Racist label misguided As one of the bearers of
the sign in question, I was appalled by Michael Cox’s letter
“Counterprotest sign is unacceptable, offensive” (Nov.
21) yet not surprised. Very often, the initial leftist
response to dissent is the cry of “racism.” This
isn’t the first time that I have been compared to a Nazi. Yet
I would note that Cox did not clarify who I, as a Jew, and the
other sign-bearer, a black conservative, were trying to
oppress. Strangely enough, not one of the leftist protesters
thought to ask us, the actual sign-carriers, what the sign
meant. If they had, I’d have gladly explained that the
message of “This Protest Needs Soap” applied equally to
the white protesters. Instead, Cox implies that progressives are
some kind of race. I challenge Michael Cox, with all Daily Bruin
readers as witness, to a debate on the subject of
“˜racism’ at a time and place of his choosing. I doubt
very much he has anything more to present other than his labeling
of anyone who disagrees with him as an “old-school”
racist. In light of these facts, I ask Cox to think a little harder
about who the actual racist is.
David Lazar First-Year student, Undeclared Life
SciencesÂ
Students hinder own efforts In the editorial
“Tuesday’s debacle gets nothing done” (Nov 20),
the headline announces that the regents meeting at Covel Commons
“got nothing done” ““ a very accurate statement.
How would it have been possible to conduct a productive meeting, or
even begin to discuss the issues with students screaming and
protesting inside the commons? Students unaffiliated with the
protest were unable to study in their tutorials upstairs, or even
get lunch in the Covel Residential Restaurant due to hundreds of
disruptive protesters. But instead of recognizing this fact, the
Daily Bruin chose to lionize the actions of students (and
non-students) who chose not to attend class but rather disrespect
their university by barging into a meeting and going beyond
boundaries set by the police department. This egregious display
will only cause the regents to further ignore and discount student
concerns. Meanwhile, the front page article fully detailed the
dreadful injuries of “minor scratches and bruises” that
the protesters withstood while attacking the police and security
officers. A total of three full-length articles, in addition to the
aforementioned editorial, praise the actions of BAMN and the
Affirmative Action Coalition and decry the regents for getting
“nothing done” amid the circus-like atmosphere and
childish display. The Daily Bruin also awarded just a few sentences
of recognition to the counter-protesters present at the meeting on
Tuesday, those in support of Regent Ward Connerly and his policies.
It’s not hard to figure out why the regents now hold a
majority of their meetings at UCSF; they do not have to deal with
the immature and outlandish protests that prohibit them from even
attempting to accomplish their goal ““ leading our
University.
Stephanie Casey Third-year, Microbiology, Immunology,
and Molecular Genetics
License law only veils true hopes SB60’s
supporters, as described in the article “Forum drives home
immigrant license bill” are either uninformed about the
realities of international driving or willfully misleading
Californians about their true intentions. There is no need to issue
California driver licenses to illegal aliens. Under the U.N.
Convention on Road Traffic signed in 1949 and various other
treaties the United States is a party to, foreign nationals with
legal foreign driver licenses are permitted to drive on U.S.
roads. This is why Canadians face no problems driving in the U.S.
““ Canada is a signatory. So too are Mexico and Peru, two
nations mentioned in the article. In fact, nearly every country in
the world, including Afghanistan under the Taliban, is a signatory
to this treaty. Additionally, the Organization of American
States’Â Convention on Regulation of Inter-American Motor
Vehicle Traffic provides additional permit options for citizens of
countries that are members of the OAS. One might assume that the
proponents of SB60 are just uninformed and unaware of these
treaties. However, I suspect that there is more going on here than
the proponents of SB60 would like to admit. Consider all the talk
about “it’s their (illegal aliens’) right”
to drive and “they work and contribute, so why not give them
California licenses?” Consider also the move to replace the
proper description of such people as “illegal aliens,”
first to “illegal immigrants,” then “undocumented
immigrants,” and now, “undocumented workers,” all
in an attempt to play down both their status as a foreign national
and the breaking of U.S. immigration laws, a felony-class
crime. SB60 and various other laws pushed for by these groups are
not about road safety, fairness or anything similar. What they
are about is a piecemeal amnesty for illegal aliens, an
amnesty that cannot be achieved at the federal level (where
immigration law decisions properly belong) and thus is being
sought at the state level. The proponents hide their true goal
behind arguments about “fairness” and “road
safety” because they know that Californians do not share
their true goal of the eradication of immigration control and the
distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
Rory Miller UCLA Law Student