Letters

Patriotic song is misinterpreted

The Viewpoint piece,
“Did God really shed His grace on us?” (Daily
Bruin, Oct. 8) by Greg Rubinson is very misguided and is based on
an elementary misconstrual of “America the Beautiful”
lyrics.

He understand the line, “God shed his grace on thee”
to mean God “has” shed his grace on thee, whereas
it’s part of a prayer: “may” God shed his grace
on thee.

The only “bragging” going on in the song is about
the natural wonders of America, “purple mountains
majesty,” and so on, but this is really part of a prayer of
thanksgiving. We are grateful for our great natural resources, but
now we pray for corresponding moral resources.

Rubinson makes the same mistake about “God Bless
America,” which he takes to mean “God Has Already
Blessed America.”

Andy Kelly Professor English Department

Not all feminists are man-haters

I was shocked to read Glenn Sacks’ Viewpoint article
(“Feminists
must adjust views on abuse,” Daily Bruin, Oct. 12).

It wasn’t his statistics that shocked me; I learned those
same stats last summer in a women’s studies class ““
which in itself suggests that feminists have “adjusted their
views on abuse.” It’s true that both men and women
participate in domestic violence and child abuse. What shocked me
was where Sacks placed the blame.

Instead of blaming the violent individuals, be they male or
female, hetero- or homosexual, and instead of blaming a violent
society that thrives on competition and domination, he blamed
feminists.

I have never heard any of the “feminist myths” Sacks
refutes and as a feminist, I do not subscribe to his view of
feminism.

I wonder, has he heard of the Third Wave of Feminism? Does he
know any young feminists? Has he ever even taken a Women’s
Studies or Gender Studies class?

Feminists are not all one breed. We do not all blame and hate
men. Most of us acknowledge that domestic violence (all violence,
really) is a problem for society as a whole, not only for women. By
attacking feminists, Sacks revealed his own aggressive nature
““ a nature better suited to combating the actual problem of
domestic violence, not those working to eliminate it.

Elaine Vigneault Philosophy and women’s studies
UNLV

Students not cause of village problems

Mark Nickel puts the cart before the horse in his article
(“Lack
of nightlife is students’ fault,” Oct. 5). The
leaders of the local homeowners’ associations are largely to
blame for the current situation.

I deplore the recent degeneration of Midnight Yell and the large
fights that are apparently plaguing recent parties. Assaulting the
police and firefighters is unacceptable behavior and should not be
tolerated. Individual accountability is in order here ““
identify the perpetrators and punish them to the full extent of the
law.

However, the LAPD often acts in an incendiary manner. The police
often overreact against students having a good time, at the behest
of the timorous local residents. The vicious response of the police
to the crowds celebrating our national basketball championship in
1995 is an excellent case in point (contrast this to the
LAPD’s muted and ineffectual response to the 1992 riots).

Nickel never pauses to contemplate two pertinent facts. First,
the fights and vandalism affecting private parties are absent from
the Westwood bars (or are kept under tight control). Second,
restrictions that straightjacket local nightlife long predate the
recent problems.

I submit that Nickel reverses the causal relationship, that in
fact the restrictions on nightlife and parties engendered the
current situation.

Students need to let off steam. The fewer the legitimate outlets
for that steam there are, the more likely students will find
release in destructive ways. This is precisely what happened during
the Prohibition period. Extreme drunkenness, violent rowdiness and
organized crime proliferated during that stupid experiment.

The situation at UCLA can be fairly compared to Prohibition.
Adults under 21 are prohibited from consuming demon rum. The
homeowners’ associations harass the local dens of iniquity,
prevent others from opening and render street party permits in
Westwood virtually impossible to obtain (yes, current UCLA
students, we used to have legal street parties in Westwood).

Nickel remarks that a somnolent and student-hostile Westwood is
the price students pay for attending UCLA. Rubbish! Look at old
photographs of the area. The campus was built long before the local
residential communities.

When local homeowners purchased their houses, they knew full
well that Westwood was a college town. A student-friendly Westwood
is the price they pay when they sign their mortgage ““ and
what a reasonable price it is.

Christopher Ivicevich Alumnus