Letters to the Editor

One of the few, but working for change

I am one of the few African American student-athletes who was
admitted to UCLA this year. Many of my peers have tried to belittle
this accomplishment, claiming that I was accepted into the
university based on my athletic ability rather than on my
academics.

However, unknown to many of my friends, athletes in the
university public school system are required to meet the
school’s academic standards in addition to athletic
excellence.

My friends’ misunderstanding used to frustrate me, making
me feel inadequate and guilty for not really earning a spot in the
university. But the more I read about the issue, the prouder I am
to be part of the small number of African American students
attending UCLA this year, student-athlete or not.

I have been following the discussion on the low admit rate of
minority students to UCLA and have read that many of the rejected
African American students have gone on to attend other prestigious
universities such as Michigan, Harvard and UC Berkeley.

I assume these students’ admission to other esteemed
universities means that these rejected students met the basic
qualifications to get into UCLA.

The disparity in admission for African Americans should be
further analyzed. Is there a downward trend? Is there a new
composite used to score applicants that is less sensitive in
capturing the same talented African American students accepted into
other competitive universities?

Initially I felt angry, frustrated and isolated as one of the
very few African American students, but these feelings have
developed into a sense of pride. Instead of reacting with anger,
the path I have chosen for myself is to get the African American
community as involved as possible in the application process to
prestigious universities such as UCLA, as athletes, doctors,
lawyers or whichever field they choose.

Jordan Calhoun

First-year, undeclared

Animal research has other impacts

The recent debate about the benefits and drawbacks of animal
research underscores how difficult it can be for an unbiased
observer to take sides. Clearly, this issue is likely to remain
charged until researchers are more open about how they use animals
and rights activists show greater understanding about
society’s need to sacrifice animals for human welfare.

In 1977, an avowed Gandhian, Morarji Desai, became prime
minister of India. One of his first decisions in office was to ban
the export of hundreds of thousands of rhesus monkeys to the United
States, where they had long been used for lab research.

The ban didn’t make international headlines, but one of
its interesting side effects was that the monkey population in
several parts of India increased substantially. The reason: The
simians exported for lab research were captured from the wild or
from urban areas where they are forced to seek refuge because of
increasing human encroachment on forests.

All too often, monkeys are a menace in cities, where they are
unharmed because locals identify them with the Hindu monkey-god
Hanuman.

At my home in New Delhi, I once found a monkey who climbed to
the second floor and entered the dining room. I’ll never
forget the sight. The refrigerator door was open and the monkey was
standing with a drumstick in one hand and a can of beer in the
other.

Ajay Singh

Senior writer, UCLA Marketing and Communication Services