Lecturer concerns an ongoing issue
The article on lecturers (“Lecturers
negotiating for more secure contract,” Daily Bruin, News, May
18) brings needed attention to the ongoing concerns of a large
segment of the UC community. But it should be clarified that
lecturers are for the most part not employed as temporary
“fill-ins” for tenured faculty, nor is the employment
of lecturers on a long-term basis a matter of the past four or five
years, as Darren Lee, UC’s assistant director of labor
relations, stated in the article.
The Bruin article noted that the University Council-American
Federation of Teachers has been involved in negotiations with the
UC administration for a collective bargaining agreement since April
2000, but a number of other important points were overlooked.
Namely, UC has not responded to proposals on appointments,
benefits and wages; that the union has filed a number of unfair
labor practice complaints against UC; and that on some UC campuses
lecturers’ workloads are being inappropriately increased. The
workload question is itself one of the crucial issues being
wrestled with.
At a time when some tenured faculty teach four or five classes
per year, the contrast with lecturers, many of whom currently teach
nine (or can soon expect to do so) is glaring, particularly when
the threat of the “squeezed orange” is ever
present.
Sylvia R. Sherno Lecturer Spanish and
Portuguese
Carnesale should stick by his words
In a letter to members of the UCLA campus community on Feb. 10,
1999, Chancellor Albert Carnesale warmly wrote: “It is
essential that the collegial and cordial relations among all
members of the university community be maintained and enhanced …
My esteem for all of our students, faculty, and staff is very
great, as are my hopes for their happiness and my expectations for
their success.”
But reading the article “Professor
files suit against UC, administrators,” (Daily Bruin, News,
May 2) saddened me.
Regardless of the outcome of pending legal action, I ask that
Chancellor Carnesale please appoint an independent committee to
conduct an inquiry into the way our Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Cultures was administered.
The committee should have wide parameters of inquiry and be
composed of well-regarded, independent members with broad views,
wisdom and integrity.
If the findings of the committee are all positive in nature, we
will all rejoice. If the committee concludes that there are grave
issues in the way this department has been administered, then as a
leader of the campus, Chancellor Carnesale will be able to take the
necessary steps to fulfill in this department the hopes he
expressed in his earlier letter, referenced above.
Lev Hakak Professor Hebrew language and
literature
IWF misleads UCLA community
I would like to take this opportunity to address a Viewpoint
submission by Kate Kennedy (“Independent
Women’s Forum deserves to have its beliefs printed,”
Daily Bruin, May 22). In her article, Kennedy tries to hide
behind the banner of free speech. The simple fact is that no one
has ever argued against the right of the International
Women’s Forum to say, or attempt to publish, whatever it
likes.
The protest on last Friday was in response to the Daily
Bruin’s running of the IWF’s ad. The printing of this
ad violates the Daily Bruin’s own policies, and that is what
was being protested. There are, however, several other issues
raised in Kennedy’s article that require scrutiny and
correction.
Kennedy states that in 1999, the incidence of rape was only
“64 of 100,000 females.” The truth is that this
statistic only represents rapes that are reported to law
enforcement agencies. A 1999 report by the National Institute of
Justice called for “better methodology in reporting.”
The report went on to further state that “many women are
afraid to come forward due to shame, guilt and fear.”
Perhaps Kennedy should tell these women that their rapes and
suffering do not count ““ as they were not reported to the
proper authorities.
Later in her article, Kennedy states that the figure of one in
four college women being the victims of rape or attempted rape is
“as false as they come.” Nevertheless, the fact is that
a December 2000 U.S. Department of Justice report titled “The
Sexual Victimization of College Women” found “that
nearly 5 percent of all college women are victimized every calendar
year.”
But over an average of five years (the course of a college
career) the report states, “the percentage of completed or
attempted rape victimization among women in higher educational
institutions might climb to between one-fifth and
one-quarter.”
Perhaps the U.S. Department of Justice is not a credible source
““ as Kennedy refers to the “one in four women”
statistic as unsubstantiated.
For reasons beyond my comprehension, Kennedy wishes to portray
sexual violence as a non-issue. Her statement that “women are
no longer victims” is not only damaging to the cause of
sexual violence awareness, but it is dangerous as well.
In conclusion, we, as the students and members of the UCLA
community, must be the ones who “take back our campus.”
We must shine light on, and respond to the issue of sexual
violence. We must show that we are not going to accept the
misleading statements of an outside organization at face value.
Especially not an organization that would mislead us in an
attempt to further their own politically motivated agenda ““
an agenda that is doing a great disservice to the UCLA
community.
Eric Wells Third year History
U.S. stands up to U.N. status quo
Mitra Ebadolahi just doesn’t seem to get the politics
going on in international relations (“U.N.
decision should be wake-up call to United States,” Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, May 21). America is being
“punished,” not because we are evil ourselves, but
because we have the guts to stand up against the global status quo
and openly disagree.
It seems the the politics of international relations is limited
to agreeing for the sake of agreeing, as if open disagreement was
the worst thing that could happen. We live in a diverse world and
it is healthy and proper that we disagree.
Only by openly stating our differences can we resolve them
““ agreeing for the sake of agreeing only hides those problems
and allows them to fester and grow worse. We should try to work
with other nations, even when we disagree with them.
America believes that land mines serve a legitimate defensive
purpose, such as on the border between North and South Korea; we
believe in intellectual property rights and that protecting those
rights encourages companies to develop newer and better AIDS drugs;
we believe that we should not jump to conclusions on global climate
change; and we believe that no international court of justice
should have such arbitrary and absolute power as is being currently
proposed.
Instead of trying to work out these differences, many countries
will punish America until it does what it’s supposed to.
It is a good thing that these countries have done this, for now
we know how much these countries want to have everyone agree to
their “solutions,” regardless of how poorly designed
they are.
Daniel B. Rego Class of 2000