Ability matters, not race
I disagree with David Dahle’s reasoning in his Nov. 14
submission, “RPI goes too far in name of equality.”
The RPI will eliminate the collection of racial data for state
programs, and yes, this will hurt programs like Dahle’s UC
Outreach and UCLA’s top priority: “Diversity.”
But the RPI represents an ideal which most people want: a
color-blind society.
Race is not the most important thing when evaluating a person;
it is their abilities that we should care about. Ability is what
should be desired at universities and workplaces. Racism is only
fermented by the current system that puts race in the foreground.
Thinking that we need to give minorities a crutch through
“outreach” is only making things worse.
We forget how much we have in common. We are all members of the
human race and are all given the same abilities of reasoning to act
upon. I’d be embarrassed if someone thought I needed special
attention because I was a minority. I’d want to be judged by
what I can do, not by the color of my skin.
Discrimination would not exist if we could see our brothers and
sisters as humans and not as ethnicities. All we would have to
judge people on would be their ability. When it comes to
universities and workplaces, what else matters?
Joseph Groff Second-year, history
U.N. can’t achieve peace with army
While reading the Daily Bruin Editorial Board’s suggestion
that the United Nations be given its own army (“United
Nations should be less reliant on U.S.,” Nov. 13), I was
reminded of Jar Jar Bink’s tragically comic proposal in Star
Wars, Episode II granting similar powers to the Federation. That
proposal led to the rise of the Empire and the apparent triumph of
the Dark Side.
This fictional scenario has realistic roots. Never in the
history of mankind has there been anything to suggest a standing
army without national allegiance would bring anything other than
death and destruction. Also, such an army is impractical. It is
doubtful that a U.N. army would be able to establish a home base,
since no country would willingly open its borders to a foreign
force.
The Editorial Board asserted that an independent, standing army
would temper U.N. reliance on the United States. However, financing
for the project would likely come from the United States and its
closest allies, perpetuating that reliance. Consequently, creation
of a standing U.N. army is an impractical and potentially dangerous
idea.
Jeffrey Turk UCLA law student
Army contradicts U.N.’s peacekeeping
purpose
In response to the Nov. 13 editorial, “United Nations
should be less reliant on U.S.,” applying the use of military
force to an organization that is responsible for maintaining world
peace strikes me as a contradiction.
The international community as a whole abhors war and violence.
If the United Nations ever did construct a standing army, the
United Nations would be reaching out to the very instruments it
condemns. Such an opinion is reactionary and utopian.
Jorge Magdaleno Fourth-year, political
science