Wednesday, November 6, 1996
Administration should cooperate
What concerns me a lot more than the possibility of a five-day
strike by UCLA’s TAs, tutors and readers is Associate Dean Robin
Fisher’s thinly-veiled threat to fire SAGE members who participate
in the union’s work stoppage ("SAGE faces possibility of one week
strike," Daily Bruin, Nov. 1). Isn’t Dean Fisher the same man who
repeatedly stated last year that the UCLA administration wanted to
pursue matters with SAGE through "legal" channels and wait for the
court to render its decision on union recognition?
Well now a judge has found in SAGE’s favor and ordered the
university to engage in collective bargaining with UCLA’s academic
student employees and the university and Associate Dean Fisher are
balking. Is this a surprise?
One of the more important lessons that I’ve learned in my four
years here at UCLA is that the administration is often dishonest,
condescending toward those who question it, and autocratic. I’ve
also learned that the university could not function without its
hardworking TAs, tutors and readers. If it takes a strike by SAGE
to force the administration to respect the decision of the court
and the democratically-expressed desire of UCLA’s academic student
employees to unionize, so be it. I, for one, will fully support
SAGE’s actions.
Hopefully, we can avert a strike, but that will depend on Murphy
Hall. If a strike does occur, I would like to see UCLA’s students,
staff and faculty call for the immediate resignation of Dean Fisher
and the early retirement of Chancellor Young. UCLA can no longer
afford their hypocrisy and arrogance.
Joan Evans
Fourth year
Psychology/Biology
Guzman: all ego , lacks an argument
Mimi Guzman’s article on Proposition 209 Thursday reeked of
self-exalting motives. Guzman presents her arguments against the
controversial proposal, and does make some valid points; voters
should remember their privileges when deciding the fate of so many
minority students that will undoubtedly be affected.
However, this argument is lost in Mimi’s determined attempt to
promote herself and her intelligence. In addition to claiming to be
"pretty fucking brilliant," she tells us about the time she scored
in the 99th percentile of an achievement test, her 1300 on the SAT
without trying, and how smart her teachers tell her she is. Why do
we even try to compete?
Mimi makes a weak attempt to tie all this into a political
statement. IF she was not denied opportunities because of race and
sex, she could have graduated MIT Civil Engineering in three years,
or been pre-med or a math major. What kind of argument is that?
(Hint: it’s not an argument). High school accolades are not a basis
for making these claims.
One thing I’ve learned is what whatever you’ve accomplished in
high school, it just doesn’t matter. Those achievements do not
indicate that you will excel at the next level. This is true for
anything.
I totally agree that there are plenty of intelligent people out
there who cannot reach their potential because they lack
opportunities due to race or economic status or both. They need
help. But making wild inferences from past achievements is not
evidence of this point.
It is unfortunate that she could not write a better argument
about Proposition 209. Student voters, myself included, are anxious
to learn more about the proposal before we choose our positions. At
times, as Mimi demonstrates, the argument becomes so irrational
that it is difficult to get a clear picture of the issue. I would
like to believe that Viewpoint writers could give us a clear
picture, rather than a self-righteous, ego-infested,
pedestal-seeking description of their trophy case.
Steve Wong
Third-year
Economics