Letters

Letters to the editorError or conspiracy?

Editor:

In the Oct. 17 issue of the Daily Bruin, in our article entitled
(not

chosen by us) "Funneling college admissions with race," there
are several

transcription errors.These errors change the meaning of
several

sentences.

The two most conspicuous mistakes are grammatical and occur
directly

after we mentioned John Du. Does the Daily Bruin have a vested
interest in

protecting the intellectual integrity of Du by making us look
stupid? The

errors the editors committed made some of our sentences
dysfunctional.

Given the political views of the editorial staff, it is fair to
ask, "Were

the mistakes intentional?"

The Daily Bruin reserves the right to edit material, however,
this must

be done while the integrity of the essay is preserved. We would
like to

clarify our essay by correcting two errors. The first lapse is
in the

sentence that reads: "Aside from obvious solecism, Du might want
to

consider the right of the legitimate expectation that the UC
system can be

held accountable for all policy and curriculum to the citizens
of

California – they (we) do pay for it."

The sentence should read as follows: "Aside from the obvious
solecism,

Du might want to consider the right of the California taxpayers
to

determine and shape their civic institutions. They (we) have a
legitimate

expectation that the UC system can be held accountable for all
policy and

curriculum to the citizens of California – they (we) do pay for
it."

The second mistake is truly a distortion. The public read:
"Moreover,

affirmative action positions run along ideological ancestry who
oppose

affirmative action." This should have read: "Moreover,
affirmative action

positions run along ideological lines, not racial ones. Thomas
Sowell and

Alan Keyes are both Americans of African ancestry who oppose
affirmative

action." The difference changes the whole meaning of the
excerpt.

Let us assume these errors were not designed to make our essay
into a

muddle. Furthermore, we must consider that we had to redact
several

paragraphs because we were told that the article was "too long."
Once

again, we have reason to distrust their motives. In the center
of our

article an oversized illustration of a funnel wasted useful
space. Why? Was

The Bruin editorial staff intimidated by the length and logic of
our expos?

Perhaps the editorial staff should point that high-powered eye
of

perception back at themselves; they might not like what they
see.Chris Ivicevich

Third-year

Political Science/HistoryRick Welsh

Third-year

Political ScienceDiversity of opinion prevails

Editor:

Thank you for publishing the viewpoint article by Ivicevich and
Welsh

(Oct. 17, "Funneling admissions with race").

When I came to UCLA, I was looking forward to experiencing the
diversity

which I had heard so much about. I was a bit disappointed to
find virtually

none in the way of political views, vis a vis the the
consistently leftist

flavor of the lead news and opinion pieces in the Daily
Bruin.

By publishing Tuesday’s article, you at least acknowledge that
not all

our 35,000 students believe that affirmative action is a viable
and just

policy.Jerry Dunn

First-year

Undeclared

Laugh it up, Bruins

Editor:

Thanks for running Brian Birkenstein’s "A guide to life for
those

strapped for cash" article in the Oct. 16 issue.

Finally, some comic relief from these times that are trying
everybody’s

souls around here. Birkenstein doesn’t root out any of the
economic evils

besetting us, but he does keep them at bay with his merry
prankster

humor.

Rollover John Falstaff, we’ve got a new worldly philosopher
"bellying

up" to the bar.Eric L Vollmer

UCSD AlumnusQuestion of achievement

Editor:

In my perpetual delusion that one of your columns may one day
contain

reason, I read Sonja Gedeon’s article (Oct. 17, "Human issues
prevail in

affirmative action) concerning the Oct. 12 affirmative action
rally.

Gedeon mentions that the ultimate goal was "the total
elimination of the

racist laws and policies which aim at dividing and polarizing
our society."

Has she perhaps overlooked the intent of affirmative action,
which is to

instill race as a determining factor in place of abilities?

If Gedeon were to familiarize herself with the language of
the

California Civil Rights Initiative, she would recognize that it
writes into

law that goal which she purports to affirm.

Gedeon mentions that "justice and color equality should be
the

foundation on which the edifice of our society is built upon." I
could not

agree more. The Constitution is a color-blind document that
provides the

basis for equality. Historical application of the Constitution
that

furthered racial superiority was wrong because it failed to
conform to

natural law, which is the basis for the Constitution. To now
return to this

past injustice commits an irrevocable harm towards the
betterment of our

society.

To paraphrase one political figure, you do not change the
inherent evil

of racial classification by changing the color of the victim and
the

beneficiary.

I would also advise Gedeon to take an American history class
soon. To

proclaim that the American dream is a pure democracy is to
overlook the

expressed writings of the founding fathers. That is why we have
a

republican form of government in this nation. If we had been a
democracy,

racial discrimination would still be institutionalized to this
day. After

all, the majority opinion at the time of many landmark civil
rights

legislation believed in the inferiority of minorities solely on
the basis

of the color of their skin.

The defenders of affirmative action continually argue for
equality as

justification for their actions. I find this conclusion
fallacious and

hypocritical. To specifically discriminate against those for
exhibiting

marked ability is to play into the hands of the social levelers
that fail

to acknowledge the uniqueness of individual character and
ability. It is

not a question of race, but a question of achievement and
potential.Jay J. Wang

Fourth-year

Political Science