Letters

Two-tier process is best for UC

Monday’s Viewpoint piece on admissions criteria makes no
sense to me at all (“Current
system doesn’t help diversity,” Daily Bruin, Nov.
5). It would require race-based profiling to have UCLA exactly
mirror Southern California demographics. There is simply no room
for racist systems anymore.

But on the other hand, economically disadvantaged students of
any color deserve a closer look and lower admission standards. As
more minority students (on a percentage basis) are economically
disadvantaged, more will be admitted without overtly using race.
This will also target those minority students who have really grown
up in the sort of environment that makes academic excellence so
difficult. A Latino kid who grows up in a two-parent, middle-class
family has as much chance to succeed as anyone else. That kid has
not faced the pressures and educational deficits of even
poverty-stricken white kids. Historically, students who profited
from affirmative action are what makes that policy so
inappropriate.

The article’s authors argue that the current system denies
access not only to middle-class minority students (which I
obviously feel do not deserve special treatment), but also to
working-class students as well. I can’t believe that is true
looking at the criteria. The current system seems the best
possible, non-racist solution for tackling historic inequalities at
the college level. The next and most important step is to improve
K-12 education for underprivileged minority kids, making two-tier
systems unnecessary.

John Blakey, M.D. Department of pathology UCLA Medical
Center

Anti-terrorist act deserves debate

Ben Shapiro’s column in Monday’s head-to-head
feature (“Sacrifice
of citizens’ rights needed to create security,”
Daily Bruin, Nov. 5) regarding the USA PATRIOT Act is another
example of the type of outrageous thinking we do not need during
this time of crisis.

Concern about the maintenance of freedom and democracy does not
by definition mean that one is “leftist,”
“anti-American,” or “anti-freedom,” as
Shapiro implies. It’s bad enough that Americans are afraid of
more terrorist attacks, of being drawn into war, and of an
increasingly faltering economy. However, it is ludicrous to say
that Americans should be expected to keep their opinions to
themselves on matters of principle importance to us all.

On the contrary, this is the time for discussion and dissent to
be celebrated. We should be utilizing those ideals Americans have
fought and died to preserve. Silence is not in our interest. It is
in the interest of those who have scarred our nation forever. We
must be vigilant in assuring that our most treasured and protected
values of Sept. 10, remain unscathed and continue to flourish in
post-Sept. 11 America.

Shapiro believes that “only those who believe in the
essential righteousness of terrorist thought should whimper over
this “˜abridgement of their civil liberties.'” We
should all remember that it is precisely our ability to
“whimper” about anything and everything we damn-well
please that makes our country so great.

No American should be afraid of being labeled unpatriotic simply
by speaking out against a bill which bears the acronym PATRIOT in
its title.

This is a petty and perverse abuse of the anxiety that every
American is experiencing these days. Nationalism and patriotism
should not be synonymous with ignorance, intimidation and fear.

Ben A. Baroncini Fifth-year Political science and
sociology

War in Afghanistan as act of self-defense

I am writing to correct the misconceptions of international law
propagated by Nick Trebat in his piece, “Solution
to war debate outlined in U.N. Charter, not blame game”
(Daily Bruin, Nov. 6).

To begin with, Trebat writes incorrectly that international law
is founded on post-World War II documents. International law, of
course, has its origins in Roman law, and its modern incarnation in
the Renaissance. It is terribly Eurocentric, but we cannot change
history because we dislike it.

An ancient principle reiterated in Article 51 of the United
Nations charter is the right of any state to self-defense. Trebat
betrays his ignorance of law and of our position by referring to
such activity as “vigilante” behavior.

The Sept. 11 attacks were military assaults by a well-funded and
well-organized group of religious extremists whose stated aim is to
kill as many American civilians as they can in as brutal a manner
as possible. We are all their intended targets. That they have no
care for their own lives either is made evident by the suicide
attacks. Thus, the United States has no practical choice but to
find and physically restrain this network of terrorists before they
strike again.

George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld speak poorly when they talk
of “retaliation” or “punishment” or even of
“bringing the al-Qaeda network to justice.” The sole
justification for war is self-defense, and Article 51 of the U.N.
Charter explicitly gives the United States the right to defend
itself against attack. The NATO Charter affirms it as well.

The Taliban supported and protected al-Qaeda. If the Taliban
thought this were merely a criminal but not a military matter, it
should have seized the accused on the strength of the evidence
presented, extradited them to the United States, and then waited
for proof at trial in accordance with the normal practice of
law.

Trebat both naively assumes the Taliban was serious about
offering to find bin Laden and presents a bizarre idea of
international rules governing extradition and trial — one does not
wait for the trial to be over before even making an arrest. Instead
of cooperating, the Taliban has issued an incendiary call for a
holy war on our people. Thus, as a practical matter, to defend
ourselves against these terrorists, we must first defeat the
Taliban.

The sad part is that we cannot conduct this military campaign
however we choose. To defeat the Taliban, we need a prolonged
aerial campaign and insertion of ground troops, at the minimum.
This will surely cost some Afghani civilian lives, especially when
the Taliban hides amongst them in mosques and markets trying to
increase civilian casualties. In all wars, Trebat, the guiding
principle of combat is that enemy casualties are preferable to
one’s own. That is not a “racist” principle.

The important question is the appropriateness of the means of
self-defense. In this too, international law gives guidance. We
must adhere to the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war: minimize
noncombatant deaths, respond proportionately to the threat
presented, treat prisoners humanely, eschew weapons that seek to
wound in cruel ways, and be guided by military necessity alone when
using deadly force.

As American citizens, we must not blindly follow the
Pentagon’s war plans, nor uncritically accept their
statements that we are following these rules. When the Pentagon
turns from self-defense to punishment or vengeance, we must be
willing to speak out. When Ashcroft and the Republican majority in
Congress seek to limit our civil rights, we must defend our
democracy at home.

As for the war against the Taliban, however, the principle is
clear: our government has a right and duty to defend its people
against organized military assault.

Darrel Menthe Graduate student Political
science

Stephenson not only candidate

Before endorsing Betsy Stephenson to replace Peter Dalis as the
UCLA athletic director, perhaps you can share with the UCLA
community the other in-house candidates you examined, such as Glenn
Toth, Rick Purdy or Randy Taylor. Where are their background
profiles? Why is it that Stephenson is worthy of your
endorsement over the rest of the in-house candidates? What
about the loyal Bruins who have a career of integrity and loyalty
to UCLA, such as Gary Cunningham, or Heisman Trophy winner Gary
Beban?

Before publicly endorsing a candidate based on their gender,
your editorial board should have examined whether there are
candidates, potential or current, whose dedication to the athletes
extend beyond the story you presented of Stephenson tye-dying
soccer jerseys. Perhaps if you take a look at
Stephenson’s former employer, you’d recognize how her
leadership has taken the University of Kansas, her alma mater, to
the middle of the road in collegiate athletics. This is not what
UCLA needs at the moment as the leader of the athletic
department. UCLA needs an ambitious and visionary athletic
director who will move UCLA forward and away from the status
quo.

Perhaps Stevenson is this person, perhaps not. But nothing in
your editorial indicates Stevenson’s vision of where
UCLA’s athletic department must be 10 and 20 years down the
road, let alone how it will accomplish these goals. If the
editorial board did its research, the Bruin would sound credible
and not like politically correct cry babies who are willing to
mortgage the future of UCLA athletics for the sake of being lazy
and hiring the most convenient female candidate around.

Ethan Greene Alumnus Class of 1999