Harvard University students won a victory for low-income workers everywhere two weeks ago at the end of a three-week sit-in aiming to draw attention to the plight of Harvard employees not earning a living wage.

As a result of the demands of students, labor unions and politicians, all Harvard workers will earn a minimum of $10.25 an hour, bringing their pay on par with the minimum wage of people employed in the city of Cambridge, Mass., that surrounds the campus.

The Harvard situation should serve as an example to university administrative bodies everywhere. The Harvard administration was uncharacteristically broadminded in its recognition that the federal minimum wage is no wage at all for those trying to feed and house themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, it seems that Harvard's nod to the importance of people over corner-cutting cannot be hoped for from every university administration.

There is no better example to illustrate this than the struggle of UCSD students and staff to obtain a living wage for workers on campus. Three weeks ago, the work of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicana/o de Aztlan and Justice for Janitors toward this goal was brought to the forefront of everyone's attention, following a wildly successful May Day concert featuring Ozomatli and a march of protest.

UCSD students are protesting precisely the injustices that caused Harvard students to commandeer Harvard's Massachusetts Hall for the better part of a month. No person in his right mind will acknowledge that a wage of just over $6 per hour is enough with which to support a family. However, it seems that no person in the administration is willing to fight for the changes that would rectify this situation.

It should be obvious to most that the University of California's bureaucratic administration does not put the well-being of its workers at the top of its priorities list. Take just a moment to look around campus at the new construction sites, and you'll quickly realize that the thought of garnering money for donations is responsible for the glimmer in the eyes of our administrators, in strict contrast to those who, with heads bowed, carry minds racked by the turmoil caused by viewing social injustices take place.

It is certainly reasonable to expect that the university should concern itself chiefly with its mission of teaching and research. But when these things are accomplished at the expense of others, they are worth nothing.

As the University of California is a public school system, it is also said that the system cannot expect to have enough money at its disposal to fund everything as fully as it would like. I respectfully beg to differ. On one occasion, I have heard of a professor at another UC campus earning over $170,000 per year. This is not the salary of a Nobel laureate or an administrator -- it is merely that of a professor above scale, one of the higher rankings in the UC professor hierarchy. Where is this money coming from?

I can guarantee you that UC President Richard Atkinson is not taking a pay cut to fund the high salaries of some professors. Likewise, he would think it insane to take a pay cut to raise the salaries of the people who clean his office. However, maybe he should.

The janitors and service workers on our campus are some of the hardest workers here - and they probably work a lot harder than your suitemate, whose Palm Springs parents will be providing for him despite his failing three classes last quarter.

I can speak from personal observation. I work in an office on campus where I have known the pleasure of meeting Antonio, a janitor employed by UCSD. Every morning at 8:15, he comes in to straighten our offices. He is one of the nicest people I have met here, and one of the hardest working as well. After working half the day at UCSD, he leaves to tend an elementary school campus until 10 p.m. He works on Saturdays as well.

I'm sorry, Mr. Dynes, but when there are people like Antonio in the world, I'm not very impressed that you sit at a desk for eight hours and go to Jacobs School of Engineering fund-raisers and awards ceremonies in the evenings.

The money to correct the poverty wages on this campus can only be handed over by those who currently control it. UCSD does not have a $9 billion endowment as Harvard has, but there is money here, and a lot of it. It would be refreshing to the point of shock if our administration were to follow the example of a finer academic institution and raise the pay of our workers to a living wage.

The Guardian would like to praise the A.S. Council for its role in putting on Friday's Sun God Festival. Not only was the concert a huge success, the day as a whole was full of entertainment and excitement for everyone at UCSD.

For the first time all year, the campus joined together and participated in events that were enjoyable for everyone. With that said, the Guardian feels that the A.S. Council should make the days of FallFest and WinterFest similar to that of Sun God to promote student life on the campus on two other occasions during the year.

Now that the A.S. budget calls for increased funding for FallFest and WinterFest, the Guardian feels that the A.S. Council should spend a portion of this money on hiring outside entertainment vendors, such as the owners of the rubber boxing gloves and the jousting arena.

In addition, the advent of these games would make it appropriate for student organizations to set up their own booths for selling food, drinks and other services.

The Guardian recommends making FallFest and WinterFest all-day events because everyone involved stands to benefit. Students would have two more days during the year to experience the excitement and the energy that Sun God brings. Student organizations would benefit monetarily because they would be able to sell food to the general public, while at the same time being able to inform the student body about what their group does. Also, the administration would prosper knowing it would have two more ways to market the school to prospective students.

