Letters

Critics miss issue in opposing Bush

After reading the article and letters regarding Laura Bush
speaking at the Graduate School of Education’s graduation, we
feel there are some points we need to clarify.

The press coverage has focussed on two students almost
exclusively, whereas, in fact, we are members of a large group of
students in the Graduate School of Education and Information
Studies which formed to oppose this invitation (Students for
Democracy at GSEIS). Specifically, the first Daily Bruin article
did not make clear that many students attended the meeting with
Dean Aimee Dorr to voice their concerns, and many more objected in
writing.

We are disappointed that the Daily Bruin decided to publish
letters to the editor that diverged significantly from the issue at
hand and instead focused on personal attacks. Throughout this
process, neither the dean, the chancellor, the press coverage, nor
the ensuing correspondence has focused on what we consider to be
the substantive issues: lack of student input in the speaker
selection process and Laura Bush’s problematic policy stance
on issues of teacher education, literacy practices, and funding for
education and libraries.

Bush’s ostensible advocacy of the teaching profession does
not take into consideration teacher credentialing programs and
departments of education. Her approach to early literacy is steeped
in negative assumptions about poor communities. In publicly
endorsing the president’s education and library science
agenda, Laura Bush is supporting a program of punitive standardized
testing, huge cuts in library funding as well as in Title I and
Title VII funding, and reductionistic reading models, all of which
will damage the education and library infrastructure of this
country for years to come. These measures will exacerbate the
schooling crisis that already exists for many children of color and
poor communities.

Laura Bush has declined the invitation. Overall, we are excited
that this event has successfully mobilized our school. We also
appreciate the immense support that we have received from fellow
students, faculty, and staff.

This event has sparked activism that will seek to make impact in
other areas of GSEIS. Students for Democracy at GSEIS is proud of
its stance and involvement in this issue.

Tara Watford and Estela Zarate Graduate students
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies

Republican, Democratic roles reversed in
history

In the Feb. 25 issue of the Daily Bruin, Corey Chapman makes
some wild assertions not bolstered by any facts or supportive
evidence (“Republican
Party not so great as submission claims“ Viewpoint).

Chapman claims that “you could trace (the Republican
party’s) roots back to the Federalists of the late 18th and
the early 19th centuries, who wholeheartedly advocated a large
national government.” Yet, he doesn’t provide any
evidence which could support the thesis.

In actuality, the Republican Party was started in the 1850s by
anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed the federal
government should grant western lands to settlers free of
charge.

With the outbreak of the Civil War, the Republican Party worked
to pass the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery, the 14th
Amendment which granted equal protection under the laws and the
15th Amendment which secured voting rights for African
Americans.

During this same period in American history the Democratic Party
was determined to prevent freed slaves from voting. Notable
Democrats in the South founded the KKK and the tradition of
“Jim Crow.” It was the Democratic Party and its
southern loyalists who stood in the doorways of schools and
prevented any child of color from entering.

I also fully expected to see the name Ronald Reagan to appear
when the discussion turned to tax reductions and the old myth about
“deficits.”Â The Labor Department publishes
historical data which show that for every $1 that President Reagan
cut from spending, the Democratic majority worked in $3 new of
expenditures. The facts are that revenues rose during the Reagan
years and it is in the rich tradition of the Democratic party to
distort the actual events for those that best fit their
purpose.

It’s increasingly distressing to note that students in
today’s public educational system, especially on the college
level, have been denied the tools and diversity of opinions to form
a more open mind to what happened rather than what the
establishment wished would have happened.

Valdis Gailitis Newbury Park, Calif.

Professor’s criticism is hypocritical,
misleading

Professor Robert Watson (“Illogical,
rude letters condemn too quickly,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Feb. 25) properly criticizes the intemperate nature of
student criticism of Zarate and Watford.

The debate centered around the invitation to Laura Bush to speak
at the UCLA commencement ceremonies. However, Watson himself makes
many mistakes similar to those he criticizes.

For example, the current economic slump did not start with the
present administration. It started in the third quarter of 2000
with the understandable end of the investment boom of the
“˜90s. Gross domestic private investment peaked in the second
quarter of 2000 and has been declining ever since. Job layoffs and
new weekly claims for unemployment insurance started in the
following quarter.

I advise students to engage in dialogue in a more temperate
manner and I advise Watson to avoid misleading (shades of Enron)
statements.

Theodore A. Andersen Professor of finance
(Emeritus)