely is U.S. automobiles. This is not the first time Trump has used tariffs to protect domestic industries. During his first term as president in 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel from all countries except for Canada and Mexico, which are major U.S. steel suppliers. With his current return to office, Trump expanded on these tariffs to include Canada and Mexico. Steel is a key component for consumer goods, like cars, and these tariffs could potentially lead to higher prices for consumers.

In February, Trump announced an auto tariff of 25 percent. 

According to Reuters, he has argued “U.S. automotive exports in foreign markets have been unfair, citing the European Union collects 10% on vehicle imports – four times the U.S. car tariff rate.” 

Trump also mentioned tariffs on semiconductor chips, tiny electronic devices that are essential for modern vehicles. For a while, the manufacturing of chips has been outsourced to Asia, but Trump’s plan to improve America’s economy includes reducing reliance on foreign suppliers to strengthen domestic production. 

In response to his tariffs, second-year finance student Alicia Reeves said, “this would make her reconsider major financial decisions in the future,” primarily concerned with her student loans. 

“If you come from a lower income background it’s going to be more discouraging to see these prices increase because people already see car prices as unachievable,” Reeves said. “If you have the flexibility to pay more for a car then this would have a smaller effect, but as a student in college this definitely has me concerned for when I start working.”

If car prices increase, Reeves “would delay purchasing one” and, for the duration of her time at Drexel University, use the shuttle buses offered for travel. 

Imposing these tariffs has frightened U.S. automobile companies. Importing foreign cars at expensive prices will increase demand for domestic vehicles; it is basic supply and demand theory. This paired with the steel and chip tariffs could further intensify the effect. American steel manufacturers who outsource globally would have to increase their prices to stay competitive. As a result, U.S. automakers would be forced to raise prices to combat higher production costs. 

This could turn away customers and lead to a decline in purchases, “blow[ing] a hole in the US industry that we’ve never seen,” Jim Farley, CEO of Ford, said to investors.  

Diya Patel, a third-year finance student, is concerned about the impact of increased prices on students interested in Drexel’s coveted co-op program. 

She explained that “students will have to reconsider their internships and potentially give up opportunities they may have otherwise taken” due to the challenge of finding affordable transportation methods with higher automobile prices.

Kaltra Ailu, a third-year economics major, shared a similar sentiment: “I think higher car prices would change how students plan for big purchases after graduation, especially because jobs can be anywhere and with the current job market relocation is not much of an issue. This would definitely be a big factor that post-grad students would have to consider.” 

Beyond car prices, these tariffs can result in broader financial consequences. Upon announcing the auto tariffs, major automakers like Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen all experienced a dip in their stocks. 

Wolfe Research analyst Emmanuel Rosner said to CNBC, “as it relates to Autos stocks, we do not see any absolute winners…and we expect Auto Stocks broadly to struggle.” 

“Stock market confidence is also important to consider,” Patel added. “I’ve heard students talking about tariffs around campus and how they don’t think car manufacturers will respond well once these are enforced. When talk like that starts to happen, you know something big is coming.” 

Farley followed up saying, “There is no question that tariffs at 25% level from Canada and Mexico, if they’re protracted, would have a huge impact on our industry with billions of dollars of industry profits wiped out and adverse effect on the U.S. jobs as well as the entire value system in our industry. Tariffs would also mean higher prices for customers.”

Yahoo Finance noted an immediate change in the stock market, reporting that Nvidia, America’s largest semiconductor firm, experienced a dip in their stock of about 5 percent after Trump’s announcement. Despite Nvidia’s large consumer base, the proposed chip tariffs coupled with tariffs on other imports that use their AI chips creates a climate of uncertainty.

According to CBS News, “the automotive industry is at a critical juncture, Michael Robinet, vice president of forecasting at S&P Global Mobility said. The proposed tariffs could not only inflate vehicle prices but also disrupt production schedules, with estimates suggesting a potential 30% decrease in production.” By imposing these tariffs, Trump aims to improve America’s economy through increasing U.S. manufacturing, protecting jobs, and raising tax revenue. While the economic benefits of these tariffs can improve domestic industries and combat the growing unemployment rate, there are potential consequences like decreased demand or strained foreign relations that are important to discuss. Once in effect, these tariffs will alter the current economic status of America’s automobile industry. In turn, students will be left with fewer transportation options in a time of widespread financial uncertainty.

