Letters

Graffiti hurts UCLA

Editor:

Walking to physics class Friday, I was enraged as I saw graffiti
spray painted on Bruin Walk and on campus walls. Let me say from
the very beginning that it is not the actual message represented by
the graffiti that enrages me, but it is the simple fact that some
people had the nerve to destroy our beautiful campus.

I am so angry that messages like "Defend Affirmative Action,"
"Defend Access" and "Women Unite Now" are spray painted on our
campus. People, grow up! This is not chalk or fliers that can
easily be removed!

I couldn’t believe what I saw Friday morning. My friends can
testify to my disbelief as I knelt down to touch the graffiti in
hope that the chalk would come off.

These actions are just not permissible, and quite frankly, they
are inexcusable. Those groups which are so radically fighting for
affirmative action have really gone too far. As a supporter of the
spirit of affirmative action, I beg of those radicals who did this
to use better judgment. How can we convince others of the validity
of our cause if we only enrage them?

People who oppose affirmative action are already turned off by
the stigma that affirmative action supporters carry with them –
militant, radical and close-minded people. This moronic act of
spray painting our campus only attacks our credibility.

I am very pissed off. I would go as far as to say that those who
did this stupid thing should be charged with a crime. This is our
campus! This campus belongs not only to you, but to the rest of the
34,000-plus students at UCLA as well. Even further, this campus
belongs to all California tax payers!

Think before you act!

Ben Hofilentilde

Asst. Financial Supports Commissioner

Undergraduate Students Association Council

No booing matter

Editor:

The rather immature reaction of a few of the UCLA basketball
players to UCLA fans, as reported in the Los Angeles Times
Thursday, Feb. l5, seems to reflect the players’ frustration, but
fails to represent the facts. I am an alumnus and sit in the alumni
section across from the students. Here are the facts from my
perspective:

1. It seems clear that the booing we experienced recently was
intended primarily not as criticism of the starters, but to
complement the reserves who replaced them. The reserves, who are
said to have less "talent" than the starters, were simply trying
harder and doing a better job.

2. Contrary to what one might wish to think, it was primarily
the students, and not the alumni, who did the booing. All the
alumni around me disapproved heartily.

3. In over 50 years, I don’t recall ever hearing UCLA fans boo a
UCLA team. Maybe the fans felt that the team needed something,
anything, to get them out of what appeared to be lethargy from a
bunch of talented players. Cheering didn’t seem to work.

4. Instead of blaming the fans for the team’s problems and
vowing never to "forgive" them, it seems to me that it would be
better to listen to the coaches and incorporate a little more
discipline into a maximum effort and see what happens. I can assure
the team that the fans are on the team’s side; it would be nice for
the fans to know that the team is on the fans’ side.

John Postley

UCLA alumnus

Quest for answers

Editor:

After Chancellor Charles Young announced his decision to retire
on Valentine’s Day, surely some hearts were broken while others
rejoiced. My own was simply eager to attend his scheduled address
Feb. 15.

When I arrived, posted signs sadly informed me of a postponement
due to flight conditions. On Feb. 16, the "Special Events" hotline
announced that Chancellor Young’s address was canceled. How
disappointing, for I had hoped to get answers to questions such
as:

1. Why would the media (Daily Bruin, L.A. Times) ignore, in
recounting the noteworthy feats and events of Young’s tenure, the
most interesting period of all, heralded by the Professional
Schools Restructuring Initiative? Chancellor Young had, despite all
odds, sought the establishment of a School of Public Policy in June
1993, and after a good struggle achieved a crowning success in this
regard.

2. Did the Preserve Staff Now! restructuring initiative in fall
1994, which proposed term limits for chancellors, have any
influence on his decision to step down?

3. What will be the magnitude of staff reductions at UCLA when
Responsibility Center Management (RCM) is fully implemented? Why
doesn’t the administration speak about the Human Resource
Management Initiatives (HRMI) anymore, or has HRMI been supplanted
by RCM?

I sure would appreciate some answers and perhaps others might,
too. Finally, I hope that Chancellor Young will give the campus
community the opportunity to learn of his vision for our university
during the final 17 months of his tenure.

Sharon Levy

Student Affairs Assistant

TEST/applied linguistics department

FRED HE/Daily Bruin

Despite some boos, die-hard fans cheer the UCLA basketball
team.

Comments to [email protected]