Herczog misplaces concern
I am writing in response to Stephanie Herczog’s letter
“Homeless on campus a problem,” (Jan. 29). Herczog
wrote that a homeless man found dead on campus is a sign that we
have a homeless problem, and that “it is time for someone to
take control of this issue.” Did Herczog miss that the man
may have died because of “suspicious circumstances?”
She only wrote, “Finding one of them dead on campus is the
last straw,” in the same way she might describe finding a
dead squirrel on Bruin Walk. It is more important to be concerned
that there may be someone responsible for this man’s death
roaming our campus than to worry about a homeless man sleeping on a
public university’s campus.
Alison Dyer Fourth-year, history
Bush has harmful intentions
The editorial board is right when it claims Bush painted a
“rosy picture” of his domestic policies during his
State of the Union address. What struck me most was his claim that
his environmental policies would preserve the beauty of our nation
for future generations.
In reality, they will not preserve the environment, but instead
will relax regulations on factories and power plants, open up
millions of acres of forest land to corporate interests, and expose
the national wildlife refuge to oil drilling.
By calling these plans the “Healthy Forest
Initiative” and the “Clean Skies Initiative,” he
hopes to dissuade people from knowing the programs’ real
intentions.
If college is a time for activism and student participation,
UCLA students need to raise awareness about these issues. The only
people I have seen working on them while walking down Bruin Walk
are CALPIRG members. Other students need to get involved and demand
that Bush reveal the true intentions behind his plans. If students
do not take action, his agenda will pass without the public’s
knowledge of his real intentions
Alex Yu Third-year, MCDBio
End hostility over Empowerment!
The distortion of my intentions with the registration of the
Center for Student Programming group Student Empowerment! has
finally reached a level requiring a full clarification. There are
two main allegations being thrown around which must be
corrected.
First is that upholding current CSP policy leaves many venerable
groups on campus vulnerable to losing their names to anyone who
gets there first. In fact, I believe these groups, just like the
Bruin Republicans have an intrinsic right to their names. I might
even say that this right continues past the initial registration
process in fall quarter.
In this case, Student Empowerment! was not a pre-existing CSP
registered group.
The other false allegation is that we only got away with this
registration by exploiting an alleged loophole preventing the
Student Empowerment! political slate from registering as such.
Technically, CSP doesn’t register student slates. But it does
register groups ““ and a clear reading of CSP guidelines shows
that a group can be anything, including a group of students
composing a political slate. So, if that political slate had really
wanted the name, three of its supporters or councilmembers could
have at any time filed paperwork with CSP for the name, with the
group purpose something along the lines of “We are dedicated
to the re-election of Student Empowerment!” To say that the
student slate was unable to register the name, leaving it open to
our supposed underhanded trickery, is a blatant misreading of the
situation.
It’s time to let the hostility go.
Andrew Jones Bruin Republicans president, Former Daily
Bruin columnist Fourth-year, political science