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

Court deals blow to civil rights In “High court takes a bite out of Civil Rights Act” (Daily Bruin, News, April 26), I was quoted as saying, “It’s a really bad time to be a minority in the states right now. It’s horrible – it’s a really unfortunate ruling.” This quote appears to be a combination of statements made by another law student (whose name was left out of the article), and my own. The statement appears easy to misinterpret in the context it was presented. I would like to clarify what was actually said and what was actually intended. While I disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, I would not dare to call it “horrible” before having actually read the opinion of the Court, so I disagree with the characterization of my remarks. I do feel the ruling – which states that no cause of action exists for challenges to policies with a disparate impact on racial groups – is unfortunate because institutional racism and sexism are not open and obvious anymore. I doubt one could find a recent, blatant example of a state passing a law or a local ordinance specifically targeting women or minorities. Laws and policies that have a disparate impact on particular communities, however, are widespread. As for the comment that it is a difficult time to be a minority in the states, the intention was not to say that the U.S. Supreme Court is part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the rights of minorities, but that, in addition to the rolling back of affirmative action, the tacit approval of racial profiling in our society and other such policies, it does not help. I have a lot of opportunities that, as a person of color, would not have existed for me if it were not for the Civil Rights movement. It is not true, however, that the Civil Rights Act, in part or as a whole, is now obsolete because people of color have more opportunities than in the past. If one begins to think critically about race, it is obvious that many individuals and groups are shut out from the opportunities that many of us who are here at this university enjoy. This is directly a result of policies and laws that disparately impact certain communities. That is why I feel that the recent ruling is unfortunate, and I worry about its consequences.

Nisha Vyas First-year UCLA Law

‘Nonscience’ students need to have science I am wondering whether I was the only reader who found it ironic that, after reading the front-page story regarding the debate over how many science GE courses should be required of UCLA students (“UCLA may lower GE requirement, Daily Bruin, News, April 25), the next page displayed an article with the headline “Americans still don’t know much about science.” The problem set forth in this second article – which reports that many Americans still haven’t realized that the earth revolves around the sun – can be blamed in part by the common attitude of David Rodes, the Director of the General Education Governance Committee: “nonscience” students should only be expected to handle a certain small degree of science. While it’s quite obvious that some people are much more inclined to understand and enjoy 19th-century British literature than other people who may embrace differential calculus, I feel that this dichotomy between the so-called “nonscience” and “science” people of this world has gone a bit far. It is this dichotomy that has led to the current sad state of affairs, in which many Americans believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted – just like on “The Flintstones.” If people have a mental block, believing that they are incapable of understanding and remembering anything to do with science, then of course the subject is going to be difficult for them. And the fact that the question has arisen regarding how much “nonscience” students should be forced to study in science GE courses demonstrates that UCLA is not necessarily working to fix this problem. I am a science student, but this does not excuse me from “nonscience” activities. I know who Shakespeare is (and have actually read some of his works). I do try to keep my checkbook balanced. And I have enjoyed studying art ranging from impressionism to modernism. My point here is not to start another war between north campus and south campus. I just want to emphasize that if UCLA does decide to lower GE requirements, it should be with the intention of helping stressed students get out of college in less than six years. It should not stem from the false belief that north campus students cannot understand science and, therefore, should not be encouraged to study it. If science students are capable of enjoying Mozart or Chaucer, nonscience majors can be expected to at least have a vague appreciation for the works of Newton and Galileo.

Jessica Langenhan Fourth-year Physiological science