“˜Asian’ label doesn’t reflect
diversity
The statement in the April 24 editorial (“Race should be
considered in admits”) that “Asians and whites vied for
the title of most admitted ethnic group” perpetuates the
misconception that all people from the continent of Asia constitute
a single ethnic group. The 2006 Concise Oxford American Dictionary
defines “ethnic” as “of or relating to a
population subgroup (within a larger or dominant nation or cultural
group) with a common national or cultural tradition”; they
give “ethnic Albanians in Kosovo” as an example. There
are a multitude of ethnic groups in Asia, most of which are
completely distinct from each other and whose members are not
overrepresented at UCLA.
For example, people from Thailand and Japan have different
languages, alphabets, customs, cuisines and histories. Grouping
these cultures together along with other distinct ethnic groups
(for example, from China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea) amounts to
little more than an accounting device that labels them as
“Asians,” and uses the sum to proclaim them as
overrepresented. This works to their disadvantage as many are
disqualified from certain fellowships and some types of financial
aid not available to “overrepresented” minorities. I
would expect that the Daily Bruin would be sensitive to this,
particularly in an editorial about diversity and admissions
procedures. Referring to “Asians” as one of the
most-admitted “ethnic groups” displays a disappointing
cultural naivete.
Jeffrey H. Miller Professor, microbiology, immunology
and molecular genetics
Knee-jerk protests trivialize activism
As an alumnus who had to fight his way up Bruin Walk through
throngs of cause-of-the-day protesters with too much time on their
hands, I applaud Alec Mouhibian’s exposure of their ignorance
of issues, intolerance of others’ viewpoints and the
inconvenient reality those perspectives reveal (“Anti-Coke
protesters’ logic falls flat,” April 25).
This Coke-Free Campus event, the recent barrage on military
recruiters up at UC Santa Cruz, and innumerable other ostensible
exercises of the First Amendment have only served to cheapen and
marginalize the very freedom protesters claim to hold so dear.
Disallowing the freedom of speech or association of others only
ensures that informed debate among equally respected parties who
are free to associate with whichever point of view they choose can
never take place.
Such debate is the foundation of the society in which we live.
Indeed, it can, and does, lead to legitimate civil unrest by
oppressed and marginalized peoples: The Boston Tea Party, civil
rights sit-ins in the 1960s, and most recently, massive upheaval in
Nepal are only a few such examples.
But when one chooses to participate in whatever protest he
receives in his e-mail inbox that morning, he takes part in a
massive “crying wolf” that desensitizes lawmakers and
the public at large to that particular medium. If patriots had
dumped British wares in the sea every time a perceived injustice
was foisted upon them, this very important act of civil unrest
““ and the symbol it has become ““ would have been
meaningless.
Wyatt Cavalier UCLA alumnus, Class of
2000
Coke-Free Campus misrepresented
I was disturbed by Mouhibian’s representation of Coke-Free
Campus and its supporters at the recent Associated Students UCLA
board meeting. It is egregious that two of the three people who
Mouhibian cited were students who were not part of Coke-Free
Campus.
Mouhibian chose to publish the names of people who were
protesting based on their own ideologies and not on the specific
issues of the campaign. Many protesters that day were part of Coke
Free Campus and would have answered his questions eloquently, using
specifics from the enormous amount of available evidence.
Both the Colombian student and Professor Miguel Ceballos talked
about Colombia generally and not about the specifics of The
Coca-Cola Company.
Similarly, Claire Douglas and Karume James talked about the
general problem of unsafe and unfair working conditions and not the
specifics of Coca-Cola. .
If Mouhibian is truly concerned with what is best for the people
of Colombia and not just with trying to push his own ideology, he
should refrain from such inaccurate representations. This debate
needs to be about facts.
So I offer an open invitation to Mouhibian, or anyone else, to
have an open forum where such a dialogue can take place.
The ASUCLA board of directors has been researching this matter
since Coke-Free Campus spoke at the March board meeting, and
thousands of signatures have been collected in support of kicking
Coca-Cola products off campus.
It is very likely that the board will soon come to a decision
and it is important for students to be educated on this issue.
David Chiba Second-year, chemical
engineering