Textbook bill falls short of expectations
The article “New bill restricts textbook prices” (News, Oct. 16) does not accurately portray my position and the position of CALPIRG on the recently passed textbook legislation.
I do not support the College Textbook Transparency Act (AB 1548), nor does CALPIRG. This bill ““ a watered-down and ineffective version of the CALPIRG-backed bill SB 832 (The College Textbook Affordability Act) ““ does nothing to alleviate the burden of textbook costs for students.
The College Textbook Affordability Act, which Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed Friday, would have required that textbook publishers disclose price information to faculty in all meetings and on their Web site.
The law that passed is significantly weaker because it puts the burden on faculty to request price information from publishers ““ it’s like having to ask the price of each individual item when you visit the grocery store.
The article fails to recognize the fundamental problem with the textbook market, and the reason that the new law lets publishers off the hook.
The textbook market is a broken one, in that the people who order the books (professors) are not the same people who buy the books (students). Students have no choice in the matter, so publishers should be made to go out of their way to provide professors with the information they need to make informed decisions on behalf of students.
I am outraged that Gov. Schwarzenegger would suggest that faculty and bookstores are to blame for publishers’ unfair business practices, and I certainly would not make that suggestion myself. The CALPIRG-backed law would have held publishers accountable.
Action should be taken in the near future to ensure that this happens.
Sarah Dobjensky
Chairwoman, UCLA California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
Second-year, political science and French
Republicans not lacking compassion
In Tuesday’s Daily Bruin article (“Governor vetoes Dream Act,” News, Oct. 16), Oiyan Poon, the University of California Students Association president, was “frustrated by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s lack of human compassion” for not signing the Dream Act, which would let illegal immigrants apply for financial aid.
Let me dispel the myth that whenever a Republican vetoes a bill that would fund financial aid, health care, schools, et cetera, he is “lacking human compassion.”
Let’s take a moment to look at the statistics and the logic instead of listening to quick, rhetorical one-liners: According to New York’s City Journal, the average Republican household gives 30 percent more to charity than the average Democrat household.
This illuminates the fundamental difference between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals: Fiscal liberals do not believe that the general public will donate enough to scholarships, homeless people or after-school programs by their own will, so they tax everyone ““ taking your money on the threat of imprisonment ““ and then redistribute those funds to whichever programs the legislature feels will help society without keeping close tabs on which programs work.
Republicans, libertarians and other fiscal conservatives believe that taking your money on the threat of imprisonment and then redistributing it is immoral. We are quite capable of identifying and helping the truly needy in society and prefer to maintain checks on charities so that we know our money is going straight to helping the needy and not to supporting a large and inefficient government bureaucracy.
So the next time you hear about an uncompassionate Republican politician who opposes funding your favorite government program, remember that his party is the one whose members voluntarily give more support to charity.
Jimmy Dunn
Fourth-year, physics
Secretary, Bruin Republicans
What about the important issues?
The “Election 2008: Presidential Candidates at a Glance” (Oct. 15) was supposed to give the candidates’ views on issues, especially those of interest to students, but I saw just one mention of college affordability, and only a couple of references to global warming.
We’re the generation who will be most affected by these issues. So why aren’t the presidential candidates talking about them? In 2004, 20.1 million 18- to 29-year-olds voted, up 4.3 million votes from 2000. In 2006, 2 million more of us voted. In fact, more of us voted than people over the age of 65. We’ve shown that we’re paying attention ““ now it’s time for politicians to pay attention to us.
That’s what the student PIRG’s What’s Your Plan campaign is all about. It aims to increase young voter turnout by encouraging candidates to talk about the issues we care about.
We know that America has the smarts, know-how, and desire to fix these problems. But to address them effectively, we desperately need an aggressive, nationally coordinated plan with strong leadership from the very top. Our next president needs to provide this leadership.
Coreen Weintraub
Second-year, undeclared
Eliminating SAT II limits students
When I applied to UCLA, each of three SAT II subject tests were given weight equal to the entire SAT I. This is because the SAT I only tested basic mathematics and verbal skills while the subject tests allowed applicants to showcase proficiency in skills such as chemistry or Spanish language.
Eliminating subject tests from admission criteria serves to limit opportunities for applicants from underrepresented communities, especially those for whom English is a second language.
Andy Green
UCLA Class of 2007
Mathematics/economics