Realities of race and relationships
As a woman of color, I am personally offended by Anna Sterling’s viewpoint on interracial dating (“Interracial relationships an opportunity for personal growth,” Feb. 13). In opening the Daily Bruin on Friday morning, I was expecting to read a socially conscious and critical viewpoint on the dynamics and politics of interracial dating. What I found was a narrow and interpersonal perspective seeking validation for Sterling’s own relationship.
If we are going to talk about interracial relationships, we must first understand the politics and reality of race in the American social context. Eating “spam (and) eggs” is not a struggle for people of color in this country. Walking down the street as a person of color is a greater struggle; walking down the street with your gay partner is a greater struggle; raising an all Vietnamese family while resisting cultural suicide via assimilation is a greater struggle. Anything that challenges the dominant ideology of white superior heteronormativity in this country is a greater struggle than the interpersonal day-by-day rituals. It is important to distinguish interpersonal insecurities of judgement (e.g., spam and eggs) from societal struggles (e.g., hate crimes). Sterling’s statement, “It would probably be a lot easier for me to date a Pilipino,” conversely implies that it is harder to date a white person. However, with the inherent privileges and power that come with whiteness, dating a white person provides social currency and validation in this racialized American society, which would also afford the interracial couple benefits and opportunities later down the line.
I absolutely disagree with Sterling’s statement, “sticking with people from your same background may be easier and more comfortable, the fact that people come from different backgrounds means there is more room to grow through cross-cultural exchanges.” Once again, in recognizing that our racialized society privileges white people over people of color, socially it would be more difficult for a couple of the same ethnic background (non-white) to be together in resisting dominant notions of whiteness and conventional frameworks of family all around them. Think white picket fence, Wisteria Lane, every white jock and cheerleader-esque match-made-in-heaven couples plastered across billboards, televisions and movie screens. To assume that there is less “room to grow” in like-racial relationships is absurd. If anything, there is always more room to grow through the process of resistance, dismantling and challenging the status quo.
This viewpoint is in no way a personal attack on Sterling or her interracial relationship ““ it is a counter-argument to the ideas she proposed. Sterling made the mistake of trying to apply her personal insecurities with her own interracial relationship within an entire societal context. I feel it is important to remind people that ““ against popular belief and mainstream messages bombarding us every day ““ white is not necessarily better (for “growth,” for “learning”). From the interpersonal to the interracial, it is important to be critical while remembering the humanity in all of us.
Sarah Nguyen
Fourth-year, Asian American studies and world arts and cultures
Senior gift leaves lasting impression
As the chair of the Senior Class Giving Committee, I want to shed some light on the two “problems” that Rashmi Joshi so emphatically discussed in her Viewpoint column, “Senior gift should leave an impression” (Feb. 2).
It is true, the Senior Class Giving Campaign is charged with increasing sustainable financial support for UCLA, not toward raising funds for a tangible gift like a trampoline or flagpole, which Joshi suggested in the article. But what is the problem with that? As most people have noticed, UCLA is a premier university faced with what could potentially be insurmountable financial hardships, thanks to the state’s financial crisis. As of now, only 13 percent of UCLA’s budget comes from the state, which let’s be honest, is only going to continue to drop. The financial crisis facing the state clearly demonstrates the importance for alumni and students, especially seniors, to give back to UCLA. If we want to give future students the same opportunities we had ““ which would not have been possible for us if alumni did not support the university ““ we need to come together as a class and help UCLA maintain its academic excellence and prestige.
Since I’ve cleared that up, let me also clarify that $81,639 ““ the amount that the senior class could raise if each senior gave only $9 ““ is a lot of money. Who wouldn’t be happy with making that much the first year they get out of college? I certainly would be. UCLA can do a lot with $81,639 regardless of how it chooses to split it up. Think about how many students could be paid $20 to participate in a research study that could potentially cure cancer ““ more than 4,000 if you do the math.
To make the argument that the money raised by the senior class would be better put toward a trampoline or flagpole (which, by the way, what is wrong with the one we have now?) is simply ridiculous. The bottom line is that today our money is better spent on research and scholarships so students can actually afford college. By supporting future students, the impression we are leaving is indelible.
Jayme Farrell-Ranker
Fourth-year, communications studies and sociology
Sustainability benefits the UC in long run
While the recent editorial “Students and faculty come before maintenance” (Feb. 3) addresses the serious implications of the current budget crisis on students, faculty and higher education, it fails to address the many benefits associated with building renovations and energy efficient projects.
Since the enactment of the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices in 2007, the UC system has become a leader in sustainability nationwide, with UCLA projected to meet its aggressive deadlines for emissions reductions up to eight years early. This is no small feat.
Besides prestigious accomplishment, real long-term monetary savings are incurred with such changes. The stimulus bill calls for stricter building requirements (LEED certification) for new projects. The UC has stressed a commitment to energy savings, a smart move due to rising energy costs. Relying on petroleum and even natural gas will stress the budget in the future even further ““ let’s take the time to invest in our infrastructure now for the long-term. Because of its commitment to energy efficiency, the UC now saves $12 million a year. Increasing these standards means even shorter payback time periods on these projects and increased savings.
Last spring, UCLA students indicated that they put sustainability first: We passed The Green Initiative Fund referendum. Money in this package funds education projects and grants. Let’s not only sustain our campus structure, let’s take time to make our budget and education truly sustainable.
Alisa Ahmadian
Fourth-year, political science
Co-chair of E3: Ecology, Economy, Equity