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Laura Wolf-Powers, PhD, published a book titled, “University City: History, Race, and Community in the Era of the Innovation District” in 2022, highlighting the history of development and gentrification in West Philadelphia. Her research focuses on neighborhood revitalization and urban/regional economic development, with particular attention to how structural inequalities influence community development. Wolf-Powers is currently a professor in the Department of Urban Policy and Planning at the City University of New York, Hunter College. 

The following interview from December 2024 with Wolf-Powers has been edited for clarity and length. 

Gerard Johnson: How does Drexel University’s approach to gentrification and expansion differ from The University of Pennsylvania’s? How does their expansion affect the public sphere, citizenship, inclusion and exclusion?

Laura Wolf-Powers: Neither Penn nor Drexel would view itself or proclaim itself to be an agent of gentrification. Each institution believes it’s pursuing two compatible aims. For example, Penn, with its West Philadelphia initiatives in the 2000s, focused on creating an environment around its campus where students felt comfortable. 

Similarly, Drexel is trying to create, in the areas around its official campus, a place where students feel part of a neighborhood, along with people who work at companies that are part of the innovation districts. Again, I don’t think Drexel would call that gentrification; they’d label it “campus-adjacent development” that extends the university’s brand into the neighborhood, creating environments where people can thrive.

There’s a lot of contention around the idea of gentrification — what it is, what it isn’t, and

whether it’s positive. Drexel is extending itself beyond its campus as both a catalyst for economic development and as an outreach to communities of lower socioeconomic status. For example, the Dornsife Center reflects Drexel’s commitment to serving communities near the university.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to call these initiatives a form of gentrification. It definitely marked the territory as “university-associated.”

When Penn started the West Philadelphia initiatives and created the University City District, they used the concept of “clean and safe.” The question I’d pose is: “Clean for whom and safe from whom?” Safety is framed as universal, but it can lead to stratifying the population into those who need to be kept out to maintain that safety, and those who remain in the “zone of safety.” Even if that wasn’t Penn’s explicit intention, it was the outcome of creating the University City District and expanding police or security presence up to 42nd Street.

GJ: Logan and Molotch call the city a “growth machine” due to the capital flowing through metropolitan areas. You reference them in your work — how does their theory connect to your research, and how do you think universities leverage that concept to exercise power in cities?

LW: I find them very influential. Their classic “growth coalition” involves government and major property owners, as well as the building trades unions. Even if Logan and Molotch don’t explicitly include universities in that mix, it’s implied that universities are part of it. 

The reasoning is that universities are place-based: Penn and Drexel are very invested in Philadelphia being economically prosperous, and as a result, they’re interested in boosting the value of the land near them.

Logan and Molotch make a distinction between people who embrace the “use value” of land and those who embrace the “exchange value” of land. People who live in homes, or who run businesses that are tied to a specific city, are in Philadelphia because they live there or operate there. Their relationship to the land is about using it. That’s very different from seeing land as an asset to be exchanged—something you want to appreciate in value so you can sell it. 

In neighborhoods like Powelton Village, Mantua or Belmont, many residents live there because it’s their neighborhood. They want to stay, and to them, the main value of their property is that it’s a place to live. But to property investors, the value lies in how much they can sell it for after a few years if it appreciates. Logan and Molotch highlight this tension between use value and exchange value. It’s central to gentrification because some actors treat real property in terms of exchange value, while others — whose families may have lived there for generations — think of it in terms of use value. Those interests don’t align.

GJ: Is gentrification rhizome-like (web-like, decentralized, yet interconnected)?

LW: I think there’s something to the idea that gentrification can spread outwards, but I’d also add that gentrification involves layers. One of them is narrative, because there’s this idea of a poor neighborhood being “dangerous” or “unsafe.” Then people say it’s changing, it’s being revitalized, there’s renewal happening. People start talking about the neighborhood differently, and that interacts with another layer, which involves actual property transactions: vacant lots getting developed by investors or higher-income people moving in. There’s a class dimension here, because what makes the neighborhood “better” is that people of higher social status move in. People are heavily influenced by their prejudices about who’s worthy, virtuous or who’s a “valuable” resident. In general, that’s all very racialized. That can erase the longtime residents who may not have money to invest but do invest their time or commitment to their neighbors. Because that commitment doesn’t have a dollar value, it tends to be overlooked in the discussion of renewal, revitalization or reinvestment.

