EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
Editor in Chief
Michael Litschi
Managing Editor
Jonah Lalas
Viewpoint Editor
Barbara Ortutay
News Editor
Amy Golod
Staff Representative
Timothy Kudo
Staff Representative
Brian O’Camb
Staff Representative
Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily
Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and artwork
represent the opinions of their authors. All submitted material
must bear the author’s name, address, telephone number,
registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will not be
withheld except in extreme cases. The Bruin complies with the
Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the publication of
articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or ethnic stereotypes.
When multiple authors submit material, some names may be kept on
file rather than published with the material. The Bruin reserves
the right to edit submitted material and to determine its placement
in the paper. All submissions become the property of The Bruin. The
Communications Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving
complaints against any of its publications. For a copy of the
complete procedure, contact the Publications office at 118
Kerckhoff Hall. Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 825-9898
One thousand students, faculty and community members converged
at UCLA during the March 14 UC Regents’ meeting demanding
that SP-1 and 2 ““ the 1995 measures that ended the
consideration of race, ethnicity and gender in the admissions and
hiring process ““ be repealed. It didn’t happen, and the
responsibility for this fact falls not only on the regents, but
also on the administration.
In a powerful display of solidarity, college students, high
school students, labor groups, Pilipino veterans and other activist
groups in the community filled Westwood Plaza. The organizers
should be commended for not limiting the protest to members of the
UCLA community, clearly demonstrating that the repeal of SP-1 and 2
is an issue that will have an impact beyond the UC population.
We are proud that both the students and administration acted
responsibly and showed restraint during the takeover of Royce Hall.
Failure to do so in the past led to confrontation and violence.
Throughout the day of protests, students treated the university
and the UC Board of Regents with respect, and, therefore, the
demonstrators’ message should be afforded the same respect
from the regents.
Even so, the regents who originally stated their support for
repealing SP-1 and 2 did not place it on the agenda, claiming that
there were not enough votes for a repeal, or that success would
only be by a slim margin, if at all. Although we realize the
importance of an overwhelming majority of the board to support the
repeal, admissions letters had not yet arrived in the mailboxes of
prospective students. Getting the vote done before those letters
were sent out was more important to the health of the university
than having a unanimous vote.
But the regents were not the only ones who gave up an
opportunity to send a message of inclusiveness: the protest’s
organizers did as well. There are so many students on this campus
who do not even know what SP-1 and 2 stand for.
Even if SP-1 and 2 had been repealed, it might not have done
much to change the apathetic atmosphere on campus surrounding
affirmative action. After all, the vast majority of those present
at the protest were students of color or members of student
advocacy groups.
This is not shocking: why would students support affirmative
action if they are not educated on how it benefits them? The
organizers should have made a more intense effort to inform
everyone about the benefits of affirmative action ““ not just
the people who already understand it.
Freedom City, held during the days before the regents’
meeting, and which partly sought to educate students about the
negative impacts of SP-1 and 2, was a good idea. But, instead of
limiting the speakers to Wilson Plaza, the organizers should have
engaged students in discussion on Bruin Walk and Meyerhoff Park.
Such outreach efforts no doubt would have increased the turnout out
to the protest and increased campus-wide support for the repeal of
SP-1.
SP-1 and 2 will be more difficult to repeal without the support
of the majority, and while repealing it will send a message to
students that UC welcomes minorities, the anti-affirmative action
attitude on campus may still remain. Without education about
affirmative action, many students ““ perhaps a majority of
students ““ will still have a tendency to view minorities as
“unqualified.”
But students themselves are not completely at fault for
this.
The administration has not taken significant steps to help
educate students about the issues facing minority communities
either, since they continue to overlook the necessity of an ethnic
studies requirement.
Many classes exist that expose students to the history of
discrimination against many minority groups. Without an
understanding of the oppression such groups encounter in this
country, ignorance about affirmative action will continue to
pervade this campus. Sadly, the university has failed to implement
a diversity requirement at UCLA.
Regardless of flaws in the students’ and
administration’s approach to this issue, this does not excuse
the regents for not repealing these hateful policies. The regents
should start the next academic year with a clean slate for minority
communities by repealing SP-1 and 2 in May.
Repealing SP-1 and 2 will require that all students be educated
on how they positively benefit from affirmative action. And
it’s up to the administration and students to do this so that
the regents receive a clear message in May: it’s time for the
regents to stop talking and start acting.