Thursday, December 10, 1998
Letters
Whites, Asians can understand minority concerns
I read with interest, then anger, Lakesha Breeding’s recent
letter ("Outreach editorial misinterpreted," Viewpoint, Dec. 3). I
can assure you, based on my personal experience, that she is dead
wrong in her assumption that Asians and whites cannot understand,
nor ever experience, the same sort of racial prejudice that
African-Americans or Latinos/as experience.
I am a third-generation Chinese-American. I have had the
"interesting" experience of having a guy in a car pull up alongside
me while I was jogging to make derogatory racial and gender slurs,
as well as having a senior manager at the company where I used to
work introduce me to the staff I was to supervise as "a delicate
little cherry blossom." Oh yes, I should mention that both of these
gentlemen were African-American. Whites have no monopoly on racial
insensitivity.
As for the claim that whites and Asians don’t interact or learn
about other ethnic groups, I can only reply that I was, for two
years, the proud recipient of a research grant through the Chicano
Studies Research Center, and have spent the last four years
researching an indigenous Mexican language. From working with
speakers of these languages over the years, I have gained an
incredible appreciation for a culture I formerly knew next to
nothing about.
(By the way, if you think it’s weird being one of a small number
of minority students at UCLA, try spending eight weeks as the only
Asian face – and the first most people have actually seen – in a
small town in rural Mexico!)
Finally, Breeding reveals her hypocrisy (maybe "ignorance" would
be a kinder word) in her claim that "people do not understand races
other than their own." If she meant this phrase to include herself,
maybe she’s right. She has obviously never met me, or people like
me, and asked us about our experiences. By relegating the
experiences of people different from herself to baseless
assumptions, while demanding that the rest of the world become more
aware of her own experience, Breeding forfeits any moral authority
she might bring to her argument.
Maybe those who keep preaching the gospel of "diversity" should
spend less time looking in the mirror and more time practicing what
they preach.
Felicia Lee
Graduate student
Linguistics
Legal prostitution leads to greater sexual freedoms
Matthew Gever’s viewpoint article ("Pornography helps women and
society," Viewpoint, Dec. 3) takes a pro-pornography stance. He
claims this "dirty" media relieves sexual tensions as opposed to
creating them. I think he is indeed on the right track with his
argument. I too believe that trying to hide or prohibit such
explicit material only adds to sexual confusion and is detrimental
to society – and can show itself in the worst forms such as rape,
molestation and other sexual delinquencies.
But I would like to take his argument a step further, by urging
for the legalization of prostitution as well. Many countries around
the world allow prostitution in specific, regulated and confined
areas. Men do not only have the right to masturbate to porn but
should be able to engage in strictly sexual activity, for a price,
if they so choose. Our country needs to start facing the facts and
be more open about our sexual tendencies.
I surely do not want to see a brothel near my son’s elementary
school playground, but it’s fine if there is one a bit more
isolated or in a certain area of the city (i.e. the red-light
district in Amsterdam).
I am not trying to add to an already corrupt society. I figure
this will be interpreted as some type of radical view, but it
shouldn’t be.
People will claim such a proposition is coming from the mouth of
a pervert. All people, including those guys who can never get laid,
deserve some sort of outlet.
Shaul Nassi
Third-year
Electrical Engineer
Raising minimum wage promotes poor work ethic
Adam Komisaruk’s column ("People deserve higher minimum wage,"
Viewpoint, Dec. 3) overlooks very many important things. Komisaruk
can make all of the leftist accusations of business that he wants,
but he assumes too much. Since he does not own the businesses that
pay minimum wages, he should have no say in how they are run.
The capitalistic system relies on business. Forcing businesses
to pay their employees more than deemed adequate by the business
owner is attacking the very heart of how our system works.
There are indeed people that get payed less than Komisaruk’s
suggested $7.25 hourly wage. But increasing the current minimum
wage would send a signal to employees that they need only rely on
government action, instead of their own skill and hard work,
whenever they want a pay increase.
Working at a burger-joint, although possibly being tedious,
doesn’t require much skill. This is exactly the reason why the wage
is low. The employer knows that people will always be willing to
fill a spot when their current employees decide it’s time to find a
better job. If, however, prospective employees collectively decide
that flipping burgers should call for a higher wage, then employers
would get this message by a lack of applicants and/or poor service
from their current employees.
As for the argument of supporting a family on the minimum wage,
well, this is just ludicrous. The jobs that pay minimum wage were
never there to support families, but rather are there to provide
additional income to a household that already pulls in a decent
yearly income. Having a minimum wage that is high enough to support
a family erodes self-responsibility; it doesn’t create the
initiative necessary to gain skills to find that better job.
I suggest that Komisaruk take a look at the countries that have
tried to impose the government-regulated equality that he is the
proponent of. He may find himself looking at socialism or
communism.
Lev Lvovsky
Fourth-year
Physics
Blood Center should publicize reasons for delays
In her response to my letter concerning the UCLA Blood Center,
Barbara Willahan states that, in this particular case, the delay
was occasioned by a young child’s urgent need for blood ("Mobile
drive fills Blood Center," Viewpoint, Dec. 3). If indeed it was the
emergency needs of a child which caused this delay, then perhaps
the Blood Center should have made this fact known to the many
people who were upset at having their scheduled appointments
canceled. After all, what rational person could object to being
inconvenienced by the emergency health needs of anyone, much less a
child?
Unfortunately, however, the only response given us was
overbooking due to the expanded blood drive at the Wooden Center.
It was, in actuality, a Blood Center employee who used the term
"overbooking" to explain the cancellations.
This, then, begs the question as to why no mention was made of
the legitimate emergency needs of this child, since logic dictates
that to have done so would certainly have been met with a
sympathetic response.
Lest I be forever burdened with the characterization of one who
would rather see a child’s health endangered rather than undergo
"inconvenience" himself, I would ask the Daily Bruin to make clear
the facts of this case.
Finally, let me state that my intention here is not to get into
a running battle with the UCLA Blood Center. My most recent visit
notwithstanding, most of my experiences with the folks at the
Center have generally been quite positive. Students get a free meal
and many campus workers get four hours of compensated time for
donating.
Sure, they stick you with needles and drain your blood – but in
that respect, it’s really not all that different from graduate
school, except that in this case you know they mean well and that
your suffering will go to help people in need.
Ron Richards
Graduate student
Slavic linguistics
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]