Letters
By Daily Bruin Staff
Oct. 25, 2001 9:00 p.m.
Editorial lacking in proof, substance Your
editorial about my grievance against UCLA (“University correct to “˜fess up to
its error,“ Daily Bruin, Oct. 25), while it correctly
acknowledges the misbehavior by the UCLA administration in
suspending me, was highly misinformed, naive and lacking
substantiation. My assertion that Israel is a racist apartheid
state has been confirmed by the United Nations, associated NGOs, a
multitude of Israeli activists, American scholars, the world as a
whole, U.N. Resolutions passed by the General Assembly and
international law (the fourth Geneva Convention). While UCLA chats
the mantra of “diversity,” they are unwilling to accept
true diversity ““ diversity of opinion ““ hence the need
for anti-discrimination training, since they obviously discriminate
against those who oppose the dogmatic party line. Remember, I was
suspended for Thought Crimes, and CUE is right to insist upon this
poetic justice. In the process of suspending me, the university has
lied ““ lied on paper, lied in public statements, attempted to
find me “guilty” of guidelines that were never
mentioned in the suspension notice ““ which were in fact
created after the event ““ and I have been subjected to
retaliatory measures and personal harassment in the workplace. It
is the administration’s responsibility to protect it’
workers from abuse ““ which heretofore has not happened
despite my requests. These are just a few of the reasons that the
grievance process will go forward. It should be known that all
university workers are threatened by a university that engages in
unethical and illegal behavior. Your cheap strawman attempt, which
states that I do not “respect others’ freedom of
speech,” is nonsense and unsubstantiated in your editorial.
What are you talking about? Got evidence? I don’t think so.
You slander and attack me by telling me to “get back to
work.” Au contraire, I work hard at my job, know my specialty
well, have received the highest evaluations, am recipient of
awards, and have given this university 22 years of quality
professional service. In the future, try to get the facts right. It
helps to know what you are talking about, especially when
discussing issues with someone who does.
Jonnie Hargis Library assistant Young Research
Library
Amirkhani wrong about sexuality Last Thursday
Amir Amirkhani conveyed his distress regarding the Westwood banner
that affirms UCLA’s support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender students (Campus
contributes to wrong behavior,“ Daily Bruin, Oct. 18th).
His first problem? He doesn’t support LGBT students. His
second problem? His view is not represented by a banner professing
to speak for UCLA, and as a student here, Amirkhani feels slighted.
Poor, baby. Has it occurred to Amirkhani that when Christmas
decorations are suspended over Westwood Blvd. every year, that not
every Westwood resident’s interests are being represented?
Most likely, it didn’t occur to him. After all, anyone who
actually believes that “considering the way we are created .
. . there is no doubt about the right (heterosexual) orientation
for our lives” and that “any deviation from the right
path will directly affect our society” obviously isn’t
doing a whole lot of thinking outside the box. Pity. I expected
more from a graduate student in electrical engineering. So, this is
me taking a moment to consider the way we are created … still
considering … still going ““ shh! I’m concentrating!
Gee, Amirkhani, I find I still have the ability to doubt that there
is a “right orientation for our lives.” In his touching
lament over the moral degeneration of our society, Amirkhani
bemoans the unfortunate phenomenon that “during the past
decades, sex has gradually become an integral part of
America’s life.” News flash, darlin'”“ sex
has always been an integral part of America’s life.
Considering the way we are created, and the fact that the
population has greatly increased since we landed at Plymouth,
I’d have to say that sex has been a pretty central part of
American life from day one. The difference is that now we can talk
about it. The horror! Amirkhani goes on to say “the main
thing that might keep people from adopting wrong behaviors (or, for
Amirkhani, homosexual behaviors) is the taboo that is placed on
those things by society.” So society should dictate which
sexual behaviors are morally acceptable? That’s funny,
didn’t Amirkhani say something earlier about “the way
we are created” determining the proper mode of sexual
behavior? Amir Amirkhani objects to the fact that UCLA salutes
something he does not believe in. He states his
disagreement. Well and good. But Amirkhani goes further
to say that his feelings are hurt by UCLA’s salute to LGBT
students. The university has made a public statement not
representative of his opinion ““ and an opinion it is. Well,
Amirkhani, UCLA is not a democracy. It never has been.
Students don’t vote. You fear that “a minority can
represent our whole community and salute themselves on behalf of
us.” What minority? LGBT students? They don’t
get a vote either. Amirkhani should save his hurt feelings for a
time when somebody he actually elects does not accurately reflect
his beliefs. There’s no betrayal here. Maybe I’ve
been a trifle harsh with Amirkhani ““ after all, it must be
getting pretty rank in that box of his.
Alice Schroeder Third-year Anthropology
Terrorists deserve U.S. response, death I am
writing this letter in response to Mujtaba Ali’s
anti-American column,
Innocent Afghans don’t deserve attacks“ (Daily
Bruin, Oct. 19). Ali is grossly mistaken when he states that
“military retaliation is not the universal solution to
foreign problems.” In this case, military retaliation is not
only the best solution, but the only solution to this national
catastrophe, which he referred to as merely a “foreign
problem.” It is no secret that Osama bin Laden’s goal
is to eliminate the Western world and the United States in
particular. If we do not eradicate bin Laden and his terrorist
network, they will succeed and we will be destroyed. No matter what
precautions we take, as long as bin Laden is alive, he will be a
threat to the civilized world. Therefore, war is necessary.
