Letters to the Editor: More Should Have Been Done Earlier

Students interested in the BEARS referendum need to know that Title IX, a federal law requiring gender equity in athletics at universities receiving federal money, was passed in the early 1970s. That is, Title IX is more than a quarter century old and UC Berkeley is still not in compliance!

It seems that more could have been done before now to bring the university into compliance so that the burden neither falls on student fees nor pits men's athletics against women's athletics.

Jessea Greenman

UC Berkeley staff member

Donors Should Contribute, Not Promote

I am writing to toss in my two cents on the upcoming BEARS referendum. I could not help but notice the following statement in a recent edition of The Daily Californian: "Private donors have raised $20,000 to fund a campaign to publicize the referendum." ("Pending Athletic Measure Would Raise Fees," Nov. 2)

Can anyone explain to me why private funds are being used for promotion purposes rather than to help those sports programs which would be cut as a result of Title IX compliance? Granted, $20,000 probably isn't nearly enough to achieve the desired goals of the athletic department, but it should serve at least as a starting point.

Also, can Mike Weinberger, Associate Director for Budget and Finance, explain how they managed to raise $20,000 in the first place given his claim that private donors only "like to give to something that they can see their names on"? (Men's Athletic Programs Face Cuts", Nov. 2)

Like most Cal students, neither my parents nor myself are millionaires. Paying for a four-year education is difficult enough without having to think about an additional fee of $132.40 that will primarily benefit a very vocal minority. Remember also that this fee is annual, and will steadily increase so that in five years it will reach $190.40.

As it is, the university (which, last time I checked, was intended to be an academic institution) shows its preference for athletes by granting them Tele-BEARS dates well before most other students. Do we need to be reminded more of our apparent inferiority to them?

The athletic department would have more student support if it lessened the financial burden of the students by obtaining a greater amount of private funds. If that should fail, then it might be best if the department stopped buying the football players SUVs - or at least started buying them cheaper cars.

Michael Simidjian

UC Berkeley junior

Fee Proposed Astronomical

Although I'm quite impressed with the apparently successful rhetorical tactics being employed by supporters of the BEARS Referendum, I feel compelled to speak out against their claims. This referendum would pass tremendous and unnecessary costs onto the student body of UC Berkeley.

First of all, the improvements that would be funded by student fees through the referendum fall under the responsibilities of the administration of this campus. There is no justification for making students pay for Title IX athletic compliance, expansion of recreational facilities, or the maintenance and renovation of existing athletic fields.

These areas all fall under the responsibility of the athletic department and the UC administration in general. To pass these costs onto students eliminates any incentive for the campus administration to provide funding for these improvements, some of which are required by law, and all of which are necessary to a successful expansion of the campus student body. It's simply not the student body's responsibility to subsidize campus facilities beyond our already high student fees.

Secondly, and more importantly, the fee schedule proposed under the referendum is simply astronomical. According to the numbers provided on the official referendum Web site, the fees will generate more than $24 million dollars in the first five years of implementation alone (between $65 and $98 per student per semester).

Furthermore, after the third year, the fees will be permanently set at that high end figure of $98. Although the fee schedule provides a "sunset clause" for some provisions after 10 years, all of these fees will remain for at least 10 years, and could remain for as long as 40 years, according to the current stipulations of the referendum.

It's simply outrageous to ask the students of this campus to fork over tens of millions of dollars to provide facilities and services that the university should pay for in the first place. I urge all students to vote, and vote no, on this referendum.

Tony Maul

UC Berkeley senior

Take Tour For Funding Inequality

I will be voting no on the BEARS referendum. Do I not agree with gender equality in sports? Of course I do. But follow me on a tangent for a moment.

I suggest all of you reading this to go for a nice stroll through the new Haas Pavilion and admire the multi-million dollar chunk of concrete. While you're at it, go take a look at the Haas School of Business. Nice, roomy and comfortable, hmm?

Now go visit the history department, banished to the labyrinth we call Dwinelle Hall. Please note that it is not nice, roomy, nor comfortable. It's actually quite ugly.

