Tuesday, October 8, 1996
More students means more security
Increased enrollment numbers entitle academic student employees
to better job security.
We wish to clarify Sept. 27 Viewpoint’s citation of increases in
English class-section enrollment caps.
An increase in English 80 section caps did, in fact, occur
between Winter and Spring 1996; however, the long-term significance
of the increase has been challenged. Professor Eric Sundquist,
Chair of the Department of English, has explained that this
fluctuation was, fortunately, anomalous and not representative of
long-term English department policy.
Our statement reflected our concern that ASEs, who work without
contractual security, are especially vulnerable as the university
strains to match its resources with the needs of the undergraduates
it serves. The change in English 80 enrollment caps reveals the
vulnerability of TA-to-student ratios to university funding and
enrollment exigencies and highlights the need for binding,
negotiated commitments regarding academic student employment. We
regret any confusion that may have resulted from our submission to
Viewpoint.
Mark Quigley
Joanna Brooks
Prop 209 mirrors ’64 Civil Rights Act
Proposition 209’s Clause C will level the academic playing
field, contrary to Anti-209 campaigners.
Since the opponents of Proposition 209 are badly losing the
fight to continue race and gender preferences, they have decided to
sidestep the issue and instead focus on Clause C of the initiative
which reads as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
bonafide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary
to the normal operation of public empioyment, public education or
public contracting."
Now let’s compare this to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
VII, Sec. 704 (b): "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for
an employer … to print or publish … any notice .. indicating
any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based
on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such
a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation,
specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or
national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona
fide occupational Gratification for employrnent."
I’d like to know the reasoning for the uproar over this clause
in the Civil Rights Act. Clause C of Proposition 209 is an
affirmation of this Civil Rights Act clause, which was included for
obvious reasons: female prison guards should not be conducting
strip searches on male prisoners, or vice versa, and single-sex
locker rooms should not be attended to by someone of the opposite
sex. These "bona fide" qualifications were acknowledged and
permitted by the same federal act that opponents claim will be
gutted if Proposition 209 passes next month.
In response to Shiri Makowski’s Oct. 4 letter, I see no
connection whatsoever between Proposition 209 and the availability
of ethnic and gender studies classes at universities. Mandating
color-blind admissions and hiring processes has nothing to do with
what classes colleges will be "allowed" to offer.
I do agree with her on one point, however: Read the initiative,
and while you’re at it, pick up a copy of "Clause C and Why it’s
Included in CCRI," a flyer put out by the authors of the initiative
and available at the Bruin Republicans table on Bruin Walk. It is a
good way to avoid being brainwashed by the opponents of Proposition
209.
Mike Cooper
Fifth Year
Economics