Daily Bruin

Tarantino exposes, not espouses, racism

By Steven Miller

This article is in response to Mike Horowitz’s review of the new
movie Pulp Fiction that ran in the Arts and Entertainment section
of the Daily Bruin on Friday, Oct. 14. More specifically, I wish to
comment on Horowitz’s allegations of racism toward Quentin
Tarantino, the filmmaker.

Horowitz claims that just about everything Tarantino has worked
on movie-wise contains "evidence" that he is racist. He is certain
that the "sheer number of epithets on-screen" not only "perpetuate
bigotry," but are "demeaning" and "less than intelligent" as well.
The following four points will show both why this reasoning is
farcical and why an opinion like this doesn’t belong in a movie
review.

1. The racist epithets that Horowitz refers to are more than
just words and phrases ­ they are scenarios, reactions and
confrontations. Tarantino portrays his lowlife criminals as racist,
a factor often associated with equally lowlife morals. The
inclusion of racism in the character development of these criminals
provides a clearer, more well-rounded image of the "bad guy".
Overlooking this racist aspect in the mindset of his characters
would mislead people into thinking that these crooks should be
judged solely on their wit, charm, looks, cool dispositions, etc.
They are scum. Their racist attitudes profusely displayed in movies
such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction illustrate this fact and
are there to remind us of this fact so that we, the audience, don’t
ultimately forget it.

2. There is a difference between "getting away" with racism and
exposing racism in a movie. When (in Pulp Fiction) Ving Rhames’
character (an African-American gangster) is raped by a sick, racist
redneck, are we to assume that this is just another excuse for
Tarantino to perpetuate bigotry? Horowitz would have us believe so.
The fact of the matter is this: In one of the most blatant, vivid
and to-the-point scenes in movie history dealing with the subject,
Tarantino condemns racism as the lowest form of stupidity.

3. Whether or not Tarantino himself is a racist is a non-issue
when it comes to a film review. Frankly, Horowitz’s statement that,
"quite simply, Tarantino’s racist," is libelous. Horowitz bases
this statement on Tarantino’s artistic endeavors. This, to me, is a
cowardly move. A film review is an opportunity to espouse one’s
opinions on the subject film, not to take cheap shots at the
artist’s supposed personal beliefs or values behind his or her
back.

4. All this, and contradictions too. After all, the reader will
remember that Horowitz, the defender of all that is politically
correct, dismisses Samuel Jackson’s performance as "good" while
long-windedly praising John Travolta and Bruce Willis. I defy
anyone to refute that of the three main characters, Jackson’s is
the most diverse and dramatic. So why does Horowitz not give credit
where credit is due? Maybe it’s because Jackson is … well … I
guess I’d better keep that opinion to myself.

For all of you staunch Mike Horowitz fans out there who don’t
buy any of my arguments so far, chew on this slice of hypocrisy: At
the end of the third paragraph of his article, Horowitz says that
"Tarantino should be elected God." Why would anyone want to elect
someone who so blatantly exploits an artistic medium to broadcast
his or her racist attitudes to be God? I rest my case.

Miller is a senior sociology student.

American politics erases shame from agenda

J.C. Curelop

There is no longer any shame in American politics. The good old
days when politicians might actually feel remorse or at minimum
some embarrassment for their actions has long since
disappeared.

Today politicians not only ignore their moral and ethical
shortfalls, some actually revel in them. Politics has been
transformed from an art where honesty was valued to one in which
two-faced hypocrisy is openly and shamelessly flaunted. To see
this, one need only look at a few of the stellar politicians now
serving the American public.

For beginners, there’s Congressman Michael Huffington. Of empty
mind but hefty pocketbook, Huffington has shown absolutely no shame
at openly trying to buy a seat in the U.S. Senate. Having set a
record by spending millions of his own money to buy a Congressional
seat in 1992, he shows no signs of slowing his free wheeling ways
before election day. One would think that his complete lack of a
record on Capitol Hill might at least make him blush. But no, he
actually revels in the fact that he has absolutely nothing to show
for his tenure in office. Mike Huffington is shameless or stupid,
and quite possibly both. My only question is this: Why go through
the process of spending money on commercials? Why not just send me
a check?

Then there’s Oliver North, who’s running for Senate in Virginia.
Convicted as a felon for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, North
not only claims to be an honest man, he actually has the gall to
tramp around Virginia raving about corruption in Washington! I ask
you: What kind of a disgusting hypocrite breaks the law, purges
himself and then lectures others about ethics? Aside from Richard
Nixon, Ollie North is the epitome of corruption. And yet he wants
to lecture me about values? That’s like getting sensitivity
training from Attila the Hun.

Of course, I wouldn’t want you to think that only Republicans
are shameless. Right across the river from Virginia, Marion Barry,
a Democrat as well as a convicted felon, has unabashedly risen from
political oblivion (and prison) to recapture the Democratic
nomination for mayor of D.C. Best remembered for his crack problem,
Barry also left a legacy of financial corruption that would have
made Ivan Boesky proud.

