Dear Editor,

As a huge fan of Rosa Parks, I was glad to see Yelena Ovcharenko’s column on her last week [“A hero shares the recipe for justice,” Oct. 28]. Rosa Parks deserved to lie in state in the Capital Rotunda. The only thing I want to point out is that it trivializes the true hero Rosa Parks was to compare her actions to “standing up to Bush.” Sure, you should vote your conscience and use your voice. But none of us, at least on this campus, have ever had to withstand the kind of discrimination that blacks did on our shores for hundreds of years. And because of people like Rosa Parks, our country is a better place. Thank you, Yelena, for writing.

Janis Dietz
Professor of Business Administration

Dear Editor,

I look to the school newspaper to provide unbiased reporting to the student body of the University. Since most of us don’t go pick up the L.A. Times or the Tribune on a regular basis, the school newspaper is to a large part our only source of information. I question then why the propositional opinion article provided in the Nov. 4 issue of the Campus Times [“Which props. deserve to get props?”] was so politically one-sided. Looking at the endorsements of the two major political parties in this state, the Times stance on the issues is exactly that of the Democratic Party and the exact opposite of the Republican Party. The article did not provide the opposing argument to try to let the students decide for themselves, but simply told the students how to vote. The opinion was not even one that was respectful of the opposing side. With phrases like “steaming pile of poo” and “something smells fishy,” the entire “cheat see…er…guide” is completely condescending and has a tone of arrogance and plain anger. One key way to see this rather quickly is the large “cartoon” that is placed right in the middle of the sheet. Not even the L.A. Times, widely known as highly liberal to most people, supports propositions 74, 75 and 77. Those are three out of the four of Arnold’s own special propositions. In addition the L.A. Times opposes both propositions 79 and 80. Out of eight propositions on the ballot, the Campus Times differs from the L.A. Times five times. I do not know exactly where the Campus Times got their opinion (oh wait, it’s www.caldem.org, the California Democratic Web site), but the main problem that I have with it is its factual inaccuracy, incomplete reporting, and one-sided opinion. It does not let the students make up their own minds about the propositions. But then again according to the article, “we think this is the way all Californians should vote.” Now I am a Republican. I support Arnold most of the time. I support his propositions. However, that is not why I am mad with the Campus Times. The reason is because the Times is not being fair to its readers by only giving half of the story. I would hope that journalists on the school newspaper uphold their integrity to be unbiased, provide the complete story based on factual information and help the students make their own informed decision.

Alex Braden
Freshman