GJ: How is the gentrification unfolding in University City different from mid-20th-century urban renewal? Is it just another form of top-down redevelopment?

LW: During urban renewal, it was very top-down. The ethos of that era was that certain areas were slums, with an “undesirable” population that needed to be removed. There was no engagement with local residents. There was also no acknowledgement that these so-called “slum” areas had substandard housing largely because of racism in the housing market and the government’s tolerance of discrimination and exploitation by real estate entities and landlords.

Today, universities approach urban revitalization differently, at least in some ways. There’s an effort to include people from the affected neighborhoods in the planning process. Civic associations are consulted, and there’s a collective attempt to envision what the future of the neighborhood should look like. That’s progress. However, there’s still a tendency to stigmatize people of color with lower incomes and to conflate “Black neighborhood” with “bad neighborhood.”

Some things have changed since those days, and the Dornsife Center is a good example. It’s meant to uplift community members, help them find jobs at the universities or in nearby companies, promote literacy, provide legal assistance and public health initiatives and aim for co-prosperity. The idea is that while the university does its thing, there will also be progress in the neighborhoods — people achieving social mobility and so on.

That’s a significant difference from urban renewal, when the residents of targeted neighborhoods were ignored, denigrated and not taken seriously. Still, there’s a prioritization of developers’ and real estate investors’ interests over the needs of long-time residents who simply want to stay where they are with decent public services and good schools. That doesn’t get counted as “development.”

GJ: How have you observed the physical consequences of displacement, and how did those experiences affect you personally? What was the affective or emotional dimension of witnessing — or writing about — events like “funerals for homes”?

LW: Many people I interviewed described the “Funeral for a Home” to me. People I spoke with in Mantua and Powelton felt it acknowledged their experience in a way few other interventions had. That’s why I decided to feature a community meal image on the book’s cover. 

One displacement I observed happened at the University City Townhomes on 40th and Market. Around the time my book was published, the residents of U.C. Townhomes were informed that their homes would be demolished to make way for a new development. The city offered them vouchers, but they didn’t believe they could relocate to neighborhoods with anything close to the amenities they had in University City — better schools, a nearby grocery store and public transportation. Essentially, they were being expelled from a well-connected neighborhood that supported their social mobility.

As land value rises, the owners of the land — where the U.C. Townhomes stood — discovered it was more lucrative to sell than to continue operating it as affordable housing. People’s lives were affected, but the imperative to profit ultimately prevailed. 

GJ: Now that John Fry has left Drexel University, how do you think gentrification in University City will evolve? How would you rate his legacy in terms of gentrification?

LW: The general playbook for university-led development started with the West Philadelphia initiatives at Penn — John Fry worked there, went to Franklin & Marshall, then came back to serve as president of Drexel. In many ways, he tried to import what he had done at Penn into the Drexel context and also improve on it. In some respects, he succeeded. I think Drexel’s interventions in the surrounding neighborhoods feel more authentic, more meaningful than a lot of what Penn has done. Drexel deserves a lot of credit for viewing its neighbors as partners — people who need to participate in the life of both the neighborhood and the university.

However, his shortcoming was not fully understanding that if you want to create stability and opportunity for people living around the university, you must keep land costs down. That might mean encouraging public acquisition of land or having nonprofits hold land so it stays out of the speculative market. 

As for successes and failures, I think Drexel launched a lot of impressive programs, such as the Dornsife Center, its partnership with the University City District, and the West Philadelphia Skills Initiative. But unless people’s land and housing costs remain manageable in one way or another, it will be difficult for them to live in these neighborhoods and enjoy the benefits of development, because housing and property taxes just keep going up.

GJ: Gentrification matters to many students in University City. How can we change the conversation, and what would you say to the Drexel student body about it?

LW: There’s an assumption that in every case, the market should lead neighborhood reinvestment. That has consequences — one being that land is viewed as an asset rather than a collective resource. I believe Philadelphia should be more ambitious in creating opportunities for land to be held collectively — non-commodified. If that happened, the development universities pursue would benefit everyone instead of providing most of the benefits to a few.