But don’t be too hard on him. After all, how else is a guy
supposed to support his cocaine habit? While mayor, Barry could
often be found passed out at parties in a drunken stupor. He also
spent a great deal of time on "free" paid trips to the Caribbean.
But hey, everyone has their faults.

Moving right along, we come to Mel Reynolds, a freshman
Democratic Congressman from Chicago. Reynolds looked to be a true
hope for the Democratic party after he unseated one of its most
hateful members: Congressman Gus Savage, who combined the poorest
attendance record on Capitol Hill with some of the most vitriolic
race-baiting ever heard. Gus did have one thing going for him: most
of the women he slept with were over the age of 16, something
Reynolds wishes he could say. Having been indicted on 20 felony
counts ranging from statutory rape to obstruction of justice, all
in all, Reynolds is also starting to look just a little
disappointing. George Will once said that even a stick of celery
would be better than Gus Savage; instead, we got a lemon.

But, even Mel Reynolds is not as shameless as my personal
favorite, Bob Packwood. I actually admire the Republican senator
from Oregon … yes, admire him. You have to admire anyone who
actually has the gall to talk about family values after they’ve
been charged with sexual harassment by enough women to fill the
Yellow Pages. It seems as though Bobby Packwood has got a little
problem keeping his hands to himself.

But do you think he would have the decency to at least resign?
No. That would be too respectable. Instead Packwood and his lawyers
are busily engaged in every legal maneuver that could conceivably
delay a congressional committee from looking through his
diaries.That’s right, there are diaries. I can just imagine the
entries: "Tuesday, Nov. 12 groped Mrs. So-and-so and asked her to
…"

Each of these politicians has succeeded in taking tactlessness
to new heights. And this is understandable, given the fact that
they are all absolutely shameless. The social stigmas that go along
with unethical or hypocritical behavior do not deter them from
seeking office because they are the type of men who can’t be
embarrassed by anything. This in and of itself is not so
surprising.

What is surprising, however, is the fact that the American
people have come to tolerate this type of impudent, irresponsible
effrontery on the part of their elected officials. Let us not
forget that we chose these politicians. In a dictatorship, if a
leader is repellent there’s nothing you can do. But, in a
democracy, if your leaders are disasters, then you’re to blame.
These politicians don’t just bring shame upon themselves, they
become an embarrassment to us. Their positions of power essentially
prove that we, as Americans, place no value on honesty or ethics.
Or rather, when we do, it is about trivial matters such as once
smoking pot or hiring a maid without paying her social security
taxes (and by my rough calculations, only about 60 million
Americans fall into one or both of these categories). So on the one
hand, while we hold certain politicians up to Herculean standards,
on the other we elect wretches. Hooray for democracy.

Within a month’s time we will each have the opportunity to cast
our votes for a new Congress. Whatever our political leanings, we
should show our politicians that unlike some of them, we as people
can feel shame and therefore will no longer tolerate being
embarrassed.

Curelop is a senior history student.

Graduate student employees deserve recognition

By Joseph Nevins

An open letter to Chancellor Young:

Despite the myriad of problems facing UCLA, the school year
arrives full of opportunity and hope. Restructuring, budget cuts,
downsizing and staff lay-offs have created an atmosphere of
disillusionment on the UCLA campus.

By democratizing the relationship between UCLA employees and the
administration, however, Chancellor Young could help improve the
work environment and strengthen the academic mission of the
university.

In the immediate sense, opportunity presents itself in the
Student Association of Graduate Employees (SAGE), the collective
bargaining unit of student academic employees such as teaching
assistants, research assistants, tutors, readers and acting
instructors. SAGE is the culmination of extensive organizing by
student academic employees to establish a democratic organization
for effectively representing their employment concerns.

It is our hope that Chancellor Young will recognize SAGE at the
earliest possible moment. Recognizing SAGE will enhance
undergraduate education, improve the work environment of student
academic employees and alleviate a source of campus tension.

All of this can be achieved without the expenditure of a single
scarce dollar.

Fulfillment of the university’s twin missions of education and
research is heavily dependent upon student academic employees. We
teach or grade work of every undergraduate at UCLA. We assist many
professors in their research. We are indispensable.

The indispensability of TAs, RAs, tutors, readers and acting
instructors is not reflected in the terms of our employment,
however. Rather than recognizing us as employees, the university
continues to argue that we are "apprentices" learning a trade.

Such a characterization is not only incorrect but it is also
disrespectful. It results in a work environment that undermines the
university’s academic mission. Fortunately, the remedy is simple.
Recognizing SAGE will restore the assurance and respect which are
necessary for excellence in the classroom and in the
laboratory.

Many well-regarded universities have already taken this step.
Yale, Rutgers, the entire State University of New York system,
Wisconsin and the University of Massachusetts have all entered into
collective bargaining agreements with their graduate student
employees.

