Letters to the editor
Bruin misrepresents BR on Taco Bell
I must clarify some positions pertaining to the Bruin Republicans, Bruin Democrats and the Taco Bell fiasco as presented in “Students challenge ASUCLA” (News, 10/29).
It is indeed true that the Bruin Republicans are against any measure to remove a campus eatery based on notions of “social responsibility.” But we do not condone the charges against the tomato producer in Florida.
In a free society, producers and consumers have every right to engage in mutually beneficial transactions, and the same holds for employers and employees. Students have every right to boycott Taco Bell for purchasing tomatoes from vendors who “underpay” their workers, but other students also have every right to cross the picket line.
Secondly, it is also true that the BR plan on uniting with the BD in the spring to elect a new coalition into office. This does not imply that the “Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats will unite to support board candidates who allow eateries such as Taco Bell to stay on campus.”
Campus eateries are hardly a litmus test for our two groups to mutually endorse candidates in the spring election. Rather, Taco Bell will be one more opportunity for the BR to illustrate how out of touch our campus officials really are.
Nicholas Louw Vice chairman, Bruin Republicans
Prop. 64 plays into corporate interests
As a proud Bruin alumna I thought I would be in sync with the Daily Bruin on the election candidates and issues; well we are, sort of. However, I cannot disagree with you more on your position regarding Prop. 64. Prop. 64 is sponsored by the mega-corporations to intimidate us from filing lawsuits when we are injured (or worse) by their products, services and personnel.
I am sad to read that you have bought into that malarkey about this proposition’s passage cutting down on “unfounded and damaging lawsuits.” It pains me to see the Daily Bruin taking the stance of a capitalist tool.
Patrice Summers Staff, UC Santa Barbara
advertise
contact us
top of page