Students do benefit from what the university is doing. Drexel’s reputation and economic footprint are growing. But if students think of themselves as members of the local community — not just as Drexel students — they might see real property as more of a collective resource and less of a commodity. 

What I’d say to you and others concerned about gentrification is to keep elevating your perspective and exposing fellow students to it. That’s extremely valuable. The more you can broaden people’s horizons to recognize that the university’s actions do affect local residents, the better.

A local court case from the 1990s has come to the public’s attention again as questions have been raised about the supposed circumstances surrounding the 1984 strangulation of Drexel University undergraduate student Deborah Wilson, as detailed in a January court filing.

On Nov. 30, 1984, Wilson was found dead at the bottom of a flight of steps in Randell Hall after she had stayed up late working on an assignment. She was said to have been missing her socks and shoes when her body was discovered, a key detail that would later lead to the conviction of Security Guard David Dickson Jr.

Dickson had not initially been associated with the crime. The case tapered out of the public eye over nine subsequent years, but a confluence of factors that were discovered by an investigating grand jury eventually led to his arrest in 1993. These included Dickson having been on guard duty in the same building that Wilson was found in, testimonies from Dickson’s fellow security guards that said he had claimed he knew how to strangle someone and statements from many women who stated that Dickson had attempted to steal their sneakers in the past. 

Another key player in forming the assertions made against Dickson was criminal profiler Richard Walter. In 1992, a Philadelphia group of homicide investigators called the Vidocq Society was introduced to the case by Sgt. Robert Snyder. Walter, a part of this group, was quick to point to Wilson’s missing shoes. With this info, he quickly formulated the idea that Dickson had murdered Wilson due to a foot fetish, a claim that was deemed credible due to material later found at Dickson’s house confirming this sexual preference of his.

After being arrested in June of 1993, Dickson was tried twice in 1995. The first trial included testimony from Jay Wolchansky, an informant who claimed that Dickson had confessed his actions to him while they both resided in the Philadelphia Detention Center. With an unconvinced jury, the trial was inconclusive. The second trial featured another incarcerated informant named John Hall, a frequent testifier for supposed inmate confessions. In response to the second trial, the jury delivered a guilty verdict against Dickson for robbery and second-degree murder.

Within the past several years, questions about the credibility of Hall’s claims have called for reexaminations of trials he has contributed to. In addition, the prosecutor for the Wilson case, Roger King, had not informed anyone involved in the trial that Hall had previously lied in court. Also, Hall may have had ulterior motives as he was granted a degree of clemency for his cooperation in the trial against Dickson.

Reinvestigations into the circumstances surrounding Wilson’s death have been reignited due to uncertainty in the evidence used for the trial. In 2022, lawyers working through the nonprofit firm Phillips Black found that undisclosed accounts from witnesses back in 1984 provided that Wilson’s white tennis shoes were located in proximity to the scene. This has since challenged the original assertion about Dickson’s ostensible motive for the murder, that he desired Wilson’s shoes for sexual satisfaction. This, in addition to the criminal profiler Walter having lost his credit over the years due to his history of lying about his credentials and faulty contributions to various cases, has generated skepticism.

As it stands now, no conclusion has been reached as a result of additional investigations into Wilson’s murder. Questions remain about whether or not the case will be retried due to newfound evidence.

The latest Schuylkill Yards development at 3151 Market Street is set to open soon. Brandywine Realty Trust is bringing over 400,000 square feet of new life sciences lab space to West Philadelphia in partnership with Drexel University through a ground lease.

3151 Market will also include retail offerings: namely, a Fine Wine & Good Spirits liquor store and a Starbucks on the ground floor. The FW&GS will be a “Premium Collection” location, featuring high-end spirits and events like wine tastings. It will be the closest liquor store to campus, facing John F. Kennedy Boulevard. Drexel representative Niki Gianakaris did not comment on the store’s opening.

The new Starbucks location seems poised to supplant the one currently located in Gerri C. LeBow Hall across the street. The agreement for the LeBow location “is currently up for renewal. Through Drexel’s partnership with Aramark, the best coffee service option for LeBow is being explored and evaluated,” Gianakaris told The Triangle.

