Letters

Published: Thursday, December 10, 1998

Thursday, December 10, 1998

Letters

Whites, Asians can understand minority concerns

I read with interest, then anger, Lakesha Breeding's recent letter ("Outreach editorial misinterpreted," Viewpoint, Dec. 3). I can assure you, based on my personal experience, that she is dead wrong in her assumption that Asians and whites cannot understand, nor ever experience, the same sort of racial prejudice that African-Americans or Latinos/as experience.

I am a third-generation Chinese-American. I have had the "interesting" experience of having a guy in a car pull up alongside me while I was jogging to make derogatory racial and gender slurs, as well as having a senior manager at the company where I used to work introduce me to the staff I was to supervise as "a delicate little cherry blossom." Oh yes, I should mention that both of these gentlemen were African-American. Whites have no monopoly on racial insensitivity.

As for the claim that whites and Asians don't interact or learn about other ethnic groups, I can only reply that I was, for two years, the proud recipient of a research grant through the Chicano Studies Research Center, and have spent the last four years researching an indigenous Mexican language. From working with speakers of these languages over the years, I have gained an incredible appreciation for a culture I formerly knew next to nothing about.

(By the way, if you think it's weird being one of a small number of minority students at UCLA, try spending eight weeks as the only Asian face - and the first most people have actually seen - in a small town in rural Mexico!)

Finally, Breeding reveals her hypocrisy (maybe "ignorance" would be a kinder word) in her claim that "people do not understand races other than their own." If she meant this phrase to include herself, maybe she's right. She has obviously never met me, or people like me, and asked us about our experiences. By relegating the experiences of people different from herself to baseless assumptions, while demanding that the rest of the world become more aware of her own experience, Breeding forfeits any moral authority she might bring to her argument.

Maybe those who keep preaching the gospel of "diversity" should spend less time looking in the mirror and more time practicing what they preach.

Felicia Lee

Graduate student

Linguistics

Legal prostitution leads to greater sexual freedoms

Matthew Gever's viewpoint article ("Pornography helps women and society," Viewpoint, Dec. 3) takes a pro-pornography stance. He claims this "dirty" media relieves sexual tensions as opposed to creating them. I think he is indeed on the right track with his argument. I too believe that trying to hide or prohibit such explicit material only adds to sexual confusion and is detrimental to society - and can show itself in the worst forms such as rape, molestation and other sexual delinquencies.

But I would like to take his argument a step further, by urging for the legalization of prostitution as well. Many countries around the world allow prostitution in specific, regulated and confined areas. Men do not only have the right to masturbate to porn but should be able to engage in strictly sexual activity, for a price, if they so choose. Our country needs to start facing the facts and be more open about our sexual tendencies.

I surely do not want to see a brothel near my son's elementary school playground, but it's fine if there is one a bit more isolated or in a certain area of the city (i.e. the red-light district in Amsterdam).

I am not trying to add to an already corrupt society. I figure this will be interpreted as some type of radical view, but it shouldn't be.

People will claim such a proposition is coming from the mouth of a pervert. All people, including those guys who can never get laid, deserve some sort of outlet.

Shaul Nassi

Third-year

Electrical Engineer

Raising minimum wage promotes poor work ethic

Adam Komisaruk's column ("People deserve higher minimum wage," Viewpoint, Dec. 3) overlooks very many important things. Komisaruk can make all of the leftist accusations of business that he wants, but he assumes too much. Since he does not own the businesses that pay minimum wages, he should have no say in how they are run.

The capitalistic system relies on business. Forcing businesses to pay their employees more than deemed adequate by the business owner is attacking the very heart of how our system works.

There are indeed people that get payed less than Komisaruk's suggested $7.25 hourly wage. But increasing the current minimum wage would send a signal to employees that they need only rely on government action, instead of their own skill and hard work, whenever they want a pay increase.

Working at a burger-joint, although possibly being tedious, doesn't require much skill. This is exactly the reason why the wage is low. The employer knows that people will always be willing to fill a spot when their current employees decide it's time to find a better job. If, however, prospective employees collectively decide that flipping burgers should call for a higher wage, then employers would get this message by a lack of applicants and/or poor service from their current employees.

As for the argument of supporting a family on the minimum wage, well, this is just ludicrous. The jobs that pay minimum wage were never there to support families, but rather are there to provide additional income to a household that already pulls in a decent yearly income. Having a minimum wage that is high enough to support a family erodes self-responsibility; it doesn't create the initiative necessary to gain skills to find that better job.

I suggest that Komisaruk take a look at the countries that have tried to impose the government-regulated equality that he is the proponent of. He may find himself looking at socialism or communism.

Lev Lvovsky

Fourth-year

Physics

levl289@ucla.edu

Blood Center should publicize reasons for delays

In her response to my letter concerning the UCLA Blood Center, Barbara Willahan states that, in this particular case, the delay was occasioned by a young child's urgent need for blood ("Mobile drive fills Blood Center," Viewpoint, Dec. 3). If indeed it was the emergency needs of a child which caused this delay, then perhaps the Blood Center should have made this fact known to the many people who were upset at having their scheduled appointments canceled. After all, what rational person could object to being inconvenienced by the emergency health needs of anyone, much less a child?

Unfortunately, however, the only response given us was overbooking due to the expanded blood drive at the Wooden Center. It was, in actuality, a Blood Center employee who used the term "overbooking" to explain the cancellations.

This, then, begs the question as to why no mention was made of the legitimate emergency needs of this child, since logic dictates that to have done so would certainly have been met with a sympathetic response.

Lest I be forever burdened with the characterization of one who would rather see a child's health endangered rather than undergo "inconvenience" himself, I would ask the Daily Bruin to make clear the facts of this case.

Finally, let me state that my intention here is not to get into a running battle with the UCLA Blood Center. My most recent visit notwithstanding, most of my experiences with the folks at the Center have generally been quite positive. Students get a free meal and many campus workers get four hours of compensated time for donating.

Sure, they stick you with needles and drain your blood - but in that respect, it's really not all that different from graduate school, except that in this case you know they mean well and that your suffering will go to help people in need.

Letters

Comments

Post a comment

Advertising Links