Letters to the Editor

War debate should not be simplified

Regarding the current debate, both pro-United States and
anti-war interests are actively engaged in a verbal war of cheap
and divisive characterizations. Many on the left are trying to say
that everyone who supports current American policy is a brutal,
war-mongering bully. Many on the right are trying to say that
everyone who protests the strategy of military intervention in Iraq
is an enemy-helping, un-American apologist for terror.

Both of these labeling ploys are wrong and overly simplistic.
The issues, as well as our perspectives on these issues, are always
more complicated than partisanship’s narrow channels allow.
However, I believe that the core of the enduring greatness of the
United States, besides its amazingly pluralistic people, is the
innate dynamic which causes us to return to our extraordinary,
unifying American bond.

When the stakes of freedom and liberty are the highest, we have
collectively and instinctively left our lesser and parochial
differences aside. This characteristic ability, this mighty and
consistent strength, is precisely what other countries and
cultures, ally and foe alike, marvel about, fear or admire.

Solomon M. Matsas
Student Affairs
Staff Development Coordinator

Affirmative action system flawed

The recent criticisms leveled against the Bruin Republicans over
their affirmative action bake sale are shallow and hypocritical.
But claims from both sides were oversimplifications.

The fact is that affirmative action for student admissions to
universities is too often portrayed as a means to provide
minorities an opportunity to succeed and to provide a diverse
student body without asking how programs go about achieving this
goal.

For example, in the University of California system, we are
often presented with statistics highlighting the lacking
representation of Latino and black minorities in the student
population. What many fail to mention is which groups are
proportionately overrepresented. It’s not whites, but
actually Asians who are overrepresented for their numbers in the
general population. In light of this, we must question how fair
current affirmative action policies across the nation regarding
university admissions really are.

What about the Japanese American whose grandparents were
deprived of their property and basic rights during internment in
WWII? What about the Chinese American whose ancestors labored to
build the railroads only to be unjustly denied the fruits of their
labor? Is anyone prepared to argue that a black or Latino person
deserves extra consideration over these other individuals?

The point is that affirmative action, as it currently stands, is
flawed and we must drastically revamp and rethink our approach to
addressing the issue of diversity in higher education.
Oversimplification of the issue does a great disservice to the goal
of diversity.

Daniel Chang
First-year, political science