ASUCLA situation should be further
questioned
I’m glad the Daily Bruin editorial board is treating the
question of the unionization of non-student ASUCLA employees with
the nuance and caution the issue deserves (“Blind support of
union irresponsible,” Viewpoint, May 13).
Certainly, board members were confronted with a difficult
balancing act of maintaining ASUCLA’s traditional commitment
to social responsibility and economic justice while weighing the
cost that unionization is likely to exact on the
association’s core student service mission (fewer student
jobs, a higher student union fee, etc.).
Nonetheless, the complexities of the unionization issue should
not cause us to lose sight of some big-picture questions: Why is
ASUCLA’s financial situation so dismal as to make a basic
practice of responsible labor relations such a burden?
If the association is concerned about student jobs, why has it
leased so much space to outside vendors who are under no obligation
to hire students?
Why is ASUCLA undertaking a half-million dollar construction
project to make Campus Corner more “aesthetically
pleasing” while simultaneously threatening to cut student
programming funds and raise student fees to finance the costs of a
union contract (“Losses in revenue prompt ASUCLA to
reconsider renewal of Taco Bell contract,” News, May 6)?
Unfortunately, all of these questions have the same answer. In
recent years, when a cash-strapped students’ association
should have focused on providing program space and funding,
maintaining home-grown businesses with low prices and student jobs
and keeping its promise to sunset the $51 student union fee, it has
instead emphasized outsourcing, privatization and misguided
expansion (such as the failed attempt to open a UCLA Spirit Store
on Third Street Promenade). In short, ASUCLA has acted less like a
co-op run for students by students and more like a corporation run
for profits by bureaucrats.
I believe the ASUCLA board made the right decision in urging the
university to negotiate with the union.
But I hope that board members will learn from this experience; I
hope they will recognize that being socially responsible does not
have to come at the cost of reducing student services.
For the past several years, student board members have failed to
hold a well-meaning but entrenched management staff accountable for
“corporatizing” the students’ association.
It’s time for the board to start asking some serious
questions.
Michael Weiner Class of 2001
Neal’s article right on target
I was very impressed by the recent article in the Daily
Bruin, “American apathy toward Palestinian plight
inhumane,” by Christopher Neal (Viewpoint, May
13). Neal’s article exemplifies what I feel. He is well
informed regarding the situation in the Middle East, and his
argument regarding the price of “security” is
impressive.
Ramin Nematollahi Los Angeles
Palestinians lack democratic ethic
In his column “American apathy toward Palestinian plight
inhumane,” (Viewpoint, May 13) Christopher Neal speaks of
human rights and morality, but these are aspects that many
Palestinians clearly lack. Neal’s argument is leftist
rhetoric. He claims to support the Palestinians on his
“commitment of human rights.” Americans have
“apathy” for the Palestinians because they are the ones
who have no regard for human rights. But the Palestinians are the
ones sending people to blow themselves up, taking with them Israeli
civilians. They are the ones putting women and children in the
line of fire to protect themselves. Neal fails to show that the
Palestinians have no regard for human rights.
Neal also states that as Americans we support the closure of
schools and disconnection of electricity of whole towns. But he
fails to mention that in these schools they teach hate for
Israelis, blaming the Jews for their plight; and in these towns
militants hide, who will die trying to kill as many Jews as
possible. As an American, I’m proud to support the closures
and disconnections.
Neal takes freedom and democracy for granted, and he is blind to
see that those precious commodities are exactly what the Israelis
stand for, and they are defending themselves from extinction. The
Palestinians had many chances to turn things around, but because of
their hate for Jews and lack of a moral leader, they have been
stifled by their own ignorance. The Palestinians do not believe in
freedom or democracy, but merely wish to drive the jews into the
Mediterranean, and as an American, I am proud to support
Israel.
James Kim Second-year Business-economics
Article ignores seriousness of sex with
minors
I’m responding to the article by Sophia Whang (“Men
become sexier, classier, more refined with age,” A&E, May
10). I think it was extremely unfortunate that Ms. Whang cited R.
Kelly. You will remember that Kelly and the late singer Aaliyah
eloped when she was fourteen. So he apparently has a propensity for
underaged girls.
Sex with minors has devastating and destructive consequences for
the minor and society. We need to be extremely careful of the
message sent by including him as an example of the appeal of older
men to younger women.
The other persons cited in the article (Jack Nicholson and
Michael Douglas) were in relationships where both parties were of
legal age. Even though the author included a disclaimer stating
“I do not condone sex with minors” it was not strong
enough. Sexualized media depictions of underage (or seemingly
underage) young men and women help create a societal atmosphere
where the taboo against sex with minors has become relaxed. We
should stay cognizant of the fine line between what happens between
consenting adults and the exploitation and abuse of minors.
Alva Moore Stevenson
Administrative specialist
UCLA Oral History Program
Today’s guys are tomorrow’s men
My initial response to Sophia Whang’s article (“Men
become sexier, classier, more refined with age,” A&E, May
10) was enlightenment. “So that’s what girls
think,” I thought to myself. It was a very educational read.
How better to learn about what goes through the mind of the
opposite sex than to read the thoughts of the opposite sex?
The response that followed was one of agreement. She made sense.
I had often thought women went for older men just because of
“financial stability.” I hadn’t thought about the
big gap between young men and older men when it comes to
maturity.
But after thinking more deeply, I came to a final conclusion.
It’s true that we “college boys” are not quite
men yet. We don’t have a six-digit salary (yet). Most of us
don’t have cars here, and those who have, probably got them
from their parents. And yes, many of us still consider turning 21 a
big deal. And perhaps, if I were a lady like Ms. Whang I would
invest myself in a more “stable” relationship.
Wouldn’t it be ideal, ladies, if you could find a man
right now who was financially stable, mature, suave, refined, and a
real man in every respect [ahem]? That seems to be Sophia’s
picture-perfect guy at the moment.
But I think “women” like this are missing out. The
female sex may mature more quickly than males, and guys right now
might not fit that ideal image. But what’s the rush? Why do
young women try so hard to live in a world that is not yet
ours?
The fact of the matter is the older men of tomorrow are the
younger men of today. Why go for what you’ll get eventually
in time?
Kenneth Chan