UCLA committed to celebration of diversity
I’d like to respond to Israel Talavera Jr.’s letter
titled “UCLA
should ban identity-based graduations“ (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, July 2). It seems obvious that Talavera’s exposure
to diversity is limited only to the different types of fonts that
are displayed on the computer screen when he attends his
“Online Bible College.” Unlike his online college, UCLA
is a university that’s comprised of people from many
different ethnicities, religions, national origins, sexes and
““ gasp ““ sexual orientations. Out of ignorance,
Talavera assumes that everybody at UCLA opposes celebrating
diversity ““ when in truth, most of us embrace it. This fact
was most apparent when thousands of UCLA students held massive
protests in opposition of SP-1 and 2 and Proposition 209.
Furthermore, the fact that heterosexuals attend the lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender graduation ceremony, and that different
races and ethnicities attend ceremonies not specifically aimed at
them, provide evidence that the UCLA community is committed to
celebrating diversity. And what about Talavera’s own
inflammatory letter? Would the Daily Bruin have printed it if it
was not interested in including a diverse range of opinions? I hope
that Talavera would one day open his mind to the fact that there
are other people out there who do not harbor his spiteful and
ignorant views.
Steven Pranoto Alumnus
Recklessness of few should not punish everyone
Howard Chernin’s letter is one of the most misinformed pieces
I have had the misfortune to read in the Daily Bruin
(“Zero-tolerance
policy ultimately protects students,” Viewpoint, July 2).
He condones age discrimination against 18- to 20-year-old adults
and blithely provides a rationale for totalitarianism. According to
Chernin, fairness is not a legitimate criterion by which to judge a
law. Instead, we must be ready and willing to abjure our rights so
that the government can protect us from ourselves. He insinuates
that the irresponsibility of the few negates the rights of the
many. I challenge Chernin to name a right that has not been abused
at some point by a few unscrupulous individuals. Every election,
someone somewhere intentionally cheats and votes multiple times.
Shall we abdicate our right to vote because of such abuses? The
inevitable consequence of Chernin’s solecistic logic is the
abolition of all rights and the institution of a totalitarian nanny
state. I would also ask Chernin if the encroachment of the state
into all aspects of life since the time of President F.D. Roosevelt
has resulted in a more responsible populace. Chernin fails to
comprehend the inherent reciprocity of rights and responsibilities.
Chernin justifies campus prohibition of alcohol on the grounds that
it protects students under the age of 21. The opposite is true. The
policy drives students off-campus to drink at parties or in their
cars. Furthermore, students under 21 have received a bad rap from
the propaganda of the federal government and Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, aided and abetted by the sensationalistic news media.
College students are no more likely to drink themselves to death
than the general population; it simply is not considered newsworthy
when a paunchy, middle-aged, blue-collar worker drinks himself to
death or falls off a balcony in a drunken stupor. The worst
drunk-driving offenders are not those under 21, but those of 25 to
35 years of age . It is time to end the era of university
prohibition. The drinking age should be lowered to 18. A policy of
individual responsibility regarding alcohol should be instituted in
place of zero-tolerance.
Christopher Ivicevich Alumnus
Responsibility of drinking not defined by age
Howard Chernin’s letter criticizing my submission does not
accurately reflect nor address the real issue that I sought to
bring out (“Zero-tolerance
policy ultimately protects students,”Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, July 2).His logic as to why the zero-tolerance policy
exists is also deficient in recognizing what observations I made.
Furthermore, the policy does not survive solely because of the
desire to discriminate but instead the political immobility of the
people affected. Nevertheless, Chernin informs us that “the
university does not support the consumption of alcohol by students,
either because it is harmful to themselves, (or) to their education
or to the community at large.” But neither self-destructive
activities nor drunk driving are unique to students or individuals
under the age of 21. If this were the case, then it would make
sense to bar “the majority” of students because of the
danger that a headstrong person under 21 would abuse the right to
drink. But one’s responsibility with alcohol has nothing to
do with age. If we follow the logic of Chernin’s argument to
completion, then no one at the university, including faculty and
staff, should have the right to consume alcohol because of the
danger it poses to the student population either through accidents,
or acts of violence, etc. It is precisely this type of attitude
that Chernin has that allows the university to avoid dealing
directly with a safe and sensible alcohol policy. Ultimately, if
the policy of Prohibition really worked, then why would nearly
two-thirds of students drink at least occasionally? Probably
because they know what the administration does not: the minimum
drinking age law is a joke.
Thomas Soteros-McNamara Fourth-year Political
science