Daily Bruin isn’t model of diversity
itself
The Daily Bruin may be in color now, but the staff is just as
“white” as David Dahle’s. In the Sept. 30
editorial, “Dahle inconsistent in words, actions,” the
editorial board criticizes Dahle for recommending four white
students for the Undergraduate Student Association Council judicial
board. But did The Bruin take a look at its own staff?
With the exception of Editor in Chief Cuauhtemoc Ortega, every
senior editor ““ the managing editor, and all eight section
heads ““ is white. Among them are two women who do not even
oversee the content sections, which plan and execute the
paper’s coverage.
The editorial stated, “Regardless of candidates’
attempts to ignore their own biases, their socio-economic and
ethnic backgrounds are going to affect the way they perceive
challenges to the USAC bylaws.” Doesn’t the same apply
to the Daily Bruin staff in its respective field of
responsibility?
If the editorial board wants to press race as an issue, take a
look in the mirror before grilling Dahle for what they see as a
disregard for ethnic diversity.
Fairness aside ““ and I hold that The Bruin misused its
power in matching Dahle’s submission with an editorial on day
one ““ The Bruin should be wary of hypocrisy when taking such
a brazen stance. The Bruin theoretically hires its staff based on
the merits of the candidates. The staff happens to be mostly white,
which is reflective of the applicants. The editorial board needs to
temper its big-stick mentality and give Dahle the benefit of the
doubt that this could be the case in his own selection process.
As for USAC, stop with petty politics. If the members who spoke
out against Dahle were ever put in the same position and had their
recommendation of four black students, four Asian students, four
Chicano/a students or any four non-white students denied on the
basis of race or gender the campus would be a mess of outraged
protesters right now.
Hard-line stances will get this campus no where.
Marcelle Richards Former Daily Bruin staff
member
Foreign countries have own motives
While Michelle Singer’s column, “Bush should listen
to international friends,” (Oct. 1), bestows countless
commendations upon France for not partaking in the war effort, she
does not use enough skepticism to question whether it has a
self-interest in its policy position.
In fact, it does. Under the ill-sponsored U.N. “oil for
food” program, billions of dollars from this program are
housed in France. Many also believe France has been secretly
trading with Iraq ““ a direct violation of the U.N. trade
embargo.
Other allies are also unprincipled. Russia is not basing its
current mild opposition on principle. Instead, Russia’s
holding out for the United States to give it a green light to wage
its war against Muslim militants in Georgia, as well as
guaranteeing that Iraq will pay back the $7 billion it owes in loan
payments.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, we do not need to
wait for its approval, either. The U.S. Constitution does not say
anything about waiting for some international body to bless
self-protection.
The United States will not have to go at it alone. When the
United States leads, the rest of the world will follow. We have
Britain and many Arab states as allies. France, Russia and even
China will cooperate. The Arab countries in the Middle East will
also follow because they don’t want a madman taking over
their countries through violence.
Michael Gordon Political science
Bush deserves benefit of the doubt
In the course of the last several weeks readers have had the
chance to read several columns on Iraq, including the one published
on Oct. 1 entitled “Bush should listen to international
friends,” in which writers claim there is a discrepancy
between how they think the Bush administration should be aiming at
a resolution of “the conflict over Iraq” and what the
actual, current approach is.
The conclusion usually is a fairly simple one: The way the
United States is pushing for war is wrong; the approach needs to be
changed. This is not too difficult to understand, and I personally
fully agree with the conclusion itself ““ a unilateral attack
hardly deserves to be called “a resolution.”
At the same time, in the case of this column, a more serious
issue seemed to remain unaddressed. This question being why do Bush
and his associates still maintain their standpoint is right and the
means they would apply are the appropriate ones?
It is all too easy to state Bush is lacking “common
sense” and simply hope that in due time he will become wiser
and will listen to his actual friends. I think we are lacking
common sense if we assume the push for war has no reasons.
