• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Attack on USAC amendment unjust The criticism against the new system of allocating USAC funds by the Editorial Board (“Flawed law makes allocation of funds impossible,” Viewpoint, Jan. 25) is completely unwarranted. The previous method of allocations were simply corrupt. Before, only a few groups were eligible for any real sum of money. These same groups were the ones that got their people elected to USAC. It was a political machine that existed under the previous rules. Now, all groups will have a chance to start and expand programs to enrich student life at UCLA. Students will have a chance to enjoy many diverse programs, not just those of a small number of groups whose interests are in getting themselves reelected to USAC. It is ironic that those who most loudly preach “diversity” want to limit the diversity of groups receiving funding to a small number of same-minded groups who represent the status quo.

Daniel B. Rego Graduate, Class of 2000

Ashcroft not fit for office It’s amazing how well Chey Tor contradicts himself in his article “Rage over cabinet nominee useless” (Viewpoint, Jan. 26) about John Ashcroft. He states that Ashcroft does not have to “agree” with laws in order to enforce them. Tor seems quite satisfied with Ashcroft’s promise that he would be a “fair and impartial U.S. attorney general.” My, my, my, how naive can we be? In the article, Tor cites Ashcroft’s record in “resisting federal efforts to desegregate public schools,” efforts that significantly improved black graduation rates in other states. So let’s see, as attorney general of Missouri, Ashcroft disagreed with desegregation laws, and guess what? He didn’t enforce them! Amazingly Tor believes that Ashcroft will “indiscriminately” enforce laws even though he discriminately did not enforce laws that helped disadvantaged minorities. Furthermore, not only did he not enforce them, but he resisted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court. This amounts to a direct violation of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution which states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme law of the land ... and every state shall be bound thereby.” In doing so, Ashcroft not only violated this principle of federal supremacy, but as an agent of the executive branch of government, he breached the separation of powers, the quintessential spirit of the Constitution, by ignoring a specific order of the supreme judicial body. I would think actions speak louder than words. Tor needs to wake up and realize that politicians lie as easily as they tell the truth. If Ashcroft really is “a man of honor and integrity,” as alluded to in Tor’s article, then perhaps the people who know him best – the voters in his home state – might have chosen to elect him rather than the dead man they chose for their senator. The sad outcome in all of this is not that John Ashcroft will become the next attorney general of the United States, but that the American public has come to expect far too little of its political leaders from all sides of the political spectrum. And while Ashcroft is no doubt an illegitimate politician, he is probably not too much worse than our current Attorney General Janet Reno, during whose reign oversaw the murder of children in Waco and put down full support for the U.S. drug war – in and of itself a crime against the poor peoples of the Third World. Ashcroft’s rise to the top is a direct result of U.S. politics – politics of privilege.

Rahul Varshney Third-year Computer science and engineering