Letters to the Editor



Campus Times
May 7, 2004

Dear Editor,

Though the cacophony of complaints about everything from the cost of the meals at Davenport to the cost of Scantron forms is more or less constant on any campus, it reaches a higher level as students get closer to graduation. They complain about the cost of the ceremony and diploma processing, lack of enough tickets for their family, loans to repay.

Here’s a flash:

You don’t pay the price for success. You enjoy the price of success. You pay the price for failure. As a college graduate, your income and success will dwarf that of your friends who did not take that route. Believe me, the cost of graduation is very small in comparison with what is being lost by those who did not choose the kind of success ladder our students have. Our students will go on to careers of their choosing, with opportunities limited by only their own initiative and choices. This is a great time to live in America. Fifty percent of the jobs our graduates will get have not even been invented yet. But they will have those choices because they invested in their education, they invested in their success. Congratulations, graduates!

Janis Dietz
Professor of Business Administration

 

Dear Editor,

In response to the letter to the editor by Dan Ross [April 23] regarding the new MEChA chapter, we would like to clarify what “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán” is and reiterate the goals and values of MEChA at ULV. Mr. Ross may be a victim of misinformation circulating on the Internet. For the past few months, for example, UCLA’s Bruin Republicans have been attacking UCLA’s MEChA chapter, including comparing “El Plan” to Hitler’s 25 points and superimposing a swastika on MEChA’s symbol. The motivation for these attacks appears to be Republican Party attempts to undermine the political future of progressive Chicana/o politicians. During the recall campaign, for example, Cruz Bustamante was called upon to renounce his affiliation with MEChA as a student in the 1970s.

“El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” was written during a decade of rapid social change when different groups, Chicanas/os among them, were fighting for their civil rights. The document reflected anger toward a society that had oppressed Chicanas/os for over a century and on land that their ancestors had worked for centuries. “El Plan de Aztlán” reflected the times as all documents do. The Constitution of the United States states that “all men are created equal.” This meant literally white men with property. Should we renounce the Constitution as a racist, sexist and classiest document? Should we renounce the U.S. government as racist for enslaving black people and defining them as 3/5 human, carrying out a policy of genocide against Native Americans, denying citizenship to people on the basis of their skin color, and placing citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps while their children suffered untold casualties in combat during WWII? The country has changed and so has MEChA.

We would like to refer readers to “El Plan de Santa Barbara,” the founding document of MEChA, written a month after “El Plan de Aztlan,” which declares the need for, among other things, a student union collectively known as MEChA. “La unión hace la fuerza” (Unity Creates Power”) is MEChA’s motto. “El Plan de Aztlan” is not our constitution. Readers interested in reading MEChA’s constitution can find it on the same Web site cited by Mr. Ross. As a chapter, we are committed to the struggle against racism. We have a long way to go before the United States achieves social justice for people of color, women, gays/lesbians and other groups. We support diversity and invite anyone committed to these goals to join MEChA.

When “El Plan” talks about the return of the Southwest, also known as Aztlán, it is not a literal takeover. What it means is that as Chicana/os, we should empower our community. It is a spiritual liberation. This liberation includes getting an education so that the voice of our community can be heard. MEChA de La Verne is committed to bringing political awareness to our campus, being involved in our community, and helping Chicana/o youth achieve higher education. Racial cleansing, I assure you, is not one of our objectives.

If anyone has questions regarding the founding documents or the organization, please feel free to contact me at guillenc@ulv.edu or ulvmecha@yahoogroups.com.

Carolina Guillén
Sophomore
Co-Chair, MEChA

 

Dear Editor,

Another week, another letter.

This time, it is due to a new level of apathy on the La Verne campus. One which concerns me much more than the political or ASF apathy I have written about in previous letters. It comes from people we pay good money to make decisions for us. That’s right, our administration.

As some of you may know, the Lordsburg Debate Union held a public debate this past week on whether the ULV campus should become a wet campus. This was an issue that was brought up by the ULV Board of Trustees in a recent meeting, and the voting was split, 6-6. The debate brought up some very compelling arguments on both sides of the table. However, no member of the administration, Board of Trustees or even the faculty was present to see the debate.

It makes me wonder how much the administration really cares about its students. If I was a member of the Board of Trustees at a school which had just split a vote 6-6 on any policy change at the school, and a student club held a public debate on the topic, I would be the first person in that auditorium to hear the thoughts and opinions of the people who are directly affected by the decisions I make. I would probably even stay after to further discuss the issue with those in attendance to get a better feel for how everyone felt.

When the administration and Board of Trustees don’t make any effort to show that they care for the students they are supposedly looking out for, it really discourages me. I would challenge President Morgan, the dean of student affairs and all of the members of the Board of Trustees for our school to explain why not only could they not attend the debate, but not at the very least send a representative or some form of communication to inform not only the LDU but all of the attendees of the public debate as to why they couldn’t be in attendance.

I was always told that actions speak louder than words. To the administration and Board of Trustees at the University of La Verne – your actions have been noted.

