Letters

Daily Bruin shows news bias

I was disappointed with the front page article in the Jan. 23
edition (“Crowd rallies for abortion rights”). The
entire article focused on a protest of 150 outside the Federal
Building in Los Angeles and on the arguments of abortion rights
activists. What the article made almost no mention of, however, was
the march for life in Washington, D.C., drawing tens of thousands
of anti-abortion supporters.

How can the Daily Bruin staff ignore such an important news
item? When tens of thousands marched for peace in Washington, the
Daily Bruin readily reported on the event ““ as it should.

It is perfectly acceptable for the editorial staff of a
publication to hold and publish political opinions and biases, but
these should be presented in Viewpoint. When biases transfer over
to the news page, journalistic integrity has been compromised.
Bruins cannot rely on their student publication for information if
those with editorial control cannot keep their biases out of the
news.

Daniel Chang First-year, political science

Free speech is not Nelson’s concern

In a recent article on the front page of the Daily Bruin
(“Changes in programming may affect free speech,” Jan.
23), director of student programming Berky Nelson is cited as
having concern that changes in the process of registering student
groups may affect students’ First Amendment rights to free
speech. I would simply like to point out that such a concern is
baseless.

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law …
abridging the freedom of speech.” The First Amendment offers
no protection over issues of speech between the individual and any
other party other than the federal government.

To argue that the University of California or any associated
student group can abridge the First Amendment rights of students is
ridiculous. Those who work and study on this campus should know
better than to invoke the Bill of Rights in situations not
pertaining to actions of the federal government.

Frank Nilsen Fourth-year, history

Emotional risks needed for maturity

Mavrick L. Goodrich’s Jan. 24 response to my Jan. 22
letter demonstrates the problem of dealing with sex in ways that do
not objectify it. The first half of his letter attacks me because I
believe sex “can promote emotional maturity.” He
charges that “with STDs and HIV rampant and teen pregnancies
at the levels they are” I am “irresponsible, immoral
and self-indulgent.” The second half of his letter continues
in the same self-righteous tone demanding to know at what age
sexual activity would promote emotional maturity, ending with a
rhetorical question about “deadbeat fathers.”

But I never advocated underage or immature sex. The letter
was about whether sexual intimacy can help further emotional
maturity. The letter was about the emotional risks that are
necessary for love to flourish and the recognition that we all
undergo a process of socialization in which we learn about
ourselves, others and love itself.

Coming from Europe, where sexuality is more openly and
maturely discussed, and where there are lower rates of STDs
and teen pregnancies, it is all the more
surprising how difficult such a discussion is in the
United States where Goodrich demonstrates a
greater tendency toward knee-jerk reactions
and scare tactics.

Fr. Mark Speeks Episcopal Chaplain
to UCLA

Affirmative action necessary for minorities

I respond in regard to Joe Groff and Gabriel Greenacre’s
Jan. 24 letters regarding the “injustice” of
affirmative action. Affirmative action exists because true
racial equality is an unrealistic goal. To say that by
eliminating affirmative action we grow closer to racial equality is
like saying that we should get rid of welfare to achieve economic
equality. 

The bottom line is that minorities need opportunities. They
are not being given a free ride in life. Affirmative action gives
them an opportunity ““ not a handout ““ to succeed in
life. Once they arrive at the university they must strive
equally hard to succeed. Granted, the system of implementation
may have its flaws. But we cannot denounce students for having
the opportunity to learn.  

Minuk Kim Social Sciences Computing