Non science majors important too

Dear Editor:

In the Nov. 18 article about overhauling outreach [“Lawmaker urges possible overhaul in outreach”], state Sen. Jackie Speier is quoted as saying, “We know that if you don’t take algebra by the time you’re in seventh grade, and you don’t take calculus by the time you’re in junior or senior year, you will not go on to the sciences … And we know that the only jobs that are going to be worth their salt are going to be jobs that are math- and science-based. If we don’t prepare our kids to take on those jobs, we will be outsourcing jobs.”

Since I came to UCSD, I’ve heard over and over again that non-math/science majors are all fluff and have no use whatsoever, and that the only reason people take those majors is because they are incapable of doing math/science. However, this is a matter of opinion with no factual foundation. First of all, I took calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology in high school and got As in every subject. However, in college, I chose to switch my major from computer engineering to political science because I was more interested in learning about law, politics and power than about 1’s, 0’s and logarithms. To anyone who may say I switched because CSE was too hard, I continued taking CSE classes for fun. (I filed for a minor to get access to the classes.)

Second, it is also untrue that if you don’t take calculus in high school that you won’t go on to the sciences. If that were true, then why do we have classes like math 10A or math 20A? If the only people who take them are science majors and people won’t become science majors unless they take calculus in high school, then no one would be taking those courses. Finally, the worst lie is that non-math/science majors can’t get jobs or that the jobs that are non-math/science-based are brainless, useless, low-paying, low-level jobs. People who are in non-math/science careers can still be “worth their salt.” For instance, our society has traditionally held lawyers equal to doctors among the most respected, highest-paid professionals. Moreover, who would run our government? We would be in total anarchy without these non-science/math jobs.

Speaking of government, I found it extremely ironic that the above quote came from a politician. Last time I checked, Speier’s job has nothing to do with math or science. Yet, she is rather well-paid, respected and has more power than most mathematicians or scientists will ever have. This ridiculous worship of science/math above all else is an ignorant blindness to reality. I don’t believe that any major is inherently easier than another. Some people are bound to be better at nonscience than science and will find nonscience courses easier. Likewise, some people are bound to be better at science than nonscience and will find science easier. Either way, every subject is important to our society. None of us would be better off having only science or only nonscience.

— Stephanie Tsao

Earl Warren College senior

Feminism has changed with times

Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to the opinion column [“From bra-burners to Britney Spears,” Nov. 18] by Robin Averbeck. I find it quite sad that a college-educated woman is so poorly informed about the history of feminism, and that she believes Britney Spears espouses contemporary feminist ideals. Feminism has reinvented itself time and again in its fight for universal suffrage, for a woman’s right to choose, for equal pay for equal work. Feminist tenets have adapted in order to be responsive to contemporary problems faced by women. It is not the anachronistic form of activism the author claims it to be.

If Averbeck had researched the history of feminism, she would have discovered that it is unlikely bra burning ever took place. In fact, it was part of an agenda of misdirection by the media to paint feminists as angry and frivolous, a notion that has sadly carried through to today, according to Averbeck. She would have also found that sexual liberation, while an integral part of the movement, was only one plank of the feminist platform. Averbeck argues that women have succeeded in becoming sexually liberated and that she herself has never felt “sexually repressed by patriarchal society.” She then contradicts herself by saying that she feels she cannot talk to a man at a party without others assuming she wants to sleep with him. This is exactly the implication of the patriarchal, sexist constructions that she argues do not exist. Feminism is so much more than sexuality. Feminists work to remedy discrimination against minorities, the disenfranchised and the economically disadvantaged.

If you would like to learn more about the current feminist movement, please attend the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance’s next meeting, Dec. 2 at 5 p.m., in the Irvine room on the second floor of Price Center.

— Sian Hillier

President,

Feminist Majority Leadersip Alliance