Thursday, May 16, 1996
Whose opinion?
Editor:
Dean Robin Fisher says in his letter ("Deep questions," May 3)
that the university is a democracy because it asks for students’
opinions. I ask my fellow students, has the university ever asked
your opinion on university policy?
Did it ask you if you wanted your fee money spent on Chancellor
Young’s $423,946 yearly income? Did it ask you if it was OK for
Chancellor Young to use a 20 million dollar loan to pressure the
undergraduate students association, ASUCLA, into submission? Did it
ask you if it was OK to spend your fee money fighting the Student
Association of Graduate Employees/United Auto Workers?
Fisher says that the university incorporates our opinion into
its policy decisions. That may be true if our opinions happen to be
the same as the university’s. This is not a democracy, Robin
Fisher.
If our government had the same definition of democracy as Robin
Fisher, I would be the first in line for my machine gun, ski mask
and red bandanna, and I would answer Fisher’s question about
whether the ends justify the means by saying that in the case of
fighting for democracy, the ends do justify the means.
Leah Guerrero
Graduate student
History
Bigfoot sighting
Editor:
I’ve kept my mouth shut for too long. At first I thought I was
alone, but now that I’ve met so many people who have seen what I’ve
seen, I think it’s time to bring it out in the open. When will this
university admit the existence of Bigfoot on this campus?
There have been hundreds of sightings of the creature since the
university opened. There are probably thousands more who have seen
it, but are too afraid to admit it. What will it take for UCLA to
face the truth?
I think as students of UCLA, we should have the right to know
about possible dangers at the college when applying. I had no idea
about the mythical beast before I came here, but now the counseling
doesn’t seem to help.
My encounter with Sasquatch occurred near Melnitz. It was Friday
evening a month ago, and I was on my way to see "Cold Comfort
Farm," when I noticed a funny stench in the air. I shook it off and
continued my walk, and that’s when I saw it; it was huge! It was
big and hairy and was making strange sounds as it moved around the
trees outside of Melnitz. I screamed and when I came to, I was in
the emergency room.
I’m still recovering from this incident, but what upsets me is
that it should have never happened. Stop denying the truth; how
many people will have to suffer before you do something!?
Matthew How
Third-year
Linguistics
Silver smoke screen
Editor:
In response to Dr. Richard P. Usatine’s sanctimonious and
self-serving viewpoint of May 9, "Directors need to rethink smoking
in productions," urging directors "to rethink the risk-benefit
ratio of smoking in theaters," might I point out that Dr. Usatine
admitted he could not imagine leaving a theater even if a sign were
posted warning the play contained smoking?
In other words, the health threat of one cigarette in an entire
theater is so trivial that he himself would assume this risk rather
than forego the benefit of seeing that particular play. Thus, if he
has already determined that the benefits of attending a play which
contains smoking outweigh the risk, why is he urging directors to
reconsider this issue?
To bolster his tenuous argument, Dr. Usatine considers the
health of the actors. If Dr. Usatine is to be believed, there are
legions of actors out there who have become addicted to tobacco
because they accepted roles which required them to smoke. I cannot
recall ever having heard an actor make this assertion, nor would I
believe them if they had.
Actors are free to accept or decline roles. Even if they take a
role which requires smoking, they are always free to quit once the
role is completed. Millions of people have quit smoking, and I see
no reason why actors should not be able to do the same.
What Dr. Usatine seems to forget is that this is a free society
which allows individuals to make up their own minds on such issues.
To prohibit the portrayal of smoking on stage (and presumably the
screen as well, since actors are apparently incapable of taking one
or two puffs without becoming hopelessly addicted to the demon
weed) amounts to censorship, pure and simple. Would Dr. Usatine
next have us ban Casablanca because Bogart smokes in it?
The last time I looked, we had something called the First
Amendment which guarantees all individuals the freedom to express
ideas. If Dr. Usatine does not want to see smoking, he is free to
stay out of the theater. What he is not free to do is censor the
expression of ideas by others, however politically incorrect they
may be.
Daniel J. Scullin
UCLA Extension
Viable options
Editor:
Thank you for printing Elizabeth Rich’s shocking, but true,
column, "Examining partial-birth abortion," May 13.
It’s incredible that we even have to come up with legislation to
make this sort of procedure illegal. It’s even more incredible that
some (including President Clinton) think that partial-birth
abortions should continue.
There are many other choices for pregnant women in distress than
the violent death of their viable unborn children; I know this for
a fact because I work as a counselor at a local crisis pregnancy
center where, at no charge, we help women find those other choices
every day.
Monnica Terwilliger
Staff
Computer Sciences
Have you seen Sasquatch on campus?