Letters to the editor

Bush not fascist, but liberals not
communist

Agreed, calling Bush a fascist is both inaccurate and misleading
(“Calling Bush a fascist is wrong,” Feb. 23). However,
let’s push David Keyes’ criticism just a bit further
and look at imprecise language on both sides of the political
spectrum. If liberals use the word “fascist” too
freely, conservatives are just as guilty of bandying about the word
“communist” like an epithet.

The Democratic party has never advocated proletariat revolution
or the abolition of private property, yet many conservatives label
liberals “communists” as though the McCarthy era was
still in full swing. Last I checked, the black lists went out of
fashion with Joseph himself.

This imprecision of language does indeed muddle communication
and reduce the power of once-strong words.

More than that, though, it increases enmity by applying overly
harsh language to parties that don’t deserve it.

This further disrupts the political process by making enemies
where bridges could be built.

Calling liberals communists is no more excusable than calling
Bush a fascist.

If we’re going to be sticklers about precision of
language, let’s be equal-opportunity sticklers.

Lauren Clark Bruin Democrats media relations
director

USAC should hear out potential reforms

In response to the behavior of council members of the
undergraduate student government regarding efforts to create a
senate system of government (“USAC says senate will stymie
council,” Feb.24), I am appalled at the efforts of this
elected body to suppress the labors of any student concerned enough
with the Undergraduate Students Association Council to propose
significant reforms to better the quality of our student
government.

The students of UCLA are given the right and responsibility to
hold our elected leaders responsible. When this council no longer
serves the interests of a majority of undergraduates on this
campus, we also have the right to enact legislation through a
constitutional initiative.

This council should not chastise student leaders who use the
very means of government that we allow in order to make sure the
desires of general students are met.

That Students First! members complain that the council has
better things to do is outrageous. The SF! slate has been
complaining for 10 years (coincidentally, the length of time they
have controlled the USAC government) that a diversity requirement
is necessary.

They have likewise been complaining about the Expected
Cumulative Progress requirement since it was adopted four years
ago. SF! seems able and willing to waste the time of our council in
pursuing policy changes they have long wished for and never been
able to enact.

Why should students wait around for important reform to actually
happen?

Instead, I applaud the efforts of Brian Neesby and the coalition
of students willing to stand up to the self-serving interests of
our student government leaders.

With any luck, their success may allow an undergraduate student
government to truly represent a diverse set of values and
concerns.

Morgan Miller Fourth-year, political science and
history