Letters to the editor

Lawson has right to dissent resolution

Kian Boloori’s submission “USAC resolution
supporting transgender population admirable” (April 21),
asserts Undergraduate Students Association Council General
Representative Josh Lawson failed to “represent the issues of
all UCLA students” and should “reconsider his
involvement” in USAC.

Boloori criticized Lawson for not voting in favor of a USAC
resolution that condemned the Westminster School Board for failing
to implement provisions of AB 537, a state law mandating
anti-discrimination policies for transgender students.

Boloori’s remark is problematic for two reasons. First, it
assumes all UCLA students share the belief that gender is fluid.
Second it asserts that the personal political opinions of USAC
members must necessarily mirror those of the general student body.
I certainly doubt every student on the UCLA campus agrees with
Boloori.

If we presume USAC members should possess opinions reflective of
the people they represent, then Lawson’s dissent likely makes
the result of the USAC resolution much more representative of the
student body. A unanimous decision ““ which is clearly the
only result which Boloori would be satisfied with ““ would
fail to meet his own criterion of proper representation.

If this type of representation is as critical to effective USAC
membership as he asserts, then Boloori should be thrilled someone
like Lawson sits on Council.

But perhaps more alarming is Boloori’s assumption that our
USAC members should possess the political views of the students
they represent. The duty of USAC is to represent and defend the
interests of the student body through motions directly pertaining
to the university ““ not to represent the popular political
opinions of the student body by voting on politically charged
resolutions, such as gay marriage and gender fluidity, and placing
them in the Daily Bruin.

I’d prefer a student leader who sees gender as static but
effectively fights in favor of student interests as opposed to one
who perpetually advocates resolutions which, while in accordance
with my own beliefs, ultimately do nothing to improve the overall
learning conditions of the university.

Hugh Carlson Third-year, political science

Academic Bill of Rights necessary

The editorial “Regulations contradict academic bill’s
goals” (April 20), regarding the Academic Bill of Rights, was
absurd. In no way does this bill restrict free thinking in the
university system. In fact, it does just the opposite. David
Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights serves to propel the
university toward the ideal intellectual status students deserve.
By encouraging a neutral approach to politics at the university,
the bill opens the floor to a free discussion of views, ideas and
truths, making them, in fact, very free of manipulation.

It is commendable that the bill prevents faculty members from
having their job securities hinge upon their political views. It is
also appropriate, and just, for the classroom to have enough
ideological space for more than one viewpoint.

The Academic Bill of Rights is a direct approach to ensure both
intellectual diversity and students’ right to knowledge in an
environment which currently does not foster such noble goals.

Kendra Carney Fourth-year, political science President,
Students for Academic Freedom

USAC regulations on voting unfair

I was a little concerned when I read the article “USAC
shortens time allotted to vote online” (News, April 22),
especially when it came to the reasoning for such an action. How
does this benefit the candidates and the campus? In a democratic
election, maximum voter turnout is best for the campus and the
candidates. Such restrictions only serve to decrease voter
turnout.

In the best interest of our campus, USAC should make its
elections as fair and unbiased as possible; this means retracting
the recent restrictions on online voting and campaigning.

Doug Taylor Third-year, physics