The Scarlet Nights Motel     The "Rutgers 1000" campaign has had numerous requests for Preston Pennypacker's "Scarlet Nights Motel." We have agreed to make it available, without endorsement by the "Rutgers 1000" campaign, to interested visitors. "The fantasy was prompted," notes Mr. Pennypacker, "by Arthur M. Loewenthal's remark that he had never heard an argument in favor of 'athletic scholarships' that could not be be used with equal logical validity to justify prostitution scholarships." The Scarlet Nights Motel    Imagine (writes Mr. Pennypacker) that a wealthy Rutgers alumnus dies and leaves a number of properties to the university. Among these properties is a successful brothel named "Madam Sally's Shangri-la." One VP responsible for financial planning argues that the brothel should be sold immediately. A second VP, however, points out that "Madam Sally's" establishment could be a tremendous revenue producer for Rutgers.  This argument wins. The second VP is permitted to rename the brothel the Scarlet Nights Motel and staff it with workers brought to the university on "prostitution scholarships." Madam Sally is fired and a "big time" madam is brought in from a whorehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada to run the establishment. The Scarlet Nights Motel is a tremendous success. Among the benefits to Rutgers proudly listed by the administration are the following: (1) the workers brought to the university on the new prostitution scholarships are happy in their work and enjoy the attention they are getting from the customers, (2) the Motel is generating revenue used to buy laboratory equipment and library books, and (3) there has been an increase in donations from alumni who patronize the Motel themselves or who, because of their "pull" as alumni, are able to get early appointments for friends and business associates. At this point, a group of students and alumni who had previously been unaware of the existence of the Scarlet Nights Motel voices a protest. They see running a house of prostitution as a matter of shame or dishonor to Rutgers. Over the next year, the issue is thrashed out point by point. The arguments, pro and con, are these:   Argument 1: A lot of the workers in the Scarlet Nights Motel wouldn't be able to attend college at all if they couldn't come on prostitution scholarships.* *Commonly known as the "they couldn't have gone to college otherwise" argument. Answer: Perhaps, but that does not justify the practice of giving scholarships for prostitution rather than intellectual or academic ability.   Argument 2: The profit from the Scarlet Nights Motel is used for legitimate "academic" purposes.*  *Commonly known as "the program makes money for the university" argument. Answer: Yes, but the fact that such revenue is put to legitimate use does not make up for its having an illegitimate source. Universities ought not to be in the business of running whorehouses.   Argument 3: If we close the Scarlet Nights Motel, there will be a decrease in alumni donations.* *Commonly known as the "but it promotes alumni giving" argument. Answer: We will regret the loss of revenue, but given the motivation on which it has been given, the university will be better off in the long run without it. It is better to tighten the budget and live without dishonor than to have money that comes from running a brothel.   Argument 4: We shouldn't close the Scarlet Nights Motel. We should try to make it better. After all, being an "excellent" university means that we should try for "excellence" in every department. The philosophy department wants to be excellent. The library wants to be excellent. Why shouldn't we try to have the most excellent whorehouse in New Jersey, or maybe the entire East? The kinkiest sex. The best services at the lowest price. Bidets in every room.* *Commonly known as the "excellence in every department including pass defense" argument. Answer: This notion of "excellence" begs the entire question. If it is not legitimate for a university to be running a whorehouse in the first place, then it cannot be legitimate for it to want to run an "excellent" whorehouse.       "In short (writes Mr. Pennypacker), Mr. Loewenthal seems to me exactly right. I have yet to hear an argument for athletic scholarships that couldn't be used with equal logic to support prostitution scholarships. But that would not convince anyone that universities ought to be in the business of running houses of prostitution."