Unilateral cease-fire won’t work The
editorial board has yet again taken the Palestinian side in the
conflict (“Arafat,
Sharon must end cycle of revenge,” Viewpoint, April 1).
To say the Palestinians resort to suicide bombing as the only means
of action available is to justify terrorism and is an insult to
good taste. The indiscriminate bombing of civilians who are
carrying on their daily lives cannot be compared to an assault on a
government facility where offices are used to plan and execute
terror attacks, or on tanks which destroy houses used to build
illegal bombs. Though it is a common misconception, the stronger
side is not always the aggressor and the weaker side is not
necessarily just. The Israelis have faced daily terrorism, and they
have shown nothing but restraint. The Palestinians, on the other
hand, have perpetuated terror; Israel is lucky the Palestinians
have limited access to more dangerous weapons. The editorial
suggests that the only way to reach peace in the Middle East is for
Israel to stop defending itself and to call for a unilateral
cease-fire. A unilateral cease-fire on the Israeli side would only
give the Palestinians a green light to continue their attacks
unchecked. In the recent days, numerous leaders of terrorist
organizations have declared on television they will not recognize a
cease-fire and will not stop until Israel is destroyed. Instead, an
end to the suicide bombings is required, which would end the
Israeli retaliation. A Palestinian state would bring peace and put
an end to terrorism insofar as terrorism would then be considered
an act of war, finally making the government culpable for
aggressions by their people.
Daniel Geoulla Fourth-year Sociology and
history
Don’t blame Comm for life’s
inequality In Jessica Arterburn’s article, she
argues that it’s unfair that the communication studies
program cannot admit as many students as it should and lacks the
necessary resources to do so (“Students
shouldn’t have to compete for major,” Viewpoint,
April 1). I, however, want to tell her to wake up and smell the
coffee. Life is based on unfairness. People at one time or other,
have been denied opportunities even though they worked their butts
off to attain a certain goal. Take, for example, a common scenario
where someone applies for a much-desired job, and although the
candidate has an awesome resume and references, is denied. Along
Arterburn’s line of reasoning, this person should shout
“injustice.” She would say that this company should
have more positions available to meet the demand. But, I say that
this applicant should face reality and move on. In an ideal world
there would be a job for every person who was qualified and desired
it, but we don’t live fairy tale lives. Arterburn mentions
that coming to UCLA was hard enough and now students who want to
enter the communication studies program must face another hard task
of getting in. When mentioning UCLA’s difficult admissions
process, she should remember that it is no different from the
communication studies program’s admissions process. In both
cases, many apply, but few are admitted simply because there
aren’t enough spots. Arterburn complains that if she is
denied admittance into the communication studies major, she will
have invested two years in many courses that apply only to the
communications major. However, she points out that Eugenie Dye, the
undergraduate counselor for communication studies, encourages
students to choose courses that overlap with other disciplines.
Arterburn also says that the communications studies major is
multi-disciplinary. It sounds to me that it is Arterburn’s
fault for not having planned for a back-up major. Had she chosen
more courses that overlap, she might not be in this predicament.
Moreover, she intimates that to be forced to choose another major
besides the communications major is to settle. But, one
shouldn’t feel that way. The social science majors have a lot
to offer. I am a political science student and have learned not
only about international and national problems, but about human
nature as well. Once you get involved in the major you choose, you
will find that it can be immensely rewarding. If one gripes about
life’s misfortunes like Arterburn, the horrible cycle of
contempt, frustration and despair over life’s injustices
never ends. No one, I’m sure, wants to live such a horrible
existence. People should understand they tried their best and move
on to the next opportunity when they fail, because the next
opportunity might not be so bad.
Sandy Li Fourth-year Political science
Alternatives to major abound I found Trisha
Ranney’s letter to be rather sad (“Comm
department should be for all,“ Viewpoint, April 3). She,
like many other students, was rejected from the communication
studies major, and found it necessary to transfer to another
university to complete her education with a broadcast journalism
major. What she and Jessica Arterburn mostly fail to realize is
that the communication studies program at UCLA does not suck in
students with the pretense of preparation for careers in
journalism, advertising, or public relations (“Students
shouldn’t have to compete for major,” April 1). If one
refers to the UCLA General Catalog, page 216, the description of
the major clearly states that “(the program) seeks to provide
students with a comprehensive knowledge of the nature of human
communication, the symbol systems by which it functions, the
environments in which it occurs, its media, and its effects.”
A further look at the course descriptions shows that this major
does not provide practical experience ““ only broad-based
theoretical knowledge. If you want to be prepared for a career in
broadcast journalism, you’ll have to look elsewhere. The
problem of admissions to the department will only be settled when
the College of Letters and Science allocates more funding for more
professors and more classes. As things stand now, the huge influx
of students into the department with relatively the same (limited)
number of classes has only resulted in increased competition for
spots and crowded classrooms. As a communication studies student, I
have found that the majority of courses that I have taken have
lived up to the nature of the program as set forth in the General
Catalog. However, what any potential communication studies student
should remember is that job and internship experience, in addition
to education, is what will help one get a job in a related field. I
have friends, both within the major and not, who are pursuing these
fields through internships in advertising, broadcast journalism,
print journalism, television and film, and public relations. True,
having the major may help one to get noticed, but experience is
what truly matters. Experiences are even available on-campus to
those students who may not have the transportational means to go
further away. Los Angeles has numerous opportunities available to a
motivated student, who is interested in exploring a career in a
communications-related field. I urge Arterburn, Ranney, and others
in those positions to explore the resources that are out there. You
just might find that you don’t even want to be a
communication studies student anymore.
Aviva Roller Fourth-year Communication studies and
political science
Palestinians not innocent victims Avran Emon
wants to tell us about Israel’s perceived victimhood, so he
starts with his first paragraph showing the Palestinians as
innocent victims (“Israel
loses claim to moral high ground,” Viewpoint, April 3).
He talks about the Israeli army invading the West Bank with no
mention of provocation. He has conveniently left out the suicide
bombings and the 30 people killed during Passover alone. He leaves
out Hezbollah and Hamas saying they don’t want peace ““
they want all the land and the Jews gone. He also fails to mention
the glorifying of barbarous acts, paying people to blow themselves
up, and Yasser Arafat in the Arabic press telling his people to
continue in this vein. The commentary ends on the same hypocritical
note with Emon talking about what the U.S. is doing to rebuild
Afghanistan and comparing it to the Israeli destruction of the
Palestinian territories. Tell me what the Arab countries have done
to help their Palestinians brothers? Tell me why after 30 years
Lebanon and Jordan keep their Palestinian guests in refugee camps
instead of welcoming them into their society and helping them to
better themselves educationally, medically and economically? Where
in the Saudi plan does it say anything about helping to build the
new country of Palestine? For all the money funneled into the area
for violence and all the weapons bought, imagine what positive
things could have been done for these people. So who’s really
playing the victim card?
Zelda McKay Manhattan Beach