Although many students do not enjoy the music played during Sun God concerts, at the very least, most students would appreciate the chance to buy better, authentic, home-made food on campus.

As with Sun God, the students of UCSD would look forward to both FallFest and WinterFest all year long. Although implementing these events might require hiring additional security, a portion of the extra money allocated by A.S. President Jeff Dodge in the 2001-2002 budget could be used for this purpose. The extra $1,000 that it would cost to make WinterFest and FallFest full-day events would not dramatically change the quality of the acts that the A.S. festivals committee would get. It would, however, dramatically change the quality of each day as a whole.

Our government takes on many roles: provider for the poor, supporter of business, dispenser of justice and member of the world's community. These roles can be contradictory at times, but they all aim to serve the nation's needs in a just manner by balancing the desires of competing groups and protecting our constitutional and human rights.

In recent years, another role has been attributed to the government: monitor of morals. In a movement that transcends partisan differences, Democrats such as Tipper Gore and Sen. Joseph Lieberman and a wide range of Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, assert that it is the government's responsibility to limit the access that minors have to ""indecent and/or obscene materials.""

Indeed, 1998's Child Online Protection Act, passed by a Republican House and signed into law by former President Clinton, states that ""the protection of the physical and psychological well-being of minors by shielding them from materials that are harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest.""

However, COPA was blocked by a federal appeals court in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Citing the measure's unconstitutionality, the court issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the bill, which calls for up to a $150,000 fine and six months imprisonment for anyone who offers material ""harmful to minors"" without making sure that only adults have access to the product in question.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case; the court has agreed and will issue a ruling in October.

A lot is at stake in the court's consideration, and while the outcome is far from assured in light of recent accusations that the court is increasingly responding to partisan influences, the correct course of action is clear. COPA is unconstitutional, much like the Communications Decency Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court the year before.

Furthermore, COPA is clearly motivated by the determination of individuals to assert their morality on the rest of our country rather than a desire to ""shield"" minors.

The ACLU's challenge of COPA in 1998 was straightforward: It asserted that the measure would not merely prevent minors from viewing objectionable material, but would also infringe upon the right of adults to view these constitutionally protected images, articles and recordings.

COPA would monitor Web sites with sexual content, for example, by providing a credit card number or an adult access code such as AdultCheck (which requires a credit card number to secure). This would prevent adults without credit cards from accessing sexually explicit material on the Internet -- a disappointment to countless college students.

Additionally, the high cost of securing such a security service, which according to ACLU, can range from $300 to more than $1000, could drive many smaller providers out of business and thus further limit the material's availability to adults.

These effects amount to an unconstitutional limitation of what adults can view. It also reveals the bill's supporters' true intent: to diminish the profitability and prevalence of online pornography vendors. They would use the government to further their vision of a moral society -- a use not entitled to the government if the means to that end infringe upon the Bill of Rights.

COPA is also overly broad in its definition of material that is ""harmful to minors."" It extends the definition from material that is ""obscene"" to anything that portrays ""an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act ... a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast"" or anything that ""lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.""

For legislators to attempt to determine what sex acts are ""normal"" or ""perverted"" is clearly out of line. This leeway further reveals the true nature of their attempt to police the morals of the country.

Further, what is ""lewd"" to one may be in perfect taste to another. There are some who object to pictures of Michaelangelo's ""David"" being exposed to children. COPA purports to account for this by asserting that the standards used to judge material should be those of ""the average person"" or the ""contemporary community.""

However, because of the nature of the Web, what would in the end prevail are the standards of the most conservative community with Internet access. It is easy to imagine an organization that views information about safe sex as ""patently offensive"" (in the bill's language) as one that would require an adult check on Planned Parenthood sites, although this information is indispensable to minors who are or are not sexually active.

The fact that the Internet transcends geographical borders also points to another of the bill's weaknesses: It is completely ineffective in ""protecting"" children from sexually explicit material because it has no jurisdiction over Web sites based outside the United States.

Pornographers can easily set up shop in Canada, France or Singapore and create Web sites with myriad portrayals of sex acts that would make the most lascivious of libertines blush -- and there is nothing our government can do about it.

Furthermore, if a credit card is all that is required to access these naughty Web sites, there is little to stop a prurient-minded 13-year-old from snatching Mom's Amex from her purse when she is not paying attention and copying the number into his Trapper Keeper.

COPA is not only unconstitutional, it's ineffective, and the Supreme Court should do its duty to uphold the constitution and strike down this act once and for all in October.

