Letters to the editorError or conspiracy?
Editor:
In the Oct. 17 issue of the Daily Bruin, in our article entitled
(not
chosen by us) "Funneling college admissions with race," there
are several
transcription errors.These errors change the meaning of
several
sentences.
The two most conspicuous mistakes are grammatical and occur
directly
after we mentioned John Du. Does the Daily Bruin have a vested
interest in
protecting the intellectual integrity of Du by making us look
stupid? The
errors the editors committed made some of our sentences
dysfunctional.
Given the political views of the editorial staff, it is fair to
ask, "Were
the mistakes intentional?"
The Daily Bruin reserves the right to edit material, however,
this must
be done while the integrity of the essay is preserved. We would
like to
clarify our essay by correcting two errors. The first lapse is
in the
sentence that reads: "Aside from obvious solecism, Du might want
to
consider the right of the legitimate expectation that the UC
system can be
held accountable for all policy and curriculum to the citizens
of
California – they (we) do pay for it."
The sentence should read as follows: "Aside from the obvious
solecism,
Du might want to consider the right of the California taxpayers
to
determine and shape their civic institutions. They (we) have a
legitimate
expectation that the UC system can be held accountable for all
policy and
curriculum to the citizens of California – they (we) do pay for
it."
The second mistake is truly a distortion. The public read:
"Moreover,
affirmative action positions run along ideological ancestry who
oppose
affirmative action." This should have read: "Moreover,
affirmative action
positions run along ideological lines, not racial ones. Thomas
Sowell and
Alan Keyes are both Americans of African ancestry who oppose
affirmative
action." The difference changes the whole meaning of the
excerpt.
Let us assume these errors were not designed to make our essay
into a
muddle. Furthermore, we must consider that we had to redact
several
paragraphs because we were told that the article was "too long."
Once
again, we have reason to distrust their motives. In the center
of our
article an oversized illustration of a funnel wasted useful
space. Why? Was
The Bruin editorial staff intimidated by the length and logic of
our expos?
Perhaps the editorial staff should point that high-powered eye
of
perception back at themselves; they might not like what they
see.Chris Ivicevich
Third-year
Political Science/HistoryRick Welsh
Third-year
Political ScienceDiversity of opinion prevails
Editor:
Thank you for publishing the viewpoint article by Ivicevich and
Welsh
(Oct. 17, "Funneling admissions with race").
When I came to UCLA, I was looking forward to experiencing the
diversity
which I had heard so much about. I was a bit disappointed to
find virtually
none in the way of political views, vis a vis the the
consistently leftist
flavor of the lead news and opinion pieces in the Daily
Bruin.
By publishing Tuesday’s article, you at least acknowledge that
not all
our 35,000 students believe that affirmative action is a viable
and just
policy.Jerry Dunn
First-year
Undeclared
Laugh it up, Bruins
Editor:
Thanks for running Brian Birkenstein’s "A guide to life for
those
strapped for cash" article in the Oct. 16 issue.
Finally, some comic relief from these times that are trying
everybody’s
souls around here. Birkenstein doesn’t root out any of the
economic evils
besetting us, but he does keep them at bay with his merry
prankster
humor.
Rollover John Falstaff, we’ve got a new worldly philosopher
"bellying
up" to the bar.Eric L Vollmer
UCSD AlumnusQuestion of achievement
Editor:
In my perpetual delusion that one of your columns may one day
contain
reason, I read Sonja Gedeon’s article (Oct. 17, "Human issues
prevail in
affirmative action) concerning the Oct. 12 affirmative action
rally.
Gedeon mentions that the ultimate goal was "the total
elimination of the
racist laws and policies which aim at dividing and polarizing
our society."
Has she perhaps overlooked the intent of affirmative action,
which is to
instill race as a determining factor in place of abilities?
If Gedeon were to familiarize herself with the language of
the
California Civil Rights Initiative, she would recognize that it
writes into
law that goal which she purports to affirm.
Gedeon mentions that "justice and color equality should be
the
foundation on which the edifice of our society is built upon." I
could not
agree more. The Constitution is a color-blind document that
provides the
basis for equality. Historical application of the Constitution
that
furthered racial superiority was wrong because it failed to
conform to
natural law, which is the basis for the Constitution. To now
return to this
past injustice commits an irrevocable harm towards the
betterment of our
society.
To paraphrase one political figure, you do not change the
inherent evil
of racial classification by changing the color of the victim and
the
beneficiary.
I would also advise Gedeon to take an American history class
soon. To
proclaim that the American dream is a pure democracy is to
overlook the
expressed writings of the founding fathers. That is why we have
a
republican form of government in this nation. If we had been a
democracy,
racial discrimination would still be institutionalized to this
day. After
all, the majority opinion at the time of many landmark civil
rights
legislation believed in the inferiority of minorities solely on
the basis
of the color of their skin.
The defenders of affirmative action continually argue for
equality as
justification for their actions. I find this conclusion
fallacious and
hypocritical. To specifically discriminate against those for
exhibiting
marked ability is to play into the hands of the social levelers
that fail
to acknowledge the uniqueness of individual character and
ability. It is
not a question of race, but a question of achievement and
potential.Jay J. Wang
Fourth-year
Political Science