Letters

Court deals blow to civil rights In “High
court takes a bite out of Civil Rights Act” (Daily Bruin,
News, April 26), I was quoted as saying, “It’s a really
bad time to be a minority in the states right now. It’s
horrible ““ it’s a really unfortunate ruling.”
This quote appears to be a combination of statements made by
another law student (whose name was left out of the article), and
my own. The statement appears easy to misinterpret in the context
it was presented. I would like to clarify what was actually said
and what was actually intended. While I disagree with the recent
Supreme Court ruling, I would not dare to call it
“horrible” before having actually read the opinion of
the Court, so I disagree with the characterization of my remarks. I
do feel the ruling ““ which states that no cause of action
exists for challenges to policies with a disparate impact on racial
groups ““ is unfortunate because institutional racism and
sexism are not open and obvious anymore. I doubt one could find a
recent, blatant example of a state passing a law or a local
ordinance specifically targeting women or minorities. Laws and
policies that have a disparate impact on particular communities,
however, are widespread. As for the comment that it is a difficult
time to be a minority in the states, the intention was not to say
that the U.S. Supreme Court is part of a vast conspiracy to
undermine the rights of minorities, but that, in addition to the
rolling back of affirmative action, the tacit approval of racial
profiling in our society and other such policies, it does not help.
I have a lot of opportunities that, as a person of color, would not
have existed for me if it were not for the Civil Rights movement.
It is not true, however, that the Civil Rights Act, in part or as a
whole, is now obsolete because people of color have more
opportunities than in the past. If one begins to think critically
about race, it is obvious that many individuals and groups are shut
out from the opportunities that many of us who are here at this
university enjoy. This is directly a result of policies and laws
that disparately impact certain communities. That is why I feel
that the recent ruling is unfortunate, and I worry about its
consequences.

Nisha Vyas First-year UCLA Law

“˜Nonscience’ students need to have
science I am wondering whether I was the only reader who
found it ironic that, after reading the front-page story regarding
the debate over how many science GE courses should be required of
UCLA students (“UCLA may lower GE requirement, Daily Bruin,
News, April 25), the next page displayed an article with the
headline “Americans still don’t know much about
science.” The problem set forth in this second article
““ which reports that many Americans still haven’t
realized that the earth revolves around the sun ““ can be
blamed in part by the common attitude of David Rodes, the Director
of the General Education Governance Committee:
“nonscience” students should only be expected to handle
a certain small degree of science. While it’s quite obvious
that some people are much more inclined to understand and enjoy
19th-century British literature than other people who may embrace
differential calculus, I feel that this dichotomy between the
so-called “nonscience” and “science” people
of this world has gone a bit far. It is this dichotomy that has led
to the current sad state of affairs, in which many Americans
believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted ““ just like on
“The Flintstones.” If people have a mental block,
believing that they are incapable of understanding and remembering
anything to do with science, then of course the subject is going to
be difficult for them. And the fact that the question has arisen
regarding how much “nonscience” students should be
forced to study in science GE courses demonstrates that UCLA is not
necessarily working to fix this problem. I am a science student,
but this does not excuse me from “nonscience”
activities. I know who Shakespeare is (and have actually read some
of his works). I do try to keep my checkbook balanced. And I have
enjoyed studying art ranging from impressionism to modernism. My
point here is not to start another war between north campus and
south campus. I just want to emphasize that if UCLA does decide to
lower GE requirements, it should be with the intention of helping
stressed students get out of college in less than six years. It
should not stem from the false belief that north campus students
cannot understand science and, therefore, should not be encouraged
to study it. If science students are capable of enjoying Mozart or
Chaucer, nonscience majors can be expected to at least have a vague
appreciation for the works of Newton and Galileo.

Jessica Langenhan Fourth-year Physiological
science