Limiting vouchers will discriminate in
education
Gregory McGinity made a reasonably sound argument in favor of
vouchers (“Vouchers
improve quality of education,” Viewpoint, March 4). As a
supporter of voucher programs, however, I was disappointed in his
suggestions for “limitations,” specifically, limiting
“student eligibility to those most in need.”
The program is designed to raise the performance of all schools
by introducing competition in the educational system. It is also to
give all parents the choice of where to send their children to
school. By limiting eligibility (aka discriminating) to the lowest
performing 20 percent, you lose all benefits of competition by
freezing the top 80 percent exactly where they are.
You also leave out the parents of children attending schools in
the 25th percentile who, if they were lucky enough to go to a worse
school, would be free to receive a voucher and exercise their
ability to choose.
I don’t know how McGinity expects the voucher program to
succeed with it’s most basic premise, competition, limited to
a mere 20 percent.
Louis Levenson Fifth-year Astrophysics
Stop whining and just vote
This is in response to Monday’s editorial “Not
voting is lame; invest in your future“ (Viewpoint, March
4). When it comes to not voting, some old platitudes ring true:
conservatives know the value of a vote much better than do
liberals, are better politically organized, are therefore
“better voters,” and therefore have a better chance at
winning.
Too many liberals (especially the younger ones) don’t seem
to understand this and so simply don’t vote as their way of
protesting. This is an outrageously empty, ineffective and
self-defeating gesture and liberals never seem to learn that they
are throwing their power away ““ indeed, giving power to the
other side. Politically savvy conservatives count on this as a part
of their strategy.
Those who don’t vote have no right to complain about the
consequences. All reasons not to vote (especially the one that
pouts “I don’t like any of X-Y-Z so I won’t vote
at all”) are stupid and shortsighted; many times it is
crucial to vote for the least bad of a group of bad choices. Once a
bad law is on the books, or a bad person is in office,
it’s usually too late.
So to the non-voter of any stripe: If you don’t like the
way things are, vote. And get all your of-age friends to vote.
Nobody has the luxury of not voting from the sour-grapes position
of “political demoralization.” And if you don’t
like who’s running, maybe you should prepare yourself to run
““ but don’t just complain and do nothing. That’s
contemptible.
Leonard Auslender Alumnus 1963
BruinGo! must not die
It is unacceptable to cut the BruinGo! program as Monday’s
editorial states (“BruinGo!
can’t be let go by stingy college,” Viewpoint). The
university must find a way to fund this program; it helps students
afford not only transportation, but allows them to live farther
away from the ridiculously priced apartments that are close to
UCLA.
People could save up to 40 percent on rent by living farther
from campus. The elimination of the BruinGo! program would force
many to either move closer to campus so they could walk or ride a
bike. Others would buy a carpool permit (guaranteed for those
living about 2 miles from campus), causing a greater demand for
parking spaces. The $1.5 million BruinGo! program is a smart,
fiscally responsible investment.
I charge USAC to take an active role in keeping this program
alive. Want to do something that the student body will appreciate
and recognize? Want to make UCLA more accessible to economically
challenged minorities? Here’s your chance to do something
about it!
I charge Chancellor Carnesale to take control of the situation
and stop letting UCLA Transportation Services use economics to take
advantage of students. If he lets the program get cut, I would
seriously question Chancellor Carnesale’s initiative to
support those who use BruinGo!: students, staff and young
professors. You are always touting that the future leaders are made
at UCLA. Show us how it’s done by putting your foot down
““ be a leader. Your decision can make a difference.
I charge every student and faculty member to take an active role
in trying to keep this program alive, whether you use it or not.
Sign the petition online. It only takes five minutes: www.petitiononline.com/ucla.
Everyone at UCLA benefits from the BruinGo! program through free
transportation, affordable housing options and reductions in the
parking problem.
Eric May Third-year Business Economics