“Drexel Business Services conducted a survey in Spring 2024 in partnership with the USGA to collect retail preferences for the campus. This data, along with Aramark’s ongoing feedback survey data is being used to help determine the path forward,” she added.

In addition, “A total of $122.6 million from Schuylkill Yards and the portion of F Lot ground leases were added to Drexel’s endowment,” noted Gianakaris. 

Ground leases involve the university leasing its land to a developer, who in turn builds on the site. The university receives ground lease payments either upfront for the endowment or recurring towards the operating budget.

While 3151 Market is the latest Schuylkill Yards project, it appears to be the last for the foreseeable future. Plans for 3001 JFK Blvd., another life sciences skyscraper, have been put on hold as the demand for lab space slows. But whether or not the buildings find tenants, the developments have been a boon for the university’s endowment.

Life sciences developments were embraced as a part of the university’s 2030 Strategic Plan and were particularly touted by former university President John Fry. They have been envisioned as a way to turn parking spaces into convenient co-op placements, and to create a “gateway” to University City. This booming section of West Philadelphia has benefited from a raft of federal and state incentives to spur redevelopment, though 3151 Market does not appear to be a beneficiary of them.

Signage is in place for the Fine Wine & Good Spirits location, but an opening date has yet to be announced. There are no signs of the planned Starbucks yet. A Brandywine representative told the Triangle in November to expect the retail offerings to open early this year, and for a planned food hall in the nearby Bulletin Building at 3025 Market Street to join them later in the year. 

Amidst a budget crisis, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) implemented a 7.5% fare increase on Dec. 1, 2024. The fares for buses, subways, trolleys and Regional Rail trains –– all modes of transportation used by countless students in both the Philadelphia area and outside — were increased following SEPTA’s ongoing budget shortfall and expiration of COVID-19 relief funds.

Despite Governor Josh Shapiro’s temporary funding solution, SEPTA pressed that without permanent funding, it needed to “make cuts to service and implement further fare hikes.” 

A 7.5 percent fare increase quickly turns into an additional $5 to $12 per week in transportation costs for travelers who need to reach campus for their daily classes, lectures or other academic commitments.

Reactions to SEPTA services have generally been mixed. On one hand, SEPTA is efficient in bypassing the notorious I-95 traffic jams and morning rush; on the other, SEPTA services are known for their frequent delays, unexpected schedule changes and inconsistent performance, all of which continue to disrupt the daily commuting experience for many travelers. A fare increase only heightens frustration among commuters

Many Drexel University students rely on SEPTA’s accessible interregional services, such as the buses, Market-Frankford Line and the Regional Rail to reach campus in a timely and secure manner.

James Samuel Jr., a Drexel University junior and economics student, stated that the Trenton Regional Rail train alleviated the “pretty high gas expenses” that racked up when he used to drive to campus.

“Driving is also mentally draining as you must stay focused the entire time, and it can be very frustrating especially during the morning and evening rush hours,” shared Anna Bokarev, a fourth-year English student who rides the West Trenton line. “During those times of the day, it is increasingly more dangerous, and the commute time is unpredictable.”

A common sentiment amongst train riders is that the train handles the traveling, allowing them to focus on other tasks.

 Samuel Jr. enjoys the ability to multitask on his way to campus: “It’s nice to be able to get work done on the train…I realized how much extra time [the train gives] me to get work done when I otherwise would have been driving.”

Johnson Lin, a fourth-year management information systems student, appreciates SEPTA’s proactive staff on the Broad Street Line and trolley lines, who “[ensure] a clean environment for riders.” 

“Help can be expected from the workers stationed at each train station if I ever encounter any problem,” Lin added.

Bokarev also values the attitudes and availability of service workers. She particularly respects that SEPTA offers services for “senior travelers to make public transportation more accessible” such as the SEPTA Senior Fare Program, which provides free travel for seniors on all SEPTA transit routes (paid for by the Pennsylvania Lottery).

Calvin Keeys, a senior environmental sciences student, has found “the maps and schedules for each of the services [to be] very detailed and descriptive.” 

