Black Sunday needed to go
In response to Lucas Johnson’s submission “Students must fight for their right to party” (Sept. 30), I would like to say that Black Sunday had to end.
While I received much enjoyment from both the official Black Sundays I experienced my first and second years at UCLA, I clearly understand why it’s gone. Black Sunday, the apocalypse of parties, was more than just an opportunity for the newly arrived UCLA community and random people from the greater Los Angeles area to drink and mingle. It was an opportunity for the right amount of liability-infested chaos the University cannot afford.
Yes, people do enjoy partying; I am not disputing that. But the University and fraternity row do not enjoy property damage and street fights. At one Black Sunday, the fire sprinkler system of Beta Theta Pi was set off by vandals, leaving the house filled with methane gas.
But that sounds like a great party, right?
Mike Hanna President of the Interfraternity Council
Religious beliefs influence science
An important fact was omitted in “Controversy over stem cell research a heated political topic” in the Sept. 26 issue of The Bruin. One of the researchers interviewed in the article was Dr. Amalia Issa of the UCLA School of Public Health. The article failed to properly label Dr. Issa’s religious leanings as a devout Catholic, which may account for her negative views on embryonic stem cell research.
When discussing this heated topic, I feel journalists have the responsibility to outline any potential bias of those interviewed in order to present the most accurate light for their readers. For example, Issa comments, “We’re saying that we now believe that there’s a subset of human beings who do not deserve to be accorded the dignity and respect we accord to others” when describing human embryos that are the result of in-vitro fertilization procedures and will eventually be destroyed. Here, she doesn’t sound like a scientist and should be weighed accordingly.
Dean J. Garret UCLA alumnus
Budget allocations misrepresented
I couldn’t believe what I was reading Tuesday as I opened up the Viewpoint section of the Daily Bruin. As an incoming first-year I was disgusted at the lack of depth and inherent bias in what I expected to be a first-rate college periodical. What I found were inaccurate, inconclusive submissions worthy of high school press. You can do better than that.
In particular, an editorial alleging that favoritism, not merit, was the foundation for base-budget allocations was incredibly inconsistent and hazy. While the authors obviously spent some time crunching numbers, they failed to include obvious statistics that could weaken their case, or any alternative argument for that matter.
True, Students First! groups may have received more money per Budget Committee point. However, compared to how much these groups requested and how much they received, SF! groups received a lower percentage of fulfilled funds per committee point than opposition groups.
Additionally, the writers failed to recognize exactly which student organizations received the most funding. MEChA de UCLA and the Asian Pacific Coalition were indeed the top recipients in the budget allocation, yet did anyone consider their membership numbers, let alone the percentage of students they represent compared to any number of smaller organizations? And is it any coincidence that the SF! candidate won because he was supported by some of the largest groups on campus?
Put the pieces together. Allende Palma/Saracho won the election because he received endorsements from the largest and most influential groups on campus. There’s no fighting democracy.
So it only makes sense that when it came time to dole out funds to groups on campus, the largest and most influential groups received the most money. Call it bias if you will, but in this situation, pragmatism, not politics, prevailed.
I hope subsequent editions of the Daily Bruin will be more effective, consistent and conclusive in the topics they decide to cover.
Jeff Travis First-year, pre-political science