Letters to the editor

Prop. 89 deserves some respect

It’s a shame that there is no Clintonesque personality who would
be willing to galvanize thousands of people to vote for Proposition
89.

While everyone is talking about the environment, abortion and
bond measures, this important proposition goes relatively
unnoticed. If passed, Prop. 89 would institute clean elections for
all state offices, freshening up California’s elections
process.

Under the current system, political candidates are oftentimes
forced to raise funds for their campaigns by "dialing for dollars,"
calling large corporations and rich lobbyists for money. Problem
is, those contributions have strings attached, and it shows after
the elections.

If I handed my teaching assistant $100 and got an A, no one
would let me get away with it. Why, then, do we as an electorate
look the other way when that type of thing happens in city halls,
state capitols and Washington, D.C.?

Under clean elections, politicians would be freed from having to
raise funds from big corporations.

Your representative democracy would once again follow the idea
of "one man, one vote" instead of "one dollar, one vote."

If you’re wary of a new system, clean elections have already
been shown to work in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina

This is not a partisan issue. There are supporters from every
corner of the American populace. The question is whether we need to
restore our democracy to the way it was meant to be
— where influence came in the form of votes, not
dollars.

Jeff Lyu Second-year, political science Vice president,
Democracy Matters

Tired of a columnist who doesn’t get it

In his self-aggrandizing stance as a defender of free speech
("Tolerating intolerance of ‘tolerants’ is tough," Oct. 17), Jed
Levine sidesteps the central issue: In the name of satire, he poked
fun at the fact that there are embarrassingly low numbers of black
students on campus, while concurrently stereotyping Asians.

If his intention was to provoke discussion (as opposed to
offending the communities of color at UCLA), he should have begun
this article with a sincere "I’m sorry."

His insistence on painting himself the victim of his own
prejudice further highlights the fact that he refuses to understand
the grievances of communities of color.

Those who threaten physical violence or succumb to bigotry
themselves are morally reprehensible. However, this does not
vindicate Levine’s actions.

Just because one has the freedom of speech does not mean one
needs to intentionally write offensive material.

How does alienating people of color serve the public good?

Nolan L. Cabrera Graduate student, education &
information studies