• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Christina Paganini’s submission “Segregation practices permeate campus,” (Viewpoint, Sept. 21) was written in pure ignorance. As an Academic Advancement Program tutor and supervisor, I feel it my responsibility to enlighten you.

I have tutored for the Freshmen Summer Program, the Transfer Summer Program and the Summer Readmission and Retention Program, so I have literally seen students come, go, and come back. I can say from my experiences that Paganini’s characterization of comprehensive review as a device that allows “students that may not be academically ready to set foot on the UCLA campus a chance of being accepted” is ridiculous.

UCLA has one of the most strenuous admissions processes in the world and those who are admitted to this school are more than qualified to excel here. Those students who leave or are dismissed are usually put in that situation because of outside circumstances – not because they are not academically ready.

Paganini’s claim that FSP and comprehensive review “encourage separation through their general practices” is also erroneous. The Freshman and Transfer Summer programs are some of the most inclusive and welcoming experiences that a UCLA student can have. As a former FSP student and tutor, I can say that without this program many of the students who are admitted to UCLA would never feel welcome here. In fact, as opposed to Paganini’s characterization, FSP and TSP encourage students to be involved in every aspect of the campus.

Paganini’s definition of AAP is probably the most flawed element of her submission. She defines the students that AAP serves first as “mainly” minority students, then as at-risk students. Then she claims that “these students receive benefits that other students are otherwise denied based on their family background.” Finally, she makes the laughable claim that the university “undoubtedly encourages separation among the ethnicities.” There is so much to say here that I don’t know where to start.

She contradicts herself by first arguing that some students receive benefits that others don’t based on family background, but then openly admitting that others students can apply and are admitted to AAP. So which is it, is AAP exclusive to “minority” or “at-risk students” or can anyone apply?

This whole claim that programs like AAP encourage separation among ethnicities is completely wrong. AAP is a program that consists of black, white, Asian, Latino, transfer, returning, foreign and every other type of student that UCLA admits. The only people who feel uncomfortable about our program are the ones who feel uncomfortable around the supposed minority, at-risk students that Paganini claims we are.

There are two more ignorant comments Paganini made that I want to comment on. The first is that many student groups “promote radicalism approaching the level of hate activity.” As far as I’m concerned, student organizations on campus only promote four things. First, they want to ensure that we minority, at-risk students graduate in 4-6 years. Second, they fight to promote a campus that reflects the population of California. Third, they work to improve the morale of minority, at-risk students. Finally, they work within the political system to fight laws that they feel hurt minority, at-risk students. Notice that the only hateful thing about those goals was Paganini’s characterization of us as minority, at-risk students.

Finally, Paganini’s idealization of Proposition 54 as a law that “would help to eliminate segregation on campus by cutting out the questions on university paperwork that affect our way of thinking about race” demonstrates that she is either extremely unaware about the society she lives in or that she is deviously malicious.

We as UCLA students no longer live in a world where we can talk about the end of affirmative action in the theoretical. The unrelenting truth is that the real end of affirmative action drastically harmed minority, at-risk students. The biggest condemnation of Proposition 209 is the statistical data that proves beyond of a shadow of a doubt that 209 had a tremendously detrimental effect on the number of students of color attending UCLA. Proposition 54 was written to eliminate the statistical data and thereby destroy the strongest argument against Proposition 209.

The next time Paganini decides to write an article about AAP or student groups or ballot initiatives she should either find out more about the topic or be more forthright about her intentions.

Turner is a Class of 2003 UCLA alumnus.