Unfortunately, currently it appears there are reasons powerful
enough to get the United States involved in a war with Iraq. The
only way to avoid this is by finding out what these precise reasons
are (why war now, in the fall of 2002? I do not think Saddam
Hussein became that much more dangerous lately so let me rule this
one out) and showing more powerful grounds for a different
approach. This is our duty ““ to point out we think
Bush’s side lacks “common sense” is far from
enough.
Ferenc Laczo EAP student from University College Utrecht
studying at UCLA
Taxes shouldn’t fund others’
education
In response to Friday’s editorial and Tuesday’s
letter concerning whether the public or students are responsible
for paying for UC, I would like to offer another viewpoint. Why
should any individuals of the public have to be burdened by anyone
else’s educational payments?
If they are going to pay, why wouldn’t they be the ones
attending? Why would they pay for someone else? People’s
personal freedoms are being restricted by having to pay hard-earned
money to the government, which then gives citizens’ money to
someone else who did not work for it. The editorial does make its
point that if the government says it is going to provide a certain
service with the money it takes, it should back it up. But why take
our money at all? I’d like to take back the control of my
money and I’ll use it to how I see fit.
Joseph Groff Second-year, History
Jones isn’t true to his words
On Oct. 2 readers of the Daily Bruin were once again treated to
the comic stylings of Andy Jones. What new material has he
incorporated into his act? A spiffy monologue detailing the
open-minded character of the Bruin Republican club. I must admit of
being grateful for this clarification, because one might be misled
by some earlier actions of the club. What actions you may ask? One
was inviting Ann Coulter to speak at UCLA in February. In keeping
with what should be the goal of free speech for all public
universities, Coulter peddled her ideas with little controversy or
attention for that matter.
In exchange for the free speech venue she was offered by the
Bruin Republicans and California taxpayers, what open-minded
opinions did Coulter offer in return? She prescribed an aggressive
campaign for converting Afghan citizens to Christianity as the
primary means for rehabilitating their post-Taliban society.
Apparently America would do best to offset Islamic fundamentalist
anger by dropping a Bible squad in the middle of Kabul. I wonder
just how open-minded an average Muslim UCLA student would find
Coulter, or the decision of the Bruin Republicans to host her?
The truth of the matter is that Jones (as usual) is perpetrating
a fraud to the reader. He tries to portray the Bruin Republicans as
underdogs, stranded on a campus where their views are subject to
constant disdain or ridicule. What he neglects to mention is that
unlike the African Student Union, Samahang or MECha, Bruin
Republicans are directly connected to one of the most powerful
political parties in the nation. In light of the monumental
resources that the GOP commands on a national scale, I would be
hard pressed to pull out my sympathy card for the Bruin
Republicans. I trust and hope other Bruins are open-minded enough
to recognize the fraud in Jones’ victimology.
Ryan Graham Class of 2002
Longshoremen need students’ support
Just a few miles from this campus and along the entire West
Coast, longshore workers in the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union are locked out by the bosses in a battle against
shipping corporations on the docks. Students must support the
longshore workers’ struggle by coming out to the docks in
solidarity. During the lockout, picket lines have been set up at
the docks to make sure that no ships get loaded or unloaded by
scabs or military personnel.
Longshore workers are normally driven to work long hours, often
in double shifts, operating dangerous container haulers and cranes
at breakneck speeds in total violation of any concern for safety.
Since March, five longshoremen have been killed on the job. When
the union decided to work in accordance with stipulated work and
safety regulations, the Pacific Maritime Association, the
bosses’ organization, claimed that workers were staging a
“slowdown” and locked them out.
The union-busting tactics of the PMA represent the domestic side
of the U.S. government’s imperialist war drive against Iraq.
The Bush administration is threatening to bring in the Navy to do
the work if workers stage labor actions such as a strike. With its
power to shut down the flow of products coming in and out of the
West Coast ports, the ILWU has enormous social power in its
struggle against the capitalist bosses, and could wreck the
imperialists’ war aims in Iraq.
A victory by the ILWU in this struggle will be a blow to the
capitalist class and its attempts to tie the workers to their
exploiters through national unity.
Michael Hernandez Third-year, History