Of course, underlying this issue is the question of what exactly is ""harmful to minors."" The legislators who drafted COPA think they know, but the ACLU pointed out that what is harmful to a 5-year-old may not be to an older minor. However, the whole idea that sexual images and descriptions are actually psychologically damaging to children reveals America's inescapable sexual Puritanism.

Unquestionably, there are some disturbing materials on the Web, television, the evening news, in the movies, and in the New York Times, but is looking at Playboy.com going to scar little Johnny for life? It is a possibility, but the advisory board for the drafting of COPA did not include developmental psychologists to tell us exactly how sex ""harms"" America's children.

What is truly harmful to our nation is the idea that the government is responsible for parenting our children and policing our thoughts and desires. The industry has developed software such as NetNanny, which blocks sexually explicit material without infringing on the constitutional right of adults to peruse sexual material on the Internet.

Pornography may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the government quite clearly has no right to impose itself as a moral regulator.

Editor:

At least one person in four will contract a sexually transmitted infection at some point in his life.

Eighty percent of women and 40 percent of men infected with chlamydia have no symptoms.

Without contraception, the average woman would become pregnant more than 12 times in her life.

Over 3 million unintended pregnancies occur in the United States every year.

Worldwide, a woman dies from pregnancy-related causes every minute.

Should you care? If you or anyone that you care about is sexually active, then you'd better care.

Since 1995, the U.S. Congress has voted 116 times to restrict access to family planning, sex education and the right to choose. If you have ever gone to a family planning clinic such as Planned Parenthood for prenatal care, gynecological exams, birth control, emergency contraception or testing for sexually transmitted infections, then you, along with the vast majority of Americans, know how important reproductive health care can be. Yet politicians seem to be increasingly determined to deny us access to these services.

VOX is a new UCSD student organization dedicated to speaking out for reproductive freedom. VOX is Latin for ""voice,"" and we're here to make our voices heard on campus and in the Capitol. We are endorsed by Planned Parenthood, and we want to help students learn about reproductive rights so that all of us have the training and opportunities we need to make our voices heard by legislators.

All people have the right to manage their own fertility. We are a pro-choice group that firmly believes that access to family planning services, responsible sexuality education and preventive health care reduces the numbers of unintended pregnancies and abortions. We want access to reproductive health care and education to be available to everyone.

Legislators make decisions that affect choices every day. It's time to remind our legislators that they work for us -- their job is to cast a vote that reflects what their communities want. They can't do that unless they hear from us.

That's where VOX comes in. We want our voices at UCSD to be heard. Together, we can let our legislators know what we expect from them. We can get the facts and use them to affect policies involving reproductive health and rights in our community, in our state, and in our nation.

Do you care yet?

On May 9, 10 VOX members traveled to Sacramento to lobby our state senators and Assembly men. Another trip is currently in the works. We are taking the power into our own hands and helping to protect reproductive health rights and family planning.

Join our efforts! If you want to learn more about VOX and upcoming opportunities to affect reproductive rights, come out and meet us May 22-24 on Library Walk. Whether you're looking for information or want to get involved, we'll be there with the facts.

Speak up. Use your voice. You may just find it's the most powerful tool that you have.

For more information about VOX, please contact Robert Ashley at (619) 683-7545 Ext. 184, or email [email protected].

-- VOX

Global warming is one of the most serious environmental threats to our way of life. That may seem a bit extreme, but it is true. Global warming is serious because we now have evidence that it has far-reaching consequences.

Last month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found links between human activity, levels of greenhouse gases and global climate changes.

Like it or not, global warming is good science and based on facts. The IPCC report has solid and incontrovertible evidence that human activity is affecting the global climate. Just how much the climate will change and how long it will take is still being researched and debated.

Any serious change in global temperatures will have disastrous repercussions. IPCC analysis indicates that temperature increases will cause increased flooding along the West Coast, the Eastern seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. There is already evidence, according to the IPCC, that average sea levels have increased by 0.1 to 0.2 meters.

Also, evidence from satellites has shown that air temperatures in the lower 8 kilometers of the atmosphere have increased, as well as overall global surface temperatures. If this trend continues, the ecological impact can be disastrous. Marine life is especially sensitive to changes in water temperature, and changes to the natural habitats across large areas of water can drive a species to extinction. Our very own Scripps Institution of Oceanography has found connections between human activity and increases in ocean temperature.