Despite some areas of satisfaction with SEPTA, several pressing concerns remain unresolved.  This includes railroad switch malfunctions, especially during the winter, as SEPTA spokesman Andrew Busch highlighted. Although these switches are equipped with electric heaters, adverse weather conditions can compromise them. 

Busch explained, “If a switch does go down, it’s going to cause delays. On Regional Rail, a prolonged delay on one line can easily cascade onto other lines due to the system’s interconnected nature.”

Lin expressed that these major SEPTA delays directly impact his ability to be on time to his classes: “I must switch between two different services — train and trolley — so one delay can cause a chain of delays” which adds to his frustration.

Samuel Jr. shared the same sentiments: “SEPTA is regularly late, which can be especially annoying when my classes end late in the day and I end up having to wait even longer to get a ride home.” 

What especially frustrates Samuel Jr. and many other commuting students is “the train [being] held up on the track, sometimes for upwards of half an hour.”

While waiting to go home via the trolley line, Keeys noted the inconsistency of which trollies are on schedule and which are not. 

“Sometimes the trolley will come at the expected time and sometimes it will arrive late,” continued Keeys, frustrated as he watches other trolleys pass.

SEPTA’s decision to increase fare prices across all their transportation modes only adds to the growing frustrations students already feel toward the system.

Drexel students may purchase a Key Card for their convenience, allowing them to simply tap at the fare gate rather than purchasing a ticket every time they want to travel to and from campus. Having a Key Card reduces fare prices compared to purchasing a ticket. The [typical] fare was previously $2.00 per ride using the Travel Wallet whereas purchasing a ticket or using  cash was $2.50.

“[It] defeats the point of even having one,” Keeys remarked.

SEPTA acknowledged that this increase  to  match the cash fare creates skepticism about the  Key Card’s value, which was once worthwhile due to its lower fares.

Likewise, Samuel Jr. expressed his skepticism, stating, “I’d like to see proof that SEPTA’s costs are somehow increasing to justify the fare hike.” Even so, “the fare hike has not changed my commuting habits directly.”

Similarly, Lin points out the hike “doesn’t affect my commuting habits” because it is still better than driving through the urban Philadelphia area to reach Drexel.

To justify the fare increase, SEPTA’s Chief Operating Officer Scott Sauer stated only about 20 percent of SEPTA’s operating revenues come from fares. 

“We want to provide a great service,” he continued, “In order to do that, we need a funding source.”

Despite SEPTA’s mission to increase revenue, SEPTA Board Chair Kenneth Lawrence expressed concern for the long-term effects on SEPTA’s sustainability: “Instead, we are now faced with the very real possibility of shrinking the system and entering into the transit death spiral.”

These conflicting statements from SEPTA representatives do not alleviate the pressing issues.

Lin felt that “the price increase appears to only sustain the current operations rather than enhancing the quality of riding experience.” 

Additionally, he believes there will be an increase in people avoiding the fare price — and reducing the revenue collected –– by performing stunts such as jumping over or pushing through the fare gates: “This raises concern for longer term sustainability and [means paying] riders will have to shoulder the burden.”

Samuel Jr. attributes fare avoidance to SEPTA employees, claiming, “I’ve seen a good few conductors just ignore when someone has an old ticket or no fare. It seems to me that that behavior would be encouraged without repercussions.”

Bokarev views lax fare collection as a response to ease up on delays in the system: “My Regional Rail line is very frequently delayed. I’ve noticed that to make up for it, conductors sometimes will avoid scanning Key Cards and collecting fares. Although the idea is good in nature, it does not at all benefit travelers who buy weekly or monthly passes.”

When asked regarding potential future remedies for the SEPTA fare hike, students did not seem hopeful.

“I don’t feel that SEPTA will provide any targeted solutions for students because that will be unfair to everyone else.” Lin did not appreciate the alternative option if he had to stop relying on SEPTA: “[A] Drexel parking pass costs around $500 per quarter. That will be equivalent to 6 months of me riding public transportation.”

Samuel Jr. instead hoped for Drexel to intervene for its commuters, such as sponsoring discounts or passes, both of which could abet student concerns of commuting. 

Keeys added, “Drexel already provides discounts for monthly TransPasses and New Jersey Transit” so he suggested the possibility that the university could provide more discounts for all students.

