Letters

Survey illustrates usefulness of affirmative
action First of all let me say that I usually do not read
the Viewpoint section of this paper because of some of its
ultra-conservative overtones, but I decided that I absolutely must
reply to W. John Lo, the “liberal Asian,” who thinks
that affirmative action is unfair (“Racism
continues,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 23). In his
submission, he called for some statistics about what happened to
students that benefitted from affirmative action. Well, there is a
book written by William G. Bowen, the former president of Princeton
University, and Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard
University titled “The Shape of the River: Long-Term
Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions.” The book includes the results of a survey given
to students who were admitted to Harvard because of affirmative
action in the 1970s. The survey shows that not only did the
affirmative action students do better then their peers
academically, but that they were better citizens than their peers
after college. Moreover, the students who benefited from
affirmative action were more involved in community service and
voted in more elections than the non-affirmative action students.
So there are the statistics. Now we can discuss the argument that
Lo brings up. He states, “If affirmative action were applied
to whites instead of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, the
outcry would be deafening.” Well, does he know what a legacy
student is? A legacy student is someone who gets accepted to
college because they had a family member attend that institution.
But for many students, their parents are wealthy and they know a
dean. That is affirmative action for whites. Is their an uproar?
No. Let me get to my main argument. Admissions policies for
colleges are unfair. SAT scores and GPA are inaccurate ways to
decide whether someone is qualified for college for a variety of
reasons. First, any student whose parents have money can pay for an
SAT prep class. But students whose parents do not have money
cannot. So it is no wonder that certain students do better on
standardized tests. Also, some students do not even find out about
the SAT until their senior year because of poor counselors. Of
course these students won’t score as well as students who
have studied since junior high school. The SAT should not be used.
Second, a student’s grade point average can be boosted
because of AP classes. But what if your school only has two? How
can you compare to students with a 3.9 GPA but only 1 AP class to a
student with a 4.1 with 9 AP classes? You cannot. Third, what about
all of the factors that contribute to you as a person? Does the
admissions board give special attention to students who had to
raise their brothers and sisters? What if you had a job in high
school and had to help pay rent? What if you grew up in a
neighborhood where just making it to the age of 18 was an
accomplishment? All of these students deserve a chance to succeed
in college. When you take all of these factors into account you
have to admit that admissions policies are fallible. Affirmative
action was the only leverage that some students had and now
it’s gone; that is why they were not admitted, not because
they were not qualified. While we are on the topic of
qualifications, let me say that you cannot tell how well someone
will perform a task as big as college unless you give them the
opportunity to attend college. Here is a thought for all you
affirmative action opponents: one of the things that makes this
country “free” is the fact that there is supposed to be
an opportunity for upward mobility. How can historically
underrepresented and economically underprivileged students obtain a
better life if their only opportunity to go to college is stripped
away? If we live in a country where poor and/or minority students
are not allowed to go college, then we might as well admit that we
live in a country with a strong caste system that keeps the poor
poor and the rich rich.

George A. Turner Jr. Second-year, political
science

Not all feminists pro-choice In Jama
Adams’ submission, “Put
“˜real’ feminism into action,” (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 31), she pleads with women to vote for Gore because
Bush will put justices in the Supreme Court who will threaten the
equal rights of women in America. But, I am a woman and I am voting
for Bush because I am pro-life. Being pro-life does not make me
anti-woman. What many pro-abortion feminists don’t know is
that many women who are pro-life are, in fact, pro-woman. Yes, I
still think of myself as a feminist. Maybe I do not follow
mainstream feminism, but I believe that there are many young women
out there like me who have have been torn between the ideals of
feminism and morality. Most of my views are, in fact, very moderate
and I politically align with Democrats. But, ever since I entered
UCLA over two years ago, I have felt suppressed to share my point
of view because of the associations tied to being pro-life. We are
called Christian zealots, doctor-murdering fanatics, Republicans,
rich, white and men. Men? I would also like to argue that contrary
to mainstream feminist thought, many men are strongly backing the
abortion rights movement. Why shouldn’t they? I have heard
countless stories of young women who became pregnant and were
content with keeping the baby until they were told by the
child’s father that she should get an abortion because he
didn’t want to deal with the responsibility. Speaking of men,
Adams spoke of the “real” feminists’ desire to
sustain equal rights for both the sexes. Where are the
father’s rights when it comes to an abortion if he is against
it? I do not think that women should be denied abortions if their
life is endangered because of her pregnancy. But, in Roe v. Wade
“women’s health” is so broadly defined that a
woman can terminate her pregnancy for a variety reasons that are
not truly life-threatening. Honestly, I am pretty sure that
abortion will never be illegal. I would just like to see some
restrictions implemented. For example, females under 18 should be
required to get parental consent. If minors need consent to get
stitches, shouldn’t abortionists require consent before
performing an intrusive surgery? Consider the possibility that
feminist ideals can coexist, even thrive, with the pro-life
movement. I know that there are many young women on this campus
who, like me, have been torn between their moral beliefs and their
desire to support feminist ideals. I encourage all to reject blind
commitment to parties, ideals, and movements. One-size politics
does not fit all. Just as there are exceptions to every rule, we
should remain individual defenders for our own causes. Perhaps
there is not a name for your cause. Make your own!

Dyllan Siemann Third-year, history

Men’s oppression needs recognition
I’m writing this in response to the submission,
“Lost Innocence
of Comfort Women Should Be Recognized“ (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Nov. 1). It would be nice if Yvonne Choi and David Jeong
included victimized boys in their otherwise excellent article on
girls being used for prostitution during armed conflict. The U.N.
Secretary General declared in February, 1996 that the number of
boys who are raped during war is also high but is underreported.
Moreover, one way to fight this is to address more often the
worldwide forcing of men (and boys) to fight in wars, which
destroys their self-worth and their respect for the lives of
others.

Marc Angelucci Law student