Jacob Leveton
Junior

 

Dear Editor,

There was an exciting open forum sponsored by the debate team Lordsburg Debate Union. As a student and fellow debater, I respect all of them and their opinions, and I think they rock. I write a little better than I speak, and I don’t really speak so well. For those who do not support an open-wet campus, I don’t even have to bring up religion and/or morality to say that I would not advocate ULV becoming a wet campus. Surely, everyone can drink all they want, and I won’t stop them. I don’t drink myself, and on rare occasions when I do, only in moderation (as you would say). And I can’t deny that alcoholic drinks are stimulating and are holistically beneficial. My only issue is that alcohol is another perfect example of instant gratification, where self-control is ignored, self-abuse is subconscious and self-destruction is inevitable. Not only is it sad that people feel that to have fun they must drink to a painful point, but for association, friendship, and comradeship – that we can only hang out, be friends or get to know each other – all in solidarity, at a bar and drink to inebriation (this is not directed to my debate friends, too). Lastly, it was overwhelming and impressive to see my friends and the audience at the open forum coming together for a cause. There were some very good points brought up, such as if all students are motivated by this cause then it is greater than school pride, brings people from all cultures together, it’s a persons choice to drink, and may generate revenue for the University. Not only would this affect students’ performances as the opposition said, and assume that American students can handle this delicate balance of drinking and academics, but this would only benefit drinkers. If students would put this kind of support into something more constructive, not destructive (to their bodies), then incredible things could happen around La Verne, such as helping communities, lowering textbook prices or building a new campus center or any of that sort. Until then, think before you drink and drinking responsibly so that you will enjoy the moment and those moments after. Cheers.

Rich Uranga
Senior

 

Dear Editor,

I want to thank Valerie Rojas and the Campus Times staff for a wonderfully informative and sensitive article alerting our campus community to some of the issues surrounding the risk of suicide on college campuses [“Suicide is second in college deaths,” April 23].

We at the Counseling Center appreciate being consulted about this important topic, and we were grateful to have the opportunity to share about the counseling services we offer to students at ULV.

I just wanted to clarify the days and times that the ULV Counseling Center is open. During the academic year, we are open Mondays through Thursdays, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Some nighttime appointments are available on a limited basis. We are closed during the summer. If students would like to make an appointment or consult about a friend, they may call ext. 4831 during office hours or ext. 4650 after hours in the event of an emergency.

Thank you in advance for printing this minor correction regarding our office hours. Again, we appreciate the chance to identify ourselves as an important resource to ULV students.

Dr. Kirstyn Chun
Postdoctoral Fellow, ULV Counseling Center

 

Dear Editor,

It offends me to hear the onslaught of one-sided accusations and poorly covered prejudices that have filled our television sets, newspapers, and society in general lately. We are now subject to a politically correct swarm of people claiming to support homosexuality as it emerges from inside of our fellow humans, claiming not to have a problem with homosexual relationships, claiming all of this so long as these poor creatures do not attempt to creep into that holy, heterosexual, house that we call marriage.

And on what ground do the guardians of this institution make their stand?

That somehow the sanctity of the most ancient and revered relationship will be destroyed when it is made open to couples who share the same sex. I have one word to say to that. Unfortunately it can’t be printed in this newspaper.

The only way that this institution’s sanctity could be broken is if this institution were indeed still sanctified. Apparently, some people have not noticed that marriage is a thing now taken so lightly, that the value of a wedding ring can be measured by nothing but the karats it is composed of.

What is the most fundamental tenant of a marriage I ask you? Until death due us part. Ring a bell? Probably not, considering (according to the census bureau) that over half of marriages nowadays end not in death, but divorce. It would seem to me that divorce is a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals. Yet, there is no great public outcry when Britney Spears gets married and divorced the exact same day. And,

I sincerely doubt anyone will try to stop her when she tries to get married again.

Marriage has fallen. And it was not the Rainbow Alliance that conquered it, but the army of ex’s comprised of heterosexual soldiers.

They have selfishly and uncaringly destroyed the very institution that they were once connected under. Allowing homosexuals to marry could do nothing but reestablish marriage to its former glory. Think about it, to stay committed to your partner despite societies bashing of your relationship shows a determination unnecessary in a “normal” couple. Add to this the perseverance of a pair who has managed to stay true to one another even without enjoying a title of “married” and you have two people whoa re actually more likely to pass the test of time and remain together until death do them part.

So where does this opposition to homosexual marriage come from. Some people actually have the conviction to say it. Homophobia.

But most of these bigots try and sugarcoat their feelings by saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in it of itself. And, it is safe to say that the only reason they give in this far is because they realize they can do nothing to stop or change this characteristic, as it shows up more and more in our society. Looking at the situation honestly though you can see that the only character flaw present is that of hatred. The hatred and fear that some people harbor towards fellow members of our human race.

Unfortunately, like any flaw until it is admitted it cannot be cured. The need to be politically correct is going to do nothing for our homophobic companions but force them to internalize their feelings and allow them to fester. In the end, these people will die spiteful, shallow and ignorant, never having given themselves a chance at a cure.

But perhaps my claims are far fetched. Maybe the bigots aren’t the sick ones. Let’s not allow for same sex couples to get married. But, while we’re at it, for marriage's sake, can we please stop allowing the superior race to soil itself by marrying down to an inferior species? … Maybe my accusations of bigotry are not so far from the mark.

Josh Martin
Sophomore