Ali asked, “Where, in the course of our development as human
beings, did this lust for blood develop?” Well, in my
development as an American, my love for blood developed in the
first grade as I was learning about the American Revolution and the
birth of our country. Just as Americans had no choice but to
fight for freedom then, we have no choice but to fight for freedom
now. Ali and I do agree on something, however. He asserted his
agreement with Mitra Ebadolahi and Shirin Vossoughi
(“Proper
retribution entails more thought, less force,“ Daily
Bruin, Oct. 9) when they said that “Sept. 11’s 7,000
dead don’t deserve to have thousands more murdered in their
name.” This is quite true ““ it will undoubtedly
take the annihilation of tens of thousands of terrorists to rid our
world of this evil. He also said that the evidence against bin
Laden is circumstantial. Anyone who even entertains that notion is
a fool. The evidence is just the opposite, and in fact, it is
beyond overwhelming. Even so, we did not need to provide evidence
to the Taliban or anyone else of Bin Laden’s guilt, for he
took care of that for us with his television broadcasts. But for
the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the evidence is
weak. Even if bin Laden were not to be blamed for initiating
this war on Sept. 11, he is still guilty of funding and organizing
the bombings of the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and
Kenya, among other terrorist acts. Ali stated that he could not
imagine what good it would do for us to bomb airports and radio
stations in Afghanistan. He clearly has not been watching the
news. By bombing airports, we have taken away the
Taliban’s air force. By bombing their radio stations, we have
taken away their communications. By doing this, we have denied
the Taliban vital communication with their troops across
Afghanistan. Ali comments, “It is clear that the only thing
that the United States is protecting in the Middle East is its own
interests.” You’re right. It would be unethical
and worthy of impeachment on the part of the president to turn the
other cheek when our country is in danger We need to
exterminate these terrorists as if they were rodents carrying a
deadly disease in our backyard. I hope that our work in Afghanistan
is swift and effective, so that we may move on to bomb ““
“bully”as Ali put it ““ and wipe out other
terrorist nations such as Iraq.
Anthony Kohrs First-year Business economics
Gay lifestyle not a threat I was as thoroughly
confused by Amir Amirkhani’s recent submission
“Campus
contributes to wrong behavior“( Daily Bruin, Oct. 18) as
I am by much of the anti-gay rhetoric I hear. I’m not gay and
I don’t even think gay relationships are religiously or
morally right, but exactly why should I believe that gay-pride is
the largest threat to morality? Let’s look at the issues.
First, homosexuality “tempts” only a small portion of
society. Roughly 10 percent, maybe a bit higher if you count people
with a small propensity towards bisexuality. So probably 80 percent
of society has no desire for any homosexual relationships. Believe
me, it only takes one trip into a locker room for me to realize,
“man, am I ever straight.” Second, homosexuality is
observed in a wide variety of animal species from fruit flies to
pigeons, seals and apes. Bonobo apes (pygmy chimpanzees), one of
our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, are almost completely
bisexual, using sex as casually as we shake hands. (And you think
our society has a casual sex problem). So if natural is defined as
“what happens in nature,” then homosexuality is
perfectly natural. I admit it seems horribly unnatural to me, but
is it really right to define natural as what the majority feels is
natural? Third, it is true that homosexual relationships cannot
result in offspring, but can you really tell me with a straight
face that insufficient offspring is a serious threat to humanity?
Even if fertility rates dropped to one child for every 10 women
““ say a society where 90 percent of the women are lesbians,
and the rest only have one child each, a wildly unrealistic
scenario ““ it would take over nine generations, or roughly
200 years, for humanity to die out. Biological, chemical and
nuclear war could eliminate us in much less time, with much more
reasonable assumptions. I think I’m justified in being
confused as to why homosexuality is seen as such a threat. But what
confuses me the most is the frequent appeal anti-gay forces make to
the “comfort and relief” of marriage with a
simultaneous desire to make certain gay people never enjoy the
same. It doesn’t take that much imagination for me to realize
that, to a gay person, straight relationships could feel as
unnatural as gay ones seem to me. For such a person, only a
committed gay union could bring the same comfort and relief that my
marriage has brought to me. But somehow I’m supposed to
believe that even if it avoids all reference to the religiously
packed word “marriage,” any legally recognized union of
a gay couple some how “cheapens” my marriage. Many cite
Proposition 22 as evidence that most people don’t want
legally recognized gay unions, that they go against “the
spirit of the law.” But the entire campaign for Prop. 22
revolved around a narrow interpretation of the law, the notion that
it only referred to “marriage,” and that it would not
abridge gay rights. You remember the phrases, “It’s
only 14 words,” and “Proposition 22 eliminates no gay
rights.” To change their rhetoric now is dishonest, but had
they campaigned on a platform that stated “Proposition 22
will prevent all gay couples from ever gaining legal recognition
for the relationship” the measure would likely have failed. I
don’t necessarily believe that gay relationships are ever as
morally right, in a religious sense, as a heterosexual marriage,
but I also don’t know of any reason that both respects the
separation of church and state and also denies gay people the right
to be open about their sexuality or to have their committed sexual
relationships be legally recognized and respected.
Lee Loveridge Graduate student Physics
