Letters

Monday, October 13, 1997

Letters

Glamour isn’t all that bad

Just read Ann Hermele’s column ("Let’s face it, looks count in
real world," Oct. 9). As a UCLA alumna studying back east, some
comments regarding the supposed mega-aesthetic UCLA environment.
First, I miss it. You don’t have to look good to start with, but
trying to make yourself at least look decent can give you and those
around you a constant charge that makes life more bearable (no pun
intended). It may be an illusion, but at least it sustains you.
Here, everyone is so achievement-oriented to the detriment of
everything else. Sounds nice, huh?

Well, here’s what I see: a bunch of arrogant
pseudo-intellectuals who bear little relevance to the world around
them. They are unhealthy, slovenly people who are as in-your-face
with their aesthetic of equality as UCLA is with its supposed
materialism (given the choice, I’ll take the latter – it’s much
more fun to be around)

I’m sorry if Hermele thinks she is unattractive, and it’s wrong
for people to judge solely by physical beauty. Hermele definitely
has a charismatic writing style – she should just take this energy
and suffuse her personality with it to create her own funky
aesthetic. It’ll make her, as well as those she whom has to deal
with, better off.

Jocelyn Arnott

UCLA alumna

The real bigot

I found that Chad Williams’ article "Racial ignorance still
rampant in America," (Oct. 9) shows a considerable lack of
understanding about the view of Alex Balekian on a previous article
he wrote. Mr. Williams states that since Mr. Balekian’s descendants
were not around during slavery and etc., that he understands
nothing. This completely ignores the point that he was trying to
make. Mr. Balekian was showing that all "whites" are blamed by many
for discrimination regardless of whether or not they were involved
in anything.

Mr. Williams goes on to state that no whites originally were in
Africa and are just oppressors (completely ignoring the fact that
the indigenous people of Northern Africa were blond and had blue
eyes). He seems to forget that many of those "oppressors" went to
Africa to make a better life, and were themselves oppressed (e.g.
the Boer War). He also ignores that fact that so-called civil
rights leaders (e.g. Malcolm "X") actually are bigoted little men,
and that their racist mantras do come across quite loudly to the
majority of non-racist whites, making them feel attacked and put on
the defensive. It is also sad that Mr. Williams further suggests
that we read such racist texts as Malcolm "X"’s little racist
writings.

That Mr. Williams embraces the punishing of persons because of
"past injustices" that they did not commit, as well as supports
racist individuals, only goes to show us that it is Mr. Williams
who understands nothing of Mr. Balekian and his article.

Daniel B. Rego

Second-year

political science

Is ‘Ellen’ show

a danger for kids?

If ABC-TV is determined to become an omnipotent parent to all of
us by warning of the dangers of "Ellen," the policy should be a
blanket coverage. That is, every program that involves anything
that might prompt a young mind to conjure up sexual stirrings
should carry the stark black screen warning that "Parental
Discretion" should be used.

Fair is fair.

If, for example, "Dharma & Greg" dare to smooch on screen it
could be argued to have the same sexually influencial effect on
young minds.

Equal is equal.

If ABC feels a need to protect our children, we must protect all
our children. Or is the network merely heading off further
soapboxing from the frustrated Religious Right? Disney, ABC’s
parent by purchase, will undoubtedly point to their "pro-gay"
policies including domestic partnership privileges. Few would argue
young folk have a clue about adult stuff like that. They know only
what they see. And for now they see a warning that "Ellen" contains
something that is dangerous for them.

Homophobic is homophobic.

David Reid

West Hollywood