Black Sunday needed to go
In response to Lucas Johnson’s submission “Students
must fight for their right to party” (Sept. 30), I would like
to say that Black Sunday had to end.
While I received much enjoyment from both the official Black
Sundays I experienced my first and second years at UCLA, I clearly
understand why it’s gone. Black Sunday, the apocalypse of
parties, was more than just an opportunity for the newly arrived
UCLA community and random people from the greater Los Angeles area
to drink and mingle. It was an opportunity for the right amount of
liability-infested chaos the University cannot afford.
Yes, people do enjoy partying; I am not disputing that. But the
University and fraternity row do not enjoy property damage and
street fights. At one Black Sunday, the fire sprinkler system of
Beta Theta Pi was set off by vandals, leaving the house filled with
methane gas.
But that sounds like a great party, right?
Mike Hanna President of the Interfraternity
Council
Religious beliefs influence science
An important fact was omitted in “Controversy over stem
cell research a heated political topic” in the Sept. 26 issue
of The Bruin. One of the researchers interviewed in the article was
Dr. Amalia Issa of the UCLA School of Public Health. The article
failed to properly label Dr. Issa’s religious leanings as a
devout Catholic, which may account for her negative views on
embryonic stem cell research.
When discussing this heated topic, I feel journalists have the
responsibility to outline any potential bias of those interviewed
in order to present the most accurate light for their readers. For
example, Issa comments, “We’re saying that we now
believe that there’s a subset of human beings who do not
deserve to be accorded the dignity and respect we accord to
others” when describing human embryos that are the result of
in-vitro fertilization procedures and will eventually be destroyed.
Here, she doesn’t sound like a scientist and should be
weighed accordingly.
Dean J. Garret UCLA alumnus
Budget allocations misrepresented
I couldn’t believe what I was reading Tuesday as I opened
up the Viewpoint section of the Daily Bruin. As an incoming
first-year I was disgusted at the lack of depth and inherent bias
in what I expected to be a first-rate college periodical. What I
found were inaccurate, inconclusive submissions worthy of high
school press. You can do better than that.
In particular, an editorial alleging that favoritism, not merit,
was the foundation for base-budget allocations was incredibly
inconsistent and hazy. While the authors obviously spent some time
crunching numbers, they failed to include obvious statistics that
could weaken their case, or any alternative argument for that
matter.
True, Students First! groups may have received more money per
Budget Committee point. However, compared to how much these groups
requested and how much they received, SF! groups received a lower
percentage of fulfilled funds per committee point than opposition
groups.
Additionally, the writers failed to recognize exactly which
student organizations received the most funding. MEChA de UCLA and
the Asian Pacific Coalition were indeed the top recipients in the
budget allocation, yet did anyone consider their membership
numbers, let alone the percentage of students they represent
compared to any number of smaller organizations? And is it any
coincidence that the SF! candidate won because he was supported by
some of the largest groups on campus?
Put the pieces together. Allende Palma/Saracho won the election
because he received endorsements from the largest and most
influential groups on campus. There’s no fighting
democracy.
So it only makes sense that when it came time to dole out funds
to groups on campus, the largest and most influential groups
received the most money. Call it bias if you will, but in this
situation, pragmatism, not politics, prevailed.
I hope subsequent editions of the Daily Bruin will be more
effective, consistent and conclusive in the topics they decide to
cover.
Jeff Travis First-year, pre-political
science