Demographics cause segregation
I am astonished Ilana Fried’s column, “Desegregation
success isn’t black and white” (May 13), refers to the
minority predominance in Los Angeles schools as
“segregation.”
Gee, how can it be possible that in a state where almost half
the population is Latino there are schools consisting of a
predominantly Latino student population? Or a school in
predominantly black and Latino Watts to be made up of black and
Latino students? Roosevelt High School is in East Los Angeles,
where 97 percent of its residents are Hispanic; from where do you
suggest we bus in the white kids?
Fried points to language as a form of “segregation”
because students who speak English as a second language are placed
in separate programs. But wait, I thought people wanted bilingual
education?
Fried blatantly ignores that people naturally tend to group
together according to their similarities and/or common interests,
including race.
I have yet to see any signs in East Los Angeles that say
“Latinos only.”
But what about considering the personal responsibility of
failing students in these “minority” schools. Placing
blame on their racial status is, in essence, insulting their
intelligence. It seems like people don’t have enough faith in
these students, so race becomes the excuse.
It is illogical to equate changing demographics with the
segregation of the Civil Rights era; the real battle was fought
then, not now. Coerced integration, which it seems is what Fried is
calling for, didn’t work in the past so why would it work
now?
My mother never finished high school. I was born in Mexico and
raised in East Los Angeles, but I refuse to be belittled; I’m
at UCLA because of my own efforts. Striving for equal access is a
commendable effort, but you’re crossing a dangerous line when
you’re trying to force an equal outcome.
Cristina Carrillo First-year, English
Eatery’s popularity speaks for itself
Thank you for presenting the other side of the Taco Bell issue
in Jerry Pfohl’s column “Campus Taco Bell doesn’t
deserve to go” (May 14). I agree the Associated Students of
UCLA is making a mistake by considering shutting down the eatery.
As the Taco Bell on campus is not directly involved with the labor
practices in question, it seems ridiculous ASUCLA would consider
getting rid of it, especially since it is the second most popular
eatery on campus.
ASUCLA is not listening to the students on this one. The bottom
line is that Taco Bell is not hurting for customers, proving that
ASUCLA’s concerns are not widespread on campus.
Amy White Second-year, undeclared