Christina Paganini’s submission “Segregation
practices permeate campus,” (Viewpoint, Sept. 21) was written
in pure ignorance. As an Academic Advancement Program tutor and
supervisor, I feel it my responsibility to enlighten you.
I have tutored for the Freshmen Summer Program, the Transfer
Summer Program and the Summer Readmission and Retention Program, so
I have literally seen students come, go, and come back. I can say
from my experiences that Paganini’s characterization of
comprehensive review as a device that allows “students that
may not be academically ready to set foot on the UCLA campus a
chance of being accepted” is ridiculous.
UCLA has one of the most strenuous admissions processes in the
world and those who are admitted to this school are more than
qualified to excel here. Those students who leave or are dismissed
are usually put in that situation because of outside circumstances
““ not because they are not academically ready.
Paganini’s claim that FSP and comprehensive review
“encourage separation through their general practices”
is also erroneous. The Freshman and Transfer Summer programs are
some of the most inclusive and welcoming experiences that a UCLA
student can have. As a former FSP student and tutor, I can say that
without this program many of the students who are admitted to UCLA
would never feel welcome here. In fact, as opposed to
Paganini’s characterization, FSP and TSP encourage students
to be involved in every aspect of the campus.
Paganini’s definition of AAP is probably the most flawed
element of her submission. She defines the students that AAP serves
first as “mainly” minority students, then as at-risk
students. Then she claims that “these students receive
benefits that other students are otherwise denied based on their
family background.” Finally, she makes the laughable claim
that the university “undoubtedly encourages separation among
the ethnicities.” There is so much to say here that I
don’t know where to start.
She contradicts herself by first arguing that some students
receive benefits that others don’t based on family
background, but then openly admitting that others students can
apply and are admitted to AAP. So which is it, is AAP exclusive to
“minority” or “at-risk students” or can
anyone apply?
This whole claim that programs like AAP encourage separation
among ethnicities is completely wrong. AAP is a program that
consists of black, white, Asian, Latino, transfer, returning,
foreign and every other type of student that UCLA admits. The only
people who feel uncomfortable about our program are the ones who
feel uncomfortable around the supposed minority, at-risk students
that Paganini claims we are.
There are two more ignorant comments Paganini made that I want
to comment on. The first is that many student groups “promote
radicalism approaching the level of hate activity.” As far as
I’m concerned, student organizations on campus only promote
four things. First, they want to ensure that we minority, at-risk
students graduate in 4-6 years. Second, they fight to promote a
campus that reflects the population of California. Third, they work
to improve the morale of minority, at-risk students. Finally, they
work within the political system to fight laws that they feel hurt
minority, at-risk students. Notice that the only hateful thing
about those goals was Paganini’s characterization of us as
minority, at-risk students.
Finally, Paganini’s idealization of Proposition 54 as a
law that “would help to eliminate segregation on campus by
cutting out the questions on university paperwork that affect our
way of thinking about race” demonstrates that she is either
extremely unaware about the society she lives in or that she is
deviously malicious.
We as UCLA students no longer live in a world where we can talk
about the end of affirmative action in the theoretical. The
unrelenting truth is that the real end of affirmative action
drastically harmed minority, at-risk students. The biggest
condemnation of Proposition 209 is the statistical data that proves
beyond of a shadow of a doubt that 209 had a tremendously
detrimental effect on the number of students of color attending
UCLA. Proposition 54 was written to eliminate the statistical data
and thereby destroy the strongest argument against Proposition
209.
The next time Paganini decides to write an article about AAP or
student groups or ballot initiatives she should either find out
more about the topic or be more forthright about her
intentions.
Turner is a Class of 2003 UCLA alumnus.