Ultimately, while public transportation remains a necessary means for traveling to and from Drexel for many students, the fare increase underscores frustrations with SEPTA’s reliability and affordability. Without targeted solutions, commuting Drexel students are left to navigate a system that struggles to inspire confidence in reaching campus, even if it is better than alternatives like driving.

Amidst conversations in early November about looming Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority worker strikes that would halt services and hinder travelers’ transportation plans, several Philadelphia transit unions have eased community fears by reaching another one-year agreement with SEPTA.

The three unions involved, SMART Local 1594, which covers Norristown High Speed Line and suburban bus workers, Philadelphia’s largest union AFSCME DC 33 and TWU Local 234 are now able to provide more financial security to a total of about 14,000 employees.

TWU Local 234 had initially confirmed their intention to strike by voting amongst their members. Their plan was to enter a strike once their previous SEPTA contract expired on Friday, Nov. 8. However, once meetings with SEPTA began, the strike date was repeatedly pushed back as conversation continued. The new deal was achieved on Wednesday, Nov. 20, reversing the union’s initial plans to strike.

On Friday, Dec. 6, TWU Local 234 plans on holding a ratification vote within their organization. If passed, the new contract will begin on Sunday, Dec. 8. They agreed the settlement would introduce a pension increase and five percent pay increase among employees. The agreement also covers new safety protocols, such as bulletproof enclosures for bus drivers to sit in, which would be tested in eight active buses before being mandated system-wide. The entire deal is projected to cost Philadelphia $80.2 million.

The end-of-year SEPTA strike discussions occurred while concerns approached regarding post-COVID-19 financial issues that would lead to large service cuts and a significant 29 percent fare increase for travelers on Jan. 1, 2025.

On Friday, Nov. 22, a press conference was held at the Frankford Transportation Center where Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro formally announced that SEPTA would be receiving $153 million, avoiding the fare hikes. Funds were able to be directed towards SEPTA after decisions were made to cut the funds of several Pennsylvania highway projects. 

Shapiro reassured other Pennsylvanians affected by the highway project cuts that “we’re still going to get those projects done for you on time.”

Even though the potential January fare hikes were prevented by the deal made on Nov. 22, a 7.5 percent fare increase was still introduced on Sunday, Dec. 1. 

Urging for more support, Shapiro called for additional funds to be directed towards SEPTA, challenging “each of the four suburban counties, and the great city of Philadelphia, to step up and add funding to this package to support our community.”

A federal judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted most of Drexel University’s motion for summary judgment against Kim Gunter but has allowed her hostile work environment claims to move forward.

As the Triangle previously reported, on April 8, former Drexel Vice President and University Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer Kim Gunter sued Drexel on six counts of employment discrimination based on race, color, sex and a hostile work environment.

Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Operating Officer Helen Bowman is alleged to have described the lawsuit in a text message to another employee as “shit!” and “21 pages of crap!”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff must first establish a “prima facie” case by providing evidence of four elements: she is a member of a protected class, she is qualified for her position, she suffered an adverse employment action and the action could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. If a “prima facie” case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to identify a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. Then, the burden shifts back on the plaintiff to prove that the employer is using the reason as a pretext for discrimination. 

A defendant can file a motion for summary judgment for a court to judge whether either side’s burdens were met. The motion is granted if the party opposing the motion cannot meet these burdens when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. In this case, Drexel filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Gunter’s claims.

In her complaint, Gunter, a Black female, alleged that she was treated differently than her predecessor, a white male, by her subordinate Bill Shea, the Associate Vice President and Chief Audit Executive. Shea claimed that he reports to the Audit Committee for operational purposes but to Gunter for administrative purposes, such as signing timesheets. When Gunter tried to exercise control over Shea, he complained, and other administrators expressed confusion at his complaints and pointed out that he had no problem with Gunter’s predecessor. Throughout Gunter’s employment, Shea continued to reject her authority, and Gunter complained to Drexel. The Internal Audit Department was eventually removed from her oversight at her request.

Judge Joshua Wolson ruled that because Shea did not have a negative working relationship with Gunter’s predecessor, he cannot serve as an appropriate comparator as to how an employee of a different race, color or sex might be treated. Thus, Gunter’s lawsuit fails to provide evidence that gives rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. 

