Letters

Hey, pop quiz!

Editor:

In the spirit of upcoming finals and in response to James
Fitzgerald’s article ("Reverse Prop. 187 via working-class
movement," Nov. 22) and numerous others preceding it:

Essay Question (use blue books to respond):

1. Why is it that the most outspoken poli sci undergrads on this
campus all sound like the bastard grandchildren of Eugene Debs?

Short Answer:

2. Is it that these students feel the inherent need to air their
newly-found poli sci-fi terminology?

3. Is Spartacus Youth Club a pseudo-political entity or a new
punk metal band?

4. Do the palsied "26" inspire the same fear and loathing as the
"Chicago 7" that their appellation obviously alludes to, or do you
find yourself laughing with me?

5. While I’m spending my own money to get an education here,
working hard and wondering about funds for my senior year, have
these "cause-heads" come to UCLA with the sole purpose of having a
forum to demonstrate? ­ and, if so, is it in reverence to
their hippy-cum-sellout parents?

Child Psychology:

6. Are these arrested adolescents railing against all authority
like hormonal 14-year-olds?

7. Is it their more juvenile Nintendo impulses which make them
eager to hit the reset button instead of integrating their efforts
into the 200-year-old game-in-progress?

Lab/Demo:

8. According to the protestations of that punk band, Spartacus
Youth Club, democratic government is oppressive and unfair.
Formulate your own little island utopia, and as soon as a minority
opinion emerges, see who gets labeled "the oppressor."

Quantitative Reasoning:

Hypothesis: forming one’s own political party is mostly
ineffectual.

9. How many Green Party candidates are reps in the state
assembly?

10. How many indies occupy seats in the U.S. Congress?

Extra Credit Question:

11. What has your poli sci education really taught you about
American government?

James Lebakken

Junior

English

"Murphy 26" out of bounds

Editor:

The so-called protest in Murphy Hall on Nov.17 was dumb, useless
and immoral.

Chancellor Young had already publicly rejected Prop. 187. The
NEA and every other education group decried the proposition and
spent money trying to prevent its passing. Virtually every voting
student at UCLA tried to defeat it. "Protesting" in Murphy Hall was
like preaching Jesus in the Vatican.

What did they hope to accomplish? What were the $5/hr workers in
Murphy Hall supposed to do? What were the students who were yelled
at and threatened by the mob supposed to do? What is Chancellor
Young supposed to do? Order every professor to disobey Prop. 187,
in violation of the law, whether his or her own conscience directs
him/her to or not?

Compare this silly "rebel without a clue" protest with the
Montgomery, Alabama transit company boycott, the sit-down protest
in the Montgomery Ward’s coffee shop or even Rosa Parks’ refusal to
relinquish her bus seat. In each of the latter cases, the act of
protest was directed at the immoral individual or system: the bus
company forced blacks to stand or sit in the back, the coffee shop
refused to serve blacks.

The "Murphy 26" screamed at, threatened and intimidated students
who wanted to walk normally through Murphy Hall, even though most
of them voted against Prop. 187. The Murphy 26 are ideologues who
attack innocent people in the name of a cause. Don’t we call such
people terrorists?

But, hey, it’s a lot more fun and safe to hurt innocent people;
to protest in Murphy Hall instead of, say, the governor’s mansion.
And it ‘s a lot less hassle to walk a few yards, get together with
your friends, scream and intimidate, and then whine about being
arrested than to start the initiative process to have Prop. 187
repealed or to do some reading and writing so that you can help
educate Californians about what a stupid law Prop. 187 would
make.

I saw the Murphy 26. I was yelled at and intimidated by the
Murphy 26. I only wish I could say that the expressions on the
protestors’ faces showed the grave righteousness of the civil
rights marchers of the ’60s and not the selfish, violent delight of
the L.A. rioters of the ’90s.

Lance Schaina

Graduate student

Mathematics

Illegals are not to blame

Editor:

If we are truly a melting pot of peoples and cultures, why must
we continue to separate ourselves from each other through unethical
and outright immoral legislation? We should be seeking to uncover
the real reasons for this state’s economic turmoil and not harbor
the blame on a defenseless fragment of our society.

It is a dismal time in California’s history when so many of its
citizens elect to be so blindly led into a future that instead of
striving to take a step forward endeavors to leap two steps back.
It is a dismal day in which the state’s constituents fail to
recognize the true reasons for its financial shortcomings and,
instead, seek to dismantle previous efforts of cultural
understanding by scapegoating these problems to a very vulnerable
segment of our population.

Do California’s citizens truly believe that illegal immigrants
come here to feed off the social and state-sponsored services they
provide? Have we forgotten (or even considered) who painfully
harvests those grapes and strawberries many of us have grown to
love for decades? These individuals seek a better life than the one
they left behind by working for what you and I might consider to be
pennies. These individuals pay taxes, and contrary to public
perception, they are not on welfare.

It is immoral to deny undocumented children, or anyone for that
matter, the right to seek an education. Have we also forgotten the
importance education plays in alleviating society’s ills? I
challenge the citizens of this state to both re-evaluate their
positions on this issue and reconsider this injustice levelled upon
the shoulders of the innocent.

Christian Raigosa

First-year

Medical student