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