The judge also ruled that Drexel provides the legitimate non-discriminatory reason of not getting along, and Gunter has no evidence to refute that claim, so her claims of pretext are summarily dismissed. 

Gunter’s claim of retaliation is dismissed because she failed to show that she suffered a materially adverse harm; in fact, she asked to have Internal Audit removed from her responsibility. Her claim of punitive damages fails due to a lack of presented evidence that Drexel had the subjective belief that it was violating the law.

However, because the evidence could be interpreted to show that Drexel did not do enough to stop Shea’s insubordination after the first verbal warning, her claims of a hostile work environment survived summary judgment. Gunter lost her motion to reconsider on the grounds that she filed too late and did not bring up anything new for consideration. The case is scheduled to proceed to trial on May 12, 2025.

Judge Wolson wrote, “Ms. Gunter has offered just enough evidence to suggest that Mr. Shea (and his subordinates) treated Ms. Gunter the way they did because of her sex, race, and color, and she has evidence that Drexel knew about it and didn’t do enough to stop it.”

While most Philadelphians spend their holiday season ice skating in Dilworth Park or shopping on Chestnut Street, Council members engage in the public hearings regarding a monumental decision: the proposed Philadelphia 76ers arena near Chinatown. On Dec. 12, they will vote on the plan referred to as 76 Place, a $1.3 billion arena in Market East for the Sixers. The largely divisive proposal was endorsed by Mayor Cherelle Parker in a video posted to X on Sept. 18. 

Mayor Parker proudly calls her agreement with the Sixers “historic” and “the best financial deal made by a Philadelphia mayor for a local sports arena.”

NoArenaPhl, Asian Americans United and Students For The Preservation of Chinatown are a few of the many groups opposing 76 Place. Their demonstrations represent the majority of Philadelphia voters. The Save Chinatown Coalition conducted a poll revealing that only 18 percent of Center City residents approved of 76 Place. 

“Disruption is the short-term effect. Gentrification is the long-term effect,” says Ming Chu Hyunh, president of the Northeast Philadelphia Chinese Association. 

She worries that rent will rise in Market East and that Chinese residents will be forced out of Chinatown. Hyunh, of Chinese descent, admits that she rarely visits Chinatown, simply because of the “constant traffic jams” and fears that the creation of 76 Place would worsen congestion.

Unlike Hyunh, Deborah Wei, co-founder of Asian Americans United, is optimistic, as her attempts to protect Chinatown have previously succeeded. The Sixers announced their current plan in July of 2022 and the fight against it has not stopped since. Wei was pulled out of an October council while urging Councilman Mark Squilla (D) to join the ‘no-arena’ side. Squilla is the representative for the 1st district, which encompasses East Market. 

“The 76ers can actually join a new city and I’m dead ass. They’re not good enough to have an arena displace Philadelphians-no sports team is,” Wei posted to X. 

“No cost for Philly taxpayers” is a phrase repeatedly highlighted on the 76 Place website. David Adelman, Chairman of 76 Place, and his team consistently seek to remind Philadelphians of the several positive outcomes of the project. According to their website, the execution of the arena will create over 9,100 construction jobs, generate $1.5 billion in tax revenue and increase commerce for local businesses. 

Mayor Parker excitedly agrees with these benefits, calling this an “unprecedented revival of Market Street.” 

The Sixers have also outlined their community benefits agreements, which would result in $6 million being allocated to local businesses in Chinatown. Hyunh considers these economic benefits to be shortsighted. 

During a telephone interview, Hyunh briefly mentioned the trauma she experienced while living in Chinatown, New York, during 9/11: “I watched from where I worked. I watched them burn down.” 

She worries about what terrorists could do under the new presidency and rejects the idea of any largely condensed groups of people, particularly near Chinatown. Hyunh suggests that the Sixers utilize the acres of land in North Philadelphia rather than encroach upon the existing Chinatown and Fashion District.

The Sixers are the oldest franchise in the National Basketball Association, and Philadelphia’s Chinatown is one of the last remaining in America. Therefore, it is no surprise that the stakes feel high for both proponents and opponents alike. As the history of each respective side fights to be preserved, council members will continue to seek negotiation. The members’ pressured decision will be finalized by Dec. 19.