Kudos to the Daily Bruin
It was refreshing to see two intelligent economic perspectives
in Tuesday’s edition (“A taxing debate between two UCLA
professors,” Roger Farmer, Theodore Andersen, Jan. 21).
Economic discussions are usually limited to sound bites offered
by competing ideologies, and the voice of professional economists
is sorely lacking. Thank you to professors Farmer and Andersen and
to the Daily Bruin for running these enlightening
articles.Charles A. Moore Class of 1986 B.A.,
economics
Jones acted within the rules
“Infantile” is a word better suited for describing
the Daily Bruin’s attacks on Andy Jones than for his
name-registration actions. Whining about completely legal acts
simply because one does not like their outcome smacks of being an
immature “poor loser.”
Under Common Law, I may change my name to anything I wish,
whether my new name is Al Gore Sucks or an unpronounceable
symbol. Under California law, I may choose any message for my
license plate, provided said message has not already been
registered. These are the rules underlying Center for Student
Programming naming policies. What, then, is unfair or illegal
about Jones’ registration practices?
Will Jones’ actions really “undercut the
efforts” of Student Empowerment! and cause them to
“lose” their identity? I doubt it — with their
machine politics, divisive charges of racism against opposing
slatemembers, and wallpapering of Bruin Walk with red fliers,
the identity of Student Empowerment! is clear: they focus on
racial division and waste student fees. David Hackett
Fourth-year, political science
Schwartz is muddled and wrong
Regarding Joel Schwartz’s column “Fear of racism
causes one-sided accusations,” (Jan. 16) seldom have I seen
so many familiar right-wing rants apologizing for racism and
masquerading as support for “free speech,” served up
with such illogic and overbearing moral righteousness.
It is difficult to pick Schwartz’s most preposterous
assertion: the notion that O. J. Simpson is a hero of the left or
that Trent Lott was not criticized by his own party. Although
Schwartz’s column is so muddle-headed it is more laughable
than persuasive, it is disheartening to consider the wider social
forces that created such reactionary thinking.Joshua
Paddison Graduate student, history