SAGE is a democratic organization. The State of California’s
Public Employee Relations Board confirmed this last May; they found
that SAGE’s 3,300 members represent a majority of graduate student
employees at UCLA. SAGE achieved this by a year-long membership
drive that touched every single department on campus.

The alternative to respecting such a democratic expression is,
of course, to fight SAGE in the state bureaucracy and in the
courts. We believe that this would be futile and counterproductive,
a wasteful expenditure of scant resources resulting in further
campus instability. It upholds no principle of education, and it
flouts principles of equality and justice. Most importantly, it
detracts from the university’s mission to educate California’s best
and brightest and to seek new knowledge.

In a recent letter to Chancellor Young, SAGE requested a meeting
with the chancellor. The chancellor’s answer was one of refusal on
the grounds that "the issue of whether certain categories of
graduate students are employees of the university for purposes of
collective bargaining is under litigation."

Our response, submitted Oct. 11, reminded the chancellor that,
regardless of the litigation, the California Higher Education
Employment Relations Act provides him with the legal right of
voluntarily granting recognition to SAGE. We have called upon
Chancellor Young to meet with SAGE by October 21, 1994 to discuss
new and flexible ideas about recognition.

By exercising his administrative prerogative to recognize SAGE,
Chancellor Young could greatly improve the learning and research
environment on the UCLA campus. UCLA works because we do. Failure
by Chancellor Young to recognize and respect this fact will only
serve to hurt the academic mission of the university.

Nevins is a teaching assistant in the department of geography
and a member of the SAGE Organizing Committee.

Daily Bruin must be more open-minded toward greeks

By Princeton Kim

As a student and as a member of a fraternity, I find the actions
and continual hypocrisy displayed by the Daily Bruin to be
reprehensible. The Oct. 17 editorial, "Greek sponsorship merits
examination" was merely another example of the ignorance and
blatant narrow-mindedness which encompasses this school’s newspaper
staff. They claim to be free-minded, fair representatives of the
media and the student body.

Yet it is evident that the staff is simply an organization which
chooses to promote only the trendy forefront of liberal, feminist
or racial endeavors, which seem to conveniently concur with their
idea of liberal political correctness.

Don’t misunderstand my viewpoint, I neither condone nor find any
humor in the songbook incident of two years ago. However, in The
Bruin’s one-sided attempt to promote awareness and equality of
various races, genders, etc., they overlook their own hypocritical
activities. What I mean is simply that they encourage the student
body to condemn both fraternal and panhellenic organizations with
the gross stereotypes associated with such organizations.

The pompous editors overlook the countless philanthropic duties
and community services which are performed by most, if not all
greek members. The greek system contributes to the community in
more ways, and in greater frequency than probably a large number of
other "sponsored" student organizations. Greeks continually help
others by feeding the homeless, participating in environmental
clean up, and holding fundraisers for those who are less
fortunate.

But this newspaper would like to conveniently overlook those
facts and seemingly disavow their existence. Is this what we are to
expect from the nation’s supposedly top-rated student newspaper? If
it is, I say that rating is well overestimated. I would like to see
The Bruin write articles revealing the ugly truths about other
campus groups as well, if they are going to continuously overlook
the greek system’s contribution to this campus and the
community.

What about those fanatic religious groups which pressure
students to join or go to hell, and the racially biased
organizations which condemn non-members for not being culturally
aware or in touch with their heritage? I don’t mean to say that all
other student groups are fascist pigs or femi-nazis, but only that
there is a certain minority of groups which bias their membership
(perhaps not in writing, but in practice), by the color of your
skin, your choice of religion, and so forth.

So I call upon The Bruin’s staff to prove me wrong. Prove to me
and the other students on this campus that you do not promote the
stereotypes associated with fraternities and sororities by refusing
to acknowledge their worth and their contributions. For example,
the newspaper fought admirably against the stereotypes associated
with gays, bisexuals and lesbians by challenging people’s ideas and
broadening their views.

I only ask the same respect which I feel is due to me and the
other greek members for our efforts, our individuality and our
contributions to the school. I am telling the newspaper staff to
actually find out for themselves what the greek system is all
about. It isn’t just about drinking or socializing. I know of many
members who do not drink, use drugs, sing offensive songs or feel
that they are better than everyone else. I say broaden your own
minds and stop living in your own little universe. But until that
time, don’t insult me or the rest of the students by insinuating to
be fair, open-minded representatives of anything more than your own
egos.

If you would look at the number, the types, the colors, and the
quality of persons walking around with greek letters, you would
realize that the greek system does "promote the empowerment of
students of different race, gender, culture, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, disability and class." Perhaps it is because the truth
is not as controversial or trendy as you, the staff, would like it
to be, which leaves you to resort to the incessant bludgeoning of
those you are not associated with. Lastly, I simply say wake up,
look around, and get to know me and every other greek member before
you lump us all into one group of hell incarnate.

Kim is a sophomore political science student.