Letters

Clarifying Coming Out Week

Editor:

I am writing to clarify the comments attributed to me in your
Monday cover story on National Coming Out Week, ("Coming out
festivities hope to dispel stigmas, Oct. 10). By saying that the
event was "a little too political" for me, I referred to the fact
that I am not involved in organizing the events and do not plan on
participating in most of them. This is not to say that I don’t
support their ultimate goal, which is to facilitate the coming-out
process for others.

Anyone who has gone through this deeply personal struggle, as I
have, can’t help but support others who are in the same process.
National Coming Out Week’s presentation of gay and lesbian
diversity and creation of a supportive environment for others to
come out to is admirable, and I applaud the effort. This is, in
fact, why I agreed to be interviewed for the article. The more of
us who are willing to be straightforward and sincere about
ourselves, the better an example we can set.

But following the aforementioned quote with my statement that
"shoving one aspect of your identity down other people’s throats is
very self-limiting" was somewhat misleading. Perhaps I did not make
it clear to the interviewer that this remark was not directed
toward National Coming Out Week or its organizers. I was referring
to militant activists (such as those of ACT UP or Queer Nation),
whose tactics I deplore and consider to be counterproductive to the
ultimate acceptance of gays by the straight mainstream. I feel that
only by becoming comfortable enough with our own identities as to
be open with our families, friends and neighbors can we effectively
overcome the us vs. them mentality that allows many straights to
view us as a separate, anonymous mass.

The first step, of course, is for individuals to come out of the
closet. For making this easier to do, National Coming Out Week
deserves our support. But as a member of UCLA’s gay population
willing to speak publicly, I only wished to encourage those who are
coming out of the closet to do so without letting their sexuality
rule their political and social lives as well. We should be able to
be OPENLY gay without being ONLY gay.

Matthew McCarthy

Undeclared

Freshman

Students react to front page photo

Editor:

We were very disturbed and offended by the picture of two gay
men kissing on the front page of the Oct. 10 Daily Bruin. Imagine
what the public response would be if that picture was in the Los
Angeles Times or the Daily News? I think those who displayed this
picture do not respect many students at UCLA. The picture seems to
imply that all students at UCLA are homosexual. The fact of the
matter is that we can’t ignore the picture when we pick up the
newspaper.

It’s our human nature not to feel comfortable about
homosexuality, because it is not normal. What would a young child
think about this when he or she happens to be on campus and picks
up the newspaper?

Many of us, who are straight are always labeled as homophobics.
The truth is that we are not afraid of homosexuality at all. (Why
should we be afraid of it, anyway?) We neither interfere nor try to
stop homosexual practice anyhow. However, we demand respect from a
responsible paper who represents the majority of the student body
whose feelings are definitely not comfortable with the picture. I
would like to suggest the Daily Bruin take a survey of UCLA
students to find out how they feel about this very disturbing and
offensive issue of the Daily Bruin.

Huy Phan, math

Dat Pham, civil engineering

Kiem Trinh, mechanical engineering

Luan Pham, civil engineering

Vinh Bui, biochemistry

Bureaucracy and Bigotry bigotryBand

Editor:

I would like to address a point frequently made by proponents of
Proposition 187. To distance themselves from the appearance of
racism, they often point out that the focus of Proposition 187 is
only on illegal immigrants (for example, Matt Keuneke’s Oct. 7
letter to The Bruin). They harbor no resentment against those who
are here legally, but if your papers are not in order, watch out!
Bigotry, they believe, is acceptable when it is reserved for those
who have failed to comply with some arcane, bureaucratic procedure.
They wish you to believe that a person’s legal status makes all the
difference in the world.

But just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
Unlawfully crossing the U.S. border in search of a job, like
dodging the draft, is illegal but not immoral. Our anger should be
directed not toward people who wish to come to the United States
and work, but toward immigration laws which make it so difficult
for them to do so. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, benefit the
economy by filling jobs that Americans don’t want, and at wages
that Americans won’t accept. The economy benefits immigrants by
providing them with work when they otherwise would have had none.
No one loses in the equation except racists and xenophobes. Don’t
let the pro-187 crowd fool you into believing that their
intolerance is high-minded just because it is directed at those who
fail to fill out the necessary paperwork.

Jamal Ali

Graduate student

Near Eastern Languages

and Cultures

Yes on 187, stop cycle of incentives

Editor:

By now, most of us have received some financial aid to help us
balance our college budgets for the year. And far too many of us
are intimately familiar with the process ­ forms, forms and
more forms. But before any offers of Cal grants and Stafford loans
are made, the INS checks to make sure we are citizens or legal
residents. How racist?

The opponents of Proposition 187 want you to believe that
denying government services to illegal immigrants is xenophobic.
They want you to believe that any act of verifying residency status
can only be implemented in a racist manner. They claim that Asians
and Latinos will be targeted. But our financial aid office
repudiates these claims. Among the many justifiable complaints
about Murphy Hall A129J, racial targeting is not one of them.

Opponents of 187 are so desperate that they resort to demonizing
both the measure and its supporters. Scare tactics abound about an
unworkable system that unfairly harasses anyone brown or yellow.
Ridiculous! Proposition 187 only requires other government social
programs in California to do the same thing that financial aid
offices across the nation do, unbiased and race-neutral.

Proposition 187 sends a strong message to our federal
government: An immigration policy that does not care to
differentiate between legal and illegal immigration is not only
financially bankrupt, but morally so. Let us take the first step
and end this convoluted incentive system whereby poor illegal
immigrants receive government resources, already limited, meant for
poor legal immigrants and citizens. YES on 187.

Lawrence Kam

Senior

Microbiology and

Molecular Genetics