Greek practices questionable My friend referred
me to the online edition of the Daily Bruin, and I happened to come
across one of the most poignant articles I’ve ever read.
Kirra
Steel’s letter on the Greek system was sickening and sad
at the same time. It disgusts me to know that things like that go
on at a university founded on the principles of diversity and
enlightenment. But I guess people in the Greek system abide by a
different set of rules. It’s sad to see that as a society, we
haven’t progressed very far. There’s so much talk about
how politically correct we are, when in reality, we’re still
as unequal as ever. The only difference now is people can hide
their true feelings a little better. Instead of ridiculing
someone’s race or creed in public, we save it for the
confines of our homes. I just hope Steel’s letter served as
an eye opener for the UCLA student body. If not, I must say I am
very disconcerted with the way of the world.
Kent Morizawa Second-year, political science UC
Berkeley
RU-486 argument flawed I am writing in response
to the anonymous submission “RU-486
is not solution to unwanted pregnancies“ (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 4). I agree, having an abortion is traumatic for
most women (and their partners), no matter how it is performed.
This is a good point, but the author follows some serious
misconceptions. First, the number of abortions performed in France
have not increased since the introduction of RU-486. There
certainly has not been a “dramatic” increase as the
author states. His data shows that RU-486 use increased 6
percentage points in eight years, but this does not demonstrate an
increase in total abortions. Many opponents of abortion have
suggested that the presence of RU-486 will increase the rate of
abortion. If this data can be presented, fine. Until then, this is
just an opinion. Second, the author states that the young people of
America are not “worthy” of RU-486 based on their
apparent lack of seriousness toward sex. But just because someone
approaches sex lightly does not mean women across America should be
denied an advancement in health care. The main issue at hand is not
about the author, his attitudes, or the attitudes of other UCLA
students toward sex. It is about a less invasive manner of abortion
for all women, young and old, who choose to exercise their right to
terminate their pregnancies. Should this right be denied to a
struggling mother of five, who lives in one of the 86 percent of
the counties without an abortion provider and has an unexpected
pregnancy, because the author feels his generation acts
irresponsibly? If the author is against a women’s right to
choose, that’s another issue. He essentially states that
abortion is okay, but that all women should be forced to undergo a
more traumatic, surgical procedure rather than have access to the
comforts and benefits of RU-486. Is he suggesting that we should
make abortion as bad an experience as possible to prevent unwanted
pregnancies? Advancements in health care should be made accessible
to the patients in need, and not withheld from the population until
a portion of the population proves that they can “make
rational decisions.” We don’t withhold trauma surgeons
or precious blood transfusions from gang members with bullet
wounds, dialysis from patients with uncontrolled diabetes or liver
transplants from ex-alcoholics. How can it be that you suggest we
withhold RU-486 from women because young people “don’t
deserve it?” The release of this medication has been withheld
for years, and much more critically studied than most FDA-approved
drugs, due to abortion politics. Like I said, it’s not about
the author or this tiny college community; rather, it’s about
women across America having the right to the best health care our
technology and scientific research has to offer.
Mary Costantino Medical student
Speech reveals lack of sensitivity,
understanding Commenting on the presence of homophobic
attitudes on campus last week (“Houston’s
speech ruffles feathers,” Daily Bruin, News, Sept. 29),
USAC President Elizabeth Houston suggested homophobia is harbored
in “people who are from wacko backgrounds.” This
callous statement clearly demonstrates her inability to grasp the
heart of issues of sexuality or show any sensitivity on the
subject. What Elizabeth Houston dismisses as pathological is
actually sociological in nature. The expression of sexuality is in
the last instance socially constructed and manifested.
Houston’s incorrect representation of homophobia implies that
the practice of heterosexism is an individual aberration rather
than the institutionalized and continually reinforced norm of our
society. She therefore misdirects critical attention away from
where it is needed, namely the heterosexist, hegemonic culture and
institutions of UCLA and the dominant society, and ultimately
leaves us with little to do other than lament over a few
“wackos” while people are literally being killed and
denied equal rights over their sexual orientation. Unfortunately,
her lack of any critical sense of social justice does not stop at
issues of sexuality; indeed it is a consistent practice of hers. By
opposing a candidate’s appointment to the Associated Students
of UCLA Board of Directors because of his participation in the
student group, Samahang Pilipino, Houston exposes herself to be
hypocritical at best. To reject the validity of gay rights for
religious reasons as some council members suggest, while claiming
that political affiliations will tamper with some false notion of
objectivity and board duties, she reveals that her actions are
really a cover for a concerted political agenda directed at
reinstituting the dominant voice of racism, privilege and
heterosexism in campus politics. With this said, we must remember
that Houston’s ideas are not entirely her own, but
representative of a larger wave of predatory neo-conservative
politics ravaging the globe. California’s recent propositions
187, 209, 227, 21 and currently 38 are but a few instances where
the conscious deployment of racist policies are coupled with the
sly disavowal of racist intent. Yet while it is currently common to
believe that these are further examples of “covert”
racism, I would argue that on the contrary, racist hegemony is so
complete, total and overt that its “official” practice
often goes unmarked, unquestioned and most importantly,
uncontested. We need leaders who can recognize the reality that
confronts us and help others to mobilize against injustice and not
those that are complicit in the practice of repression.
Revel Sims Fifth-year History