Last month, President George W. Bush signaled that he would not regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and that the administration would not support the Kyoto Treaty. This signaled a storm of criticism from abroad, particularly from the European Union. It is embarrassing, if not disgraceful, that we as the American people comprise 4 percent of the world's population, yet we contribute 25 percent of the pollution. It is irresponsible if the administration, and of us as a nation to decline to take part and find a solution to a global problem. The most recent reports on the Bush administration's energy policy do not offer any reasonable plan for taking on global warming or solving the current energy crisis. Instead, the Bush plan promises to be a windfall for coal, oil and nuclear energy companies. They are the very industries that contributed heavily to Bush's campaign.

The Kyoto Treaty has its faults, but they could have been, and should have been, worked out in good faith. Bush's argument that carbon dioxide regulation is harmful to our economy is also shortsighted. The economic costs of pollution and global warming are much higher and longer-lasting then the short term costs of reforming and refitting our energy policy. In addition, there is serious economic profit in properly developing and implementing clean energies.

There are workable solutions. The environmental mantra, ""Think globally, act locally,"" could not be more true. In addition to being the worst world polluter, the United States is also among the least efficient with the available resources. Vice President Dick Cheney may think that conservation is nothing more then a personal virtue. However, simple changes in how we use energy can have a great effect; not only in cost but in pollution as well.

It is a lesson that we in California learned the hard way. Keeping unneeded lights off and leaving the thermostat off at night will decrease the power needed and lower electricity bills. Replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones will be even better. Transportation is another source of pollution. Carpooling and using public transportation will not only decrease pollution, but lower traffic and commuter times as well.

The greatest opportunities we have to alleviate global warming are the development of alternative energy sources. This week, progressive groups at UCSD, including the College Democrats at UCSD, Che Cafe and CalPIRG, will be hosting a progressive issues fair to highlight issues ignored and discarded by the current administration.

The on-campus environmental community will take steps to provide students with examples of some of the places at risk if Bush's energy ideas become public policy.

Currently at risk is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Also known as America's Serengeti, the refuge is one of the last truly wild places left in the United States. This pristine land will be lost forever if Bush's drill first, ask questions later, policy passes.

If we fail to act, we may inherit problems that will be more of a hamstring to our economy than anything that Bush is currently concerned about. The future, as they say, is ours, and how we choose to prepare for is may be our final testament to it.

This Mother's Day, I did not go home to see my mother. I was too busy preparing for International House's Asian and Pacific Culture Night, which was held that Sunday evening. So, instead of going home bearing gifts for my mom like a good daughter, I invited my parents to attend Asian and Pacific Culture Night. That way, I got to see my mom, and she got to see me make a fool of myself onstage.

My mother is my role model. Raising two children is a daunting task for anyone, but to do so in an unfamiliar country makes the task doubly difficult. Transplanting oneself from one's own country and immigrating to another with two young children is a true test of courage and strength. Yet my mother persevered, and ... are you still reading? Have I lost you yet? Were you just about to turn the page to see if there were any good coupons in today's issue?

Lately I have been asked why my articles have taken on such a negative tone (to put it tactfully). ""Don't you have anything positive to say?"" Why, yes, I have many positive things to say. The question is, do you care enough to read them?

My mother is a very loving and admirable person, but do you really want to hear me wax poetic about her? My reasons for loving my mom are probably the same you have for loving your mom, so would I be imparting any new and interesting knowledge to you, or provoking you to come to any new and interesting thoughts? Probably not.

How about an article titled ""Ethnic Diversity Increasing in Hollywood""? I could talk about how, lately, there's been an increase in non-Caucasian actors in television programs. I could praise the networks for being more sensitive to the need for ethnic diversity in the media and give suggestions on how to further portray race and gender relations in a positive light. This may interest a few people, but how many of you are affected by this in your day-to-day lives?

While it is true that a good article does not have to be one that addresses topics of everyday life, if it were my aim to discuss global, national or social issues, I would write the pro and con articles.

The fact of the matter is, this is my column and I'll write about whatever I damn well please, within reason. But since I am being paid to write articles for the UCSD publics, it makes sense that I choose topics that I think will be of interest to others, instead of using this space as my own personal diary. Therefore, I will spare you the ode to my mother and instead write about what I believe to be more interesting.

That point brings me to the controversy. The last time I was in the Guardian office, I was told that two very angry people had to bite my head off. The guy probably had a goatee and the girl probably dyes her hair. Yes, I make controversial statements. Would you be reading this if I didn't? Nobody reads the Guardian cover to cover, with the exception of the editor in chief and those whose lives must be so mundane that they have nothing better to do. People flip through the Guardian between classes and read only those articles that catch