Letters

Security concerns justified
Your recent editorial in which you criticize UCLA for allowing
Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi to speak (“Forum
stifles free speech,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, October 3),
was grossly out of touch with the reality of Iranian politics.

While I’m sure you didn’t know, an interview with
the protesters would have revealed that many were representative of
the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, which the State
Department identifies as a terrorist organization.

Your claim to allow these guerrillas to speak at the forum
ignores the fact that this group is waging a battle not only
against the Iranian government, but also against the Iranian people
““ as exemplified by their recent artillery attack that
wounded innocent people. Also, the Mujahedin has claimed
responsibility for attempted assassinations of Iranian government
officials. Thus, to claim that terrorists should share a stage with
an elected official, supported by the Iranian people and not by
expatriates, is wrong and defies all logic.

The fact that the State Department labels this group as a
terrorist organization and that the Secret Service was on campus
highlight the need for security. Freedom of speech is an inherent
right, but some deserve to have their rights revoked.

Yashar Ettekal Third-year Business
economics

Logic for overturning decision flawed
As a freshman on UCLA’s campus, I find myself nearly
overwhelmed while walking down Bruin Walk. The student activism is
clearly apparent and quite frankly, was one of the deciding factors
in my choosing UCLA over several other academic institutions.

But I found the article “Voter-approved
fee stalled by regents“ (Daily Bruin, News, October 2)
addressing the rejection of voter-approved fees for USSA a red flag
warranting student feedback on the subject matter therein. I see it
as a matter of muffling student voices by smashing the proverbial
piggy bank.

UC deputy general counsel Gary Morrison lacks the logic needed
to indoctrinate me with his arguments. Essentially, Morrison
suggests that a student rights advocacy group, funded by a
consenting student body, should be forced to stress with equal
conviction why those very rights should be suppressed.

An analogy would be to ask an African American group on campus
to advocate white supremacy. Similarly, to ask student
organizations, such as USSA, to promote both sides of every
argument defeats the purpose of advocacy, as activism is replaced
with neutrality. How Morrison can justify singling out USSA from
other groups who also promote one viewpoint remains a riddle to me.
I know contradiction when I see it, and Morrison’s standpoint
is no exception.

Marcelle Richards First-year Political science and
communications studies