February 20, 1996
Letters
Rise up and fight!
Editor:
As the struggle for education as a fundamental human right
continues to escalate, we must narrow our focus and tap into our
power as students.
African and Chicana/o students are at risk of being obliterated
from the face of a campus already plagued by disproportionate
racial composition. Similar to other universities that have
historically served as agents of racial apartheid, the University
of California system has never been immune to the influence of
white supremacy.
Since the July 20 decision to eliminate affirmative action, we
have seen a resurgence in the movement to further subjugate people
of color and women. Political opportunists, such as Pete Wilson and
Ward Connerly, have led this witch hunt against Africans,
Chicana/os, Native Americans and women. They managed in one July
afternoon to chip away our human rights and destroy many of our
children’s hopes for an empowering future.
For far too long, many of us have remained on the outskirts of
the political battleground, hoping that the era of Jim Crow
segregation was nothing more than a lonely paragraph at the back of
our U.S. history books.
These empty hopes, without the strategy to ensure that our human
rights will be protected, have left us with SP-1 and SP-2 (the two
policies that eliminate affirmative action in the UC system). Our
complacency has given us a new policy that ultimately seeks to
throw us out of the universities and onto the new plantation – the
California prison system.
But student activism and militancy are not relics of the past.
Activism is a very real power that has been building in strength
and momentum. As the racists among the regents try and exclude us
from the university, we, too, will rise and defend our communities
and the human rights of our people.
Before, we showed hesitancy and inactivity during pivotal
moments in our struggle. But we will do so no longer. Escalation is
the only answer to the regents who have elected to destroy the
University of California and ignore the recommendations of
students, faculty and administrators.
We must approach them, and all other white hoods in suits and
ties, as the closet Klan members that they are. Nothing less than a
complete recision of the July 20 decision is demanded and expected.
If not in March, then in November, after we have mobilized to
defeat the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative.
Please come to the Affirmative Action Coalition’s Feb. 21
protest to reclaim your education. The rally will start at 11 a.m.
in Westwood Plaza.
Kandea Mosley
Third-year
Safety in numbers
Editor:
I couldn’t help but notice the article on Feb. 15, "The art of
self-defense." While pleased that the topic of campus safety was
addressed so prominently, I was distressed that students’ options
for safe travel on campus seemed confined to a discussion on the
pros and cons of pepper spray.
I believe very strongly that one of the safest options is to
travel in pairs or larger groups. Using the buddy system greatly
reduces both the risk that one will be selected for attack by an
assailant, and that the attack will be successful. Traveling in
high-traffic, well-lit areas (e.g. Bruin Walk over Circle Drive
North) is also helpful.
Obviously, it’s not always possible to arrange to walk with a
friend, but it is possible to get an escort.
On any day of the year, from dusk until 1 a.m., Community
Service Officers (CSOs) are available, free of charge, to walk
anyone anywhere on campus or much of the surrounding area. The
boundaries of service are: Wilshire on the south, Sunset on the
north and Veteran on the west; on the east side, Hilgard between
Sunset and Manning, and Malcolm between Manning and Wilshire.
Just call (79)4-WALK 15 minutes in advance, and a CSO will be
dispatched to your location. The CSOs are dressed in highly
recognizable uniforms and carry two-way police radios for instant
communication with the police.
Sgt. John Adams
UCLA Police Department
Hellbound?
Editor:
I am writing in response to a disturbing column that appeared in
the Daily Bruin Tuesday, Feb. 13, entitled "’Stairway to Heaven’
really leads to hell" by Christopher Colbath.
Led Zeppelin "died" when drummer John Bonham died in 1980. It’s
easy to bash someone that can’t defend himself, and further,
Colbath’s callous psychobabble was contemptuous beyond shame
because it lacked any basis in truth.
Not once did Colbath offer anything of substance or worth that
supported his reckless assertions of deviltry. Colbath even claimed
to know exactly what a Led Zeppelin concert was like:
"Those dark and smoke-filled sports arenas that housed the
band’s performances were boding, unholy cathedrals, and the
sacraments therein were completely severed from outside
phenomenological reality."
Yet, I would be willing to bet that he has never even once seen
Led Zeppelin live in concert. The fact is, Colbath doesn’t know the
difference between his ass and a canary. The funny thing is, a
canary would.
Zerxes Bhagalia
Department of computer science
State University of New York
Credit due
Editor:
I was rather appalled when I read Benjamin Davidson’s commentary
on Roxane Márquez’s columns ("Just the facts, please: Feelings
cloud issues," Feb. 12). Davidson can only applaud her for her
sentence structure; he gives no credit to her honest opinions and
her clear subject position, which make her an excellent writer.
Let’s be clear: I’m not a brown-noser or cult follower of
Márquez, but I do believe she deserves credit where credit is
due.
An esteemed professor I had last quarter profoundly stated that
writing, and all knowledge, is at its best when people "trust the
validity of their own experience." When writers think and write,
they cannot ignore their subject positions and the emotional
connections which make them compelled to respond to an issue.
Márquez does not hide behind facts and figures, and she
certainly doesn’t insult her audience. What is insulting is that
Davidson feels writing should be void of emotion. If that is the
case, then most writers may as well roll over and play dead.
Let’s face it: The media desensitizes its audience every day
with crime, poverty and murder. I believe this insensitive approach
is one of the major reasons why these menaces still exist.
Knowing the facts just isn’t enough to do anything about it. A
personal reflection says a lot more than just plain facts, because
all of a sudden, the issue is placed in the context and concern of
everyday lives.
By the way, Davidson is writing in the Viewpoint section. If he
wants straight statistical information, why doesn’t he peruse the
state, nation and world blurbs on page 6?
Remember that a UCLA student (particularly one majoring in
sociology) must question and pull the rug from underneath "the
bottom line," which should not be taken at face value. Davidson
should use his brain cells to think critically instead of writing
closed-minded viewpoints.
Finally, Davidson must "enlighten" the audience on his
definition of substance. He needs to recognize that a column does
not need to be heaped with charts and mathematical formulas to make
it substantial. Márquez’s columns are effective because she
makes the audience think, question, and most importantly, feel.
Liscelle Brennan
Fifth-year
English/American studies
Specializing in education
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1996 ASUCLA Communications Board
[Back] [Home]