Before the claustrophobia becomes too much for you, hike on up to Evans Hall, hub of the mathematics, economics and statistics departments. It's a lot like Dwinelle, except they managed to make it even uglier. These departments annually rank in the top five nationally, a feat the Haas school has yet to accomplish. And as for sports - well, I wouldn't categorize sports as one of Berkeley's strengths, to put it mildly.

So WHY WHY WHY are we seriously considering pumping more money into athletics when so many other departments so obviously need and deserve it so much more? Don't you think you're being cheated of an education? Don't you think this is unfair? Why should we all pay for a sexist athletic department? Since before we were born it has denied appropriate funding to women's sports; now it's time for them to see how it feels.

But, cry my opponents, what about the men's sports teams that will face budget cuts? I suggest we show them the same consideration given to departments which don't entertain the idiotic and generate revenue for our loving university: fuck 'em.

Chris Watermeier

UC Berkeley senior

UC Berkeley Will Lose Out

I was saddened to hear of the possible departure of Professor Pedro Noguera ("Diversity Forever Changed," Nov. 2). While I had no classes with him, I have heard many wonderful things about him by his old students.

Without professors like Noguera, UC Berkeley will be a stale environment in which to learn. If Noguera does decide to leave, he will presumably continue to teach and inspire students at some other academic institution. It will be Berkeley that loses out.

It is unfortunate that Pete Wilson and his political agenda have all but disappeared, and yet the damage remains.

I am proud to be a graduate of UC Berkeley, and at the same time disappointed by the actions of the UC regents that have seriously damaged the quality of education at what was once the finest public university in this country.

Jon Senour

UC Berkeley alumnus

UC Berkeley More Diverse Than Ivies

In reference to Professor Pedro Noguera's clarification ("Diversity Forever Changed," Nov. 2), I find it cynical, if not at least ironic, that he should end by saying that "we (at UC Berkeley) are becoming like so many other large universities, more concerned with money than the values that previously distinguished us among the great universities of the world."

It is precisely because of the lack of money that Cal has not been able to attract a diverse faculty that "many of the universities that Berkeley compares itself to have found ... possible to hire and retain."

An African American friend of mine recently got an assistant professorship in history at one such university on the East Coast. He has no teaching load this semester because that university gave him a one year sabbatical to finish his doctoral dissertation.

Cal doesn't have the luxury to let any of its junior faculty, be they from Mars or Venus, start his/her academic career like this. Beyond hiring a diverse junior faculty, the deep pockets of an East Coast Ivy League school, for example, make it possible, if not likely, to poach Cal's elite tenure-track faculty, to whom Noguera belongs.

Should it surprise anyone that Noguera would leave us for Harvard, the most Ivy of them all?

I wish Noguera the best of luck, but must warn him that despite its many faults, Cal remains truly much more diverse (in terms of people and ideas) than any East Coast university that can ostensibly compare itself to us.

Sophal Ear

UC Berkeley alumnus

Washington, DC

Let Him Teach

If Professor Pedro Noguera is sincere in wanting to assure the continued presence of underrepresented ethnic and economic groups in academia, he could do far better than to remain comfortably ensconced in the halls of America's top universities.

Let him come to my community, Bay Point, and teach our diverse children who, when last tested, scored in the bottom quartile of high school kids. Taking the bull by the horns will be the only lasting solution to the lack of diversity in higher education. And that means doing something concrete about K-12 education besides hand-wringing and whining from the comfort of a UC Berkeley or Harvard faculty office.

Christopher Hoffman

UC Berkeley graduate student

Columnist Puffy

Y. Peter Kang should watch what he says about fat people, because he looks a little puffy himself in that picture that accompanies his insipid column.

They say the camera adds ten pounds - I guess three cameras must have taken that portly pic.

Karen Anderson

UC Berkeley junior

Columnists Need to Make Us Laugh

Congratulations, Y. Peter Kang, you've done it again. Your recent article on obesity simply astounded me ("Corpulent Takeover," Nov. 1). It was both informative and entertaining, two qualities I never expected to see in a non-Tuesday-related Daily Californian column.

As funny as your Jewish-American Princess piece was, I far more enjoy your writing when the humor is intentional. Leave the meaninglessly-absurd stuff to Jen Price.

The Daily Cal needs someone to start making us laugh; it says something about the paper that the opinion letters on rent control have more personality than most of the columnists. So please continue writing hilarious articles, even if it means writing about urine or fat every week.

Brian Sinclair

UC Berkeley junior

Kang Enforcing Offensive Prejudice

I was disturbed by Y. Peter Kang's recent column for a number of reasons ("Corpulent Takeover," Nov. 2). The tone seemed a bit sarcastic and mocking, so I hope that I am right in concluding that his article was a joke. However, even if it was a joke, I still find it very offensive.

Jean Kilbourne says, and I agree, that " Prejudice against fat people ... is one of the few remaining prejudices that are socially acceptable." His article may have been a mockery, but one that is constructed at the expense of fat people. Would it be acceptable if his joke was at the expense of an ethnic group or a religious sect? Obviously, there would be a massive public outcry if this were the case. Kang's article reflects society's disturbing tolerance of the oppression of overweight people.

Additionally, I am highly upset by his remark about fat people over 30 being basically "as good as" dead. He supports this assertion by claiming that obesity is a leading cause of death. I, actually, have found some statistics that state otherwise. In 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that researchers have found no correlation between weight and shortened lifetime.

In general, I would have to conclude that this article was poorly researched, and that it reflected major biases in our society. I truly wish The Daily Californian would be more sensitive in publishing articles that enforce cruel stereotypes. I hope that other people will join me in refusing to tolerate the publication of such blatant prejudice.

Chloe Mead

UC Berkeley sophomore

Housing Now More Than Ever

Randy Silverman implies that many in Berkeley believe that radical Berkeley style rent control has contributed to Berkeley's housing shortage ("Rent Control Now More Than Ever," Nov. 2).

He is right. Many people including myself believe this is true. Silverman can not explain how an estimated 10,000 units have evaporated between 1980 and 1999. This loss of these rental units is a direct result of Berkeley-style rent control. The loss of one third of the rental housing stock has created the housing shortage that Silverman rants about.

The solution is to preserve the existing housing stock and build more rentals housing - not more rent control.

Claude Zamanian

Berkeley resident

City Must Help Alleviate Shortage

After reading Randy Silverman's article, "Rent Control Now More Than Ever," I must say that I was disappointed. Although I agreed with his basic philosophy that our city should provide affordable housing, I disagreed with his concept that this should be achieved through rent control.

My personal opinion is that "affordable" housing should be the right of any productive citizen. The responsibility to provide "affordable" housing, however, is not the responsibility of private landlords, it is the responsibility of the community through its elected government.

If the community wants "affordable" housing for citizens of all socioeconomic backgrounds, it should direct its elected officials to make it happen through the appropriate expenditure of the communities tax dollars. Rent control wrongly and unjustly puts this ethical and monetary burden on a select few individuals in the community - the landlords.

Landlords, for the most part, are not villains. They are citizens who, like most other citizens, are trying to take care of their families and themselves. Don't forget that landlords are just as much at the mercy of the market as tenants.

If there is to be "affordable" housing for all in Berkeley, the City of Berkeley must make it happen. The City of Berkeley must build, maintain, and manage housing for the citizens who can not afford what the market is allowing the private landlords to charge for rent. The question is, however, do the citizens, who make the City of Berkeley, want to pay for this?

Silverman needs to ask all the citizens of Berkeley these questions. He should not be looking into the wallets of a select group of private individuals to solve an issue that is the responsibility of the community.

Silverman's emotional argument does have merit from a humanistic stand point but the "real world," unfortunately, doesn't really care. The City of Berkeley exist in the "real world." In this "real world" people live four to a room on Ashby and San Pablo while others look over their portfolios in the comfort of their studies on Walnut and Eunice. This is the fault of the citizens of Berkeley, not the landlords of Berkeley.

Until the citizens as a whole decide to take the appropriate moral and fiscal action, and not just assuage their guilt and/or anger by punishing a few, the housing picture will remain bleak.

Jason Mathis

UC Berkeley graduate student

Tags: