Students should not foot bill for ASUCLA
workers As a student and a member of the Associated
Students of UCLA, it worries me greatly that the
association’s board of directors are pursuing the option of
cutting student services to recognize the union of non-student
workers (“Union could cost ASUCLA dearly,” Daily Bruin,
News, May 10). Such an action would undermine the fundamental basic
purpose of the existence of ASUCLA ““ to serve UCLA students.
Social arguments have been made to unionize temporary non-student
workers for ASUCLA. However, such a course of action requires the
association to expend more financial resources than they have
available. And unlike other employers, ASUCLA is a nonprofit
student-operated organization. ASUCLA is not out to make money. Its
basic purpose is to serve UCLA students. Students should not be
forced to pay for the unfortunate circumstances that other
individuals are going through. Not all of us are rich. For some of
us, we are financially-strapped ourselves. We don’t need any
more fees added on to our tuition, books and housing.
Chey Tor Third-year Political science
Stick with Lavin Be careful what you wish for
(“Losing Face,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, May 16).
Judging by their list of possible replacements for UCLA basketball
coach Steve Lavin, those wacky LoseLavin.com kids, who think that
paying their registration fees automatically entitles them to a
couple of Pac-10 championships and a Final Four, it appears that
their campaign is poorly thought out. If you want to make a case
for removing someone, it helps to present a viable alternative.
Here are their candidates: Roy Williams ““ a fine coach, who
actually has won as many NCAA tournament games over the last six
years as Lavin. Considering that he turned down his dream job at
his alma mater, North Carolina to stay at Kansas, it’s
extremely doubtful he would come to UCLA. Henry Bibby ““ is it
his sparkling 2-10 record against Lavin or his recent NCAA first
round loss to number 13 seed and 12-point underdog UNC-Wilmington
that makes him so qualified for the job? Quin Snyder – if finishing
sixth in conference once in six years is so terrible, then why
would they want a coach who has never finished higher than sixth in
his entire coaching career? Paul Westphal ““ they want a
Trojan to coach UCLA? Mark Few ““ why would anyone want to go
from a school where making the Sweet Sixteen once or twice is a
cause for major celebration to a school where making the Sweet
Sixteen five out of six years is labeled “mediocrity”
and a reason to fire the coach? Now if the UCLA basketball program
had been suffering losing seasons or even failed to make the NCAA
tournament, I would be the first one to support a move for a new
coach. However, considering that Lavin’s record compares
favorably with any Bruin coach since the last of Wooden’s
players graduated ““ factoring in NCAA tournament performance
and the fact that the Pac-10 is much stronger in recent years than
it’s ever been ““ there can be no guarantee that a new
coach would do much better. I’ll stick with Steve.
Ben Browdy, Ph.D. School of Public Health
Whang elimidates herself from males at UCLA
There are a lot of dumb columns written in The Bruin. By dumb, I
mean unresearched, naive and superficial opinions that replace
substantive and credible information with half-researched,
know-it-all, 19-year-old jumble. But at least most of the writers
who address politics and current events, just do themselves harm.
But Sophia Whang’s column (“Men become sexier,
classier, more refined with age,” Daily Bruin, A&E, May
10) hurt all women at UCLA. She fully and wholeheartedly
perpetuated the less than subtle stereotype that UCLA women are
incredibly superficial. Whang had the pleasure of being taken out
by an older guy free of Abercrombie shirts, shallow pocketbooks,
and 21st birthdays which are all evidently, like, ever so college.
Whang even scored a “cruise down Sunset in his car, which
will remain nameless for its irrelevance.” So special is
Whang, she brags, that her “older guy” even paid for
her five-course meal. But what Whang would be surprised to hear is
the number of quality college guys who could treat their damsels to
a majestic bus ride to Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles in a pair
of blue jeans and a collared shirt from Target. Her snobby comments
are worthy of the same key-jingling that goes on at Pauley Pavilion
when we play USC. And speaking of Trojans, although I’m sure
Whang’s date was a great guy, I’m sure Michael
Douglas’ interest in Catherine Zeta Jones, whom Whang alluded
to as evidence of successful age-blind relationships, is based on
her affinity for great conversation and their similar interests.
But I’m still glad Whang shared her story with us. At least
the men on this campus have identified one more superficial person
not to trouble with our petty college personalities.
Adam Cooke Second-year History
Whang, older men, looking for wrong qualities
Rarely am I moved to comment on something in The Bruin, but Sophia
Whang’s article (“Men become sexier, classier, more
refined with age,” A&E, May 10) absolutely demands that
someone take up the pen in response. The idea of girls maturing
more quickly than boys is a sexual one. A young lady’s
ability to bear children earlier than her male counterparts is no
statement of emotional maturity, as her piece so pointedly
illustrates. In fact, it is the older male’s ability to
perceive weaknesses in a younger female’s defenses that makes
him appear mature in the eyes of Whang and so many other women. A
large part of Whang’s argument rests on older men’s
finances, and how that allows her to “order something I truly
want to eat.” Not to be crass, but we all know the name for
women looking for money in return for their company. And this is
completely independent of the fact that were I to author an
article, as an older man, say, expounding the virtues of young
women’s bodies, and how that’s “just kinda
sexy,” I would be blasted from every corner for my
insensitivity. Not so for Whang, who advocates an equally base
position. Women of Whang’s “maturity” would be
unacceptable dates, given the shallowness and glaring lack of
insight she exhibits. If these older men are so much more refined
and mature than I, then they are obviously even less able to relate
to this sort of person; so why, then, are they interested in women
like Whang? I’ll leave it for the readers to decide.
Brian Forbes Graduate student Mathematics
One-time sex has one answer: wrong On May 14,
Keely Hedges spoke of those who engage in one-night stands as
students of “mindless mistakes” who usually learn from
their experiences (“One-night stands warrant empathy,”
Daily Bruin, News, May 14). But several contradictions in
Hedges’ own argument uproot her empathetic conclusion. First,
mistakes are made when one doesn’t understand the results of
his/her actions. Thankfully, Hedges left a beautiful recipe for the
one-night stand: alcohol, low self-esteem, and a morally decrepit
partner. The “inevitable” result is sex. The recipe is
simple and has a definite result. This explicit mixture is not
called a mistake; it’s called a consequence. Another gem is
Hedges calling one-night standers “degenerates” and
“prostitutes” while begging that we “free the
one-night stand from its abhorrent image.” Her labels argued
against her conclusion ““ and the labels are correct.
One-night standers’ sexual freebies are not generosity; they
are cheaper competition in the whoring industry. But the best is:
“the best thing about one-night stands is their educational
value. For many, doing it once or a couple of times will ensure
that it never happens again.” Oh that’s wonderful! Slit
their wrists a few times and most people will realize they
don’t really want to die! Just as one-night stands may be
“the best sex of their lives” the lucid near-death
experience could be the best moments of your life. Better yet,
estimate the length of your bungee cord. You probably won’t
do it often, but it’ll teach you the importance of
calculation, and it could be the best jump of your life!
Wrist-slitting and one night stands both provide thrills that wake
some up, but destroy esteem and people. Relationships are sharing
where one-night stands are selfish; relationships produce while
one-night stands destroy delicate self-esteem. Sure, the one-night
stand “can certainly be forgiven as a mindless
mistake,” but why not avoid what we already know is a
mistake?
Carl Gustafson Third-year History