Aggressive behavior intolerant
After reading the article, “Bake sale cooks up heated
debate,” (News, May 22), it never ceases to amaze me what
left-wing students will do to prevent their conservative peers from
voicing their opinions.
The irony in this is that we’re in a college community
that supposedly values liberty and free speech. The incident at
the bake sale only serves to reinforce the notion that
left-wing radicals are anything but tolerant toward messages and
discussions they don’t agree with. You probably will not see
members of Bruin Republicans, or any conservative student, attempt
to sabotage a left-wing event. Rather, you will see a
counter-protest or demonstration.
Conservatives value dialogue and discussion, not violence.
However, such aggressive behavior is so prevalent among left-wing
activities that whenever such events take place, a sizeable number
of police officers will be on hand to keep the peace. The
individual who violently interrupted the bake sale should be
ashamed of his/her act. He owes the student organizers of the bake
sale a genuine apology.
Some students suggested the bake sale was an inappropriate way
to stage a dialogue on affirmative action. It may very
well be, but so are walkouts and rallies that disturb
students taking their exams. Politics is not a clean game,
especially on this campus. It is sad to see one side losing
its calm and resorting to violent behavior.
Chey Tor
Fourth-year, political science
Nissim overlooks practices at UCLA
The recent Daily Bruin column by Maytal Nissim (“Separate
proms signal lingering racism,” May 27) is dripping with
hypocrisy.
Why does Nissim complain about people in Georgia exercising
their freedom of association (these proms are private and thus
constitutionally protected) in a distasteful way, when the same
thing is happening here at UCLA with the full support of the
school?
I am referring to the separate graduation ceremonies for racial
and ethnic groups on campus. The school should not condone or
legitimize these separate ceremonies ““ after all, as Nissim
said, “the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation and
restrictions based on race or color were violations of the 14th
Amendment’s equal protection clause.”
Daniel B. Rego
Class of 2000
Education, not affirmative action
After reading Mike Bitondo’s column, “Affirmative
action needed to balk segregation,” (May 21), I was rather
surprised that he didn’t take his premise ““ that
minorities are underrepresented ““ to its logical, yet
slightly more radical, conclusion.
Simply put, affirmative action cheats its participants by
accepting that because of race, lower standards are acceptable. How
racist is that?
Human beings are not created equal; some of us are born into the
ghettos, some born into Bel-Air neighborhoods, some into families
that love and care, and some into abusive families. Why don’t
we funnel the money of this wealthy country into education? If
everyone received the type of education they deserve, there would
be no need for desperate quota filling. The best, no matter what
the color of their skin, deserve to be the best, not just given the
title of best because they belong to a specific minority.
Education is the only way to go, but if we are going to argue
for affirmative action, why don’t we apply its logic to other
things? To take it to a slightly silly, completely stereotypical,
generalized comparison, why doesn’t the NBA recruit, or
actively seek out, 5’2″ chess-playing, academic
decathlon-winning, oafish people? After all, those people not good
at sports have been denied the right to play NBA basketball.
Thankfully, we’ve discarded the idea of natural, racial
superiority. But with education, the playing field can at last be
leveled, and finally everyone can have the chance to fulfill their
potential.
Let’s not lower the bar; let’s better the initial
playing field.
Meghan White
First-year, psychology