Dahle’s attacks unwarranted
I am disheartened by the kind of fallacious leadership David
Dahle intends to give this campus if he is elected USAC President.
Not only is his article (“Empowerment! discourages
students,” Viewpoint, April 22) reflective of his lack of
resources, it is also devoid of the “true understanding and
sensitivity” he claims to have for campus student groups. His
condescending remarks on the “red-shirted candidates”
are not only misleading, but also unsubstantiated.
Is the scarcity of housing, parking, and transportation a
race-specific issue? Are only Latinos, Asians, and African-American
students lacking a place to park on this campus? The rising costs
of education must also be targeted at poor Latinos, right? What
about the increased voter turnout as a result of Student
Empowerment!? Did he conveniently forget that as well?
Who is Dahle to attack the validity of Student
Empowerment!’s representation on this campus when he admits
to not having worked “as much as he would have liked”
with student-advocacy groups, organizations that have been
established by students because there is a need for their
representation? Student Empowerment! is a coalition of
organizations which, contrary to his claims, promotes student
initiative and student involvement through its advocacy of
student-specific issues and is not merely “polarized against
racial issues” as Dahle claims it to be.
Pedro A. Gomez
First-year
English
Bruin should not criticize Student Empowerment!
What students have been struggling for decades for on this
campus has been criticized cynically in the Daily Bruin’s
Tuesday editorial (“Student Empowerment! shows its petty
politics,” Viewpoint, April 23).
The Student Empowerment! slate has been struggling to keep the
student voice a significant part of campus priorities. A student
voice like the Bruin has been resisting this, rather than combining
or supporting a collective student voice.
Michelle Gonzales
Second-year
History and Asian American studies
Legal drugs not good for anyone
I fail to see the logic behind Joel Schwartz’s argument
that legalizing illegal drugs would help youth, lessen crime and
ease U.S regulation (“War on illegal drugs useless
battle,” Viewpoint, April 23).
First, 20 percent of all deaths in the United States are due to
so-called “legal drugs.” Legalization would definitely
not help youth. We are already struggling to raise a nation of
young adults who are troubled already, and now we want it to be
legal for them to take heroine, cocaine and marijuana? What kind of
society will that leave us? We’ll be raising children and
future leaders whose brains have been altered by these drugs. And
these are the people in whom we want to put our trust to make life
and death and progressive decisions for our country?
When was the last time Eisner checked on the effects these drugs
have on the nervous systems and thinking faculties of humans?
Marijuana/THC and all other cannabinoids are addictive and cause
damage to the cerebral cortex. Cocaine blocks monoamine
transporters, and ecstasy is a hallucinogen with persistent effects
on serotonergic neurons. These drugs pose dangers to us: they are
neurotoxic and kill brain cells and affect synapses. Altered minds,
if you must know, are more likely to commit crimes.
I fail to see how legalizing already dangerous drugs would
protect me and America’s youth.
Isioma Orihu
Fourth-year
Biology
University should keep BruinGo!
I want to express my concern over the tenuous nature of
UCLA’s commitment to support the BruinGo! program.
Los Angeles is already a tremendously difficult place to be a
graduate student, and still people continue to come here to take
advantage of the high quality faculty. One of the weakest points of
UCLA’s graduate programs is its inability to engender any
sense of academic community. Perhaps because housing and getting
around town are hurdles in general to student community in Los
Angeles, informal interaction among students and between students
and faculty is held at harmfully low levels. This is particularly
true when compared to universities embedded in locations that are
more amenable to living in close proximity and walking to
school.
BruinGo!, however, helps mitigate this clear weakness of
UCLA. Riding the bus has created a space where students
regularly interact with one another in a very different manner
than typically occurs in the classroom. This interaction
generates freer discussion which greatly complements the more
rigorous and structured interactions that are central components of
academic training.
A university policy that actively impedes informal
interactions of UCLA students is strikingly
opposite to sound university governance, which
should make every effort to support creative and convivial
scholarship. I hope that UCLA can appreciate the importance of
informal interaction among students and the central role that the
BruinGo! program plays as an enabler for such interaction.
Marc Hanson
Graduate student
Urban planning