Letters

Facts make a case against Schwartz A recent
submission by Andrew Jones titled “Bruin Republicans proud of
diverse membership” (Viewpoint, Oct. 4) implied that
conservatives are thoughtful commentators on issues that affect our
society. The latest column by Joel Schwartz “Bilingual
education detrimental to children” (Viewpoint, Oct. 14)
proves that opinion to be completely wrong. There are many
misstatements of facts, in Schwartz’s column. I’ll
begin with his most blatant misconception ““ the claim that
students who go abroad for about one year return home fluent in the
language of the host country. Perhaps he and I disagree on the
definition of “fluency,” but surely no student who has
gone abroad with next to nothing of the host tongue comes back
fully able to take the equivalent of the host country’s SAT
and do as well or better than the natives. You may cry foul over
this extreme demand. Nevertheless that is exactly what Proposition
227, now Section 1, Chapter 3, Part 1, of the state’s
Education Code, called for. It required that “Children who
are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English
immersion during a temporary transition period not normally
intended to exceed one year.” Conveniently, Schwartz’s
logic overlooks the fact that children placed in this program are,
more often than not, illiterate in their native languages while the
college student can take advantage of his English literacy. Let us
suspend disbelief and assume that the fairy tale of “full
immersion” is true. If structured English immersion is so
wonderful, why is the percentage of English learners reclassified
as Fluent English Proficient still below 10 percent, leading to a
spectacular 92 percent failure rate for Structured English
immersion? One would think that after nearly four years of English
immersion, students would be better off than they were during the
days of bilingual education. Could it be that those awful,
multicultural, nasty and pointy-headed bilingual advocates have
torpedoed the efforts of the noble and courageous English-only
crowd? The answer is a resounding no. The reason is simple: prior
to passage of 227, nearly 70 percent of English learners were in
non-bilingual classrooms. Nowadays the figure is close to 90
percent. The slight increase in redesignation rates is due to a
more aggressive drive to reclassify students. Thus, the problem is
not too much bilingual education, but too many “sink or
swim” classrooms. There are no “positive results”
as Schwartz claims. Structured English immersion is a colossal
failure that “thoughtful conservatives” like him refuse
to acknowledge because it doesn’t match their world view. It
would be fun to demolish the rest of Schwartz’s arguments,
but it is not worth the effort. The incontrovertible results from
English immersion show that his thesis has no basis and is nothing
more than warmed-over English-only propaganda.

J. Manuel Urrutia, Ph.D. physics and astronomy

Gregson wrong in bashing LGBT I was shocked at
how homophobic the submission titled “Coming Out Day tagging
unproductive, disunifying,” came across (Viewpoint, Oct. 14).
I am not sure how many of the students at UCLA would refer to the
Coming Out Day writing around campus as tagging. It was chalk for
goodness sake ““ it was not spray paint promoting one gang
over another, threatening this or that, or even preferring one
group over another. It was chalk ““ chalk that meant to send a
message of support to students struggling with their sexual
identity ““ chalk that I saw symbolic of the difficulty and
hardships associated with confronting loved ones with news of
homosexuality. It stood as a pillar of strength at a very
vulnerable time for many. Spare the “hideous … fiendish …
tacky artless propaganda” comments. In a few days, the chalk
will wash off with the rain. Don’t have a hernia. I am not
gay, nor do I have many friends who are. But even I realize that
Coming Out Day is not about celebrating differences. It helps
people come together with others who can relate to their
experiences, and for one day feel comfortable and free from the
usual hateful environment. Our society makes so many stereotypes
and passes so much judgement on homosexuals that even Coming Out
Day practices are denounced. I don’t see why the tagging was
made such a big deal of by one claiming the America dream for him
is “absorbing different cultures and learning their ways and
insights.” Hypocrite indeed. Sona Bekmezian First-year,
biology

Singer doesn’t send the right message
Michelle Singer’s column titled “Fundamentalists should
learn to be more accepting” is a hypocritical piece that
ignores the message of acceptance it was trying to send (Viewpoint,
Oct. 11). This column stated “Christians are an appalling
testament to the direction America is headed.” This statement
is a very dangerous one. I myself am a Pakistani Christian woman,
and do not at all agree with or condone the statements made by
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Singer fails to avoid applying
generalizations to all Christians according to Falwell’s
comments. There is a direct contradiction when reading the first
line of Singer’s column. In reality she is blaming Christians
for America’s problems. Is Singer opposed to Falwell or
Christians in general? The answer seems clear. Fundamentalism is
defined as a Protestant movement that stresses the infallibility of
the Bible. So according to Singer, anyone who believes in the Bible
is a menace to society. Apparently Singer thinks all Christians who
believe in the Bible are Jerry Falwell Christians. At an institute
of higher education that promotes tolerance, it is ironic that my
faith and beliefs are not being tolerated and I am being
stereotyped. The bigger issue is that Christians are the one
religious group people are allowed to bash. Why doesn’t
anyone talk about the positive contributions Christians have made?
There are many Christian based organizations helping the poor, the
homeless and those that have been neglected by the rest of society.
Why didn’t Singer mention the Christians that advocate racial
reconciliation? There is a lot said about our mistakes. Why
doesn’t anyone tout our strengths? For someone who claims in
her own words “respect is the main issue here,” she
seems to draw the line at Christians. Singer may think she is
enlightened, but in reality she is only revealing her ignorance.
Erim Sarbuland Fifth-year, international development studies

Bruin unfair to forums I’m writing about
Mignot’s indictment of the MyUCLA forums in “Forums
raise monitoring questions” (News, Oct. 15). Not only did the
article heavily misconstrue the forums and its inhabitants, it does
it to such an extent that I wonder if Mignot actually even read
through the forums at all. There are far more than one thread (and
definitely more than one post) calling someone a whore. In the
slang of the forum board, a whore is someone with an obscene amount
of posts. It is a mark of honor among we geeks when someone becomes
one of the top 10 or 20 posters. Then one of our friends makes a
thread about us, announcing our whoredom. The issue of profanity
and sexuality dominating the forums would suggest Mignot only
glanced over two of the threads on the board titled “Social
Corner” which ““ when we’re not actually using the
forum to meet friends, which is often ““ is a free-for-all of
ideas no matter how inane or non sequitur. The other boards are by
and large all used for their stated purpose, with the exception of
the Daily Bruin Viewpoint Article board, which is used for all
political matters, not just the one or two Viewpoint chooses to
print on. Lastly, I take issue with the idea of filtering. The UCLA
forum administrators tried censoring our language, and we got
around it faster than the Flash on speed. If we’re going to
be given a place to speak out, give it to us, and leave it alone.
Intellectual debate is a part of the forums, despite Mignot’s
assertion, but so is the familial feeling we whores and aspiring
whores engender. Kathleen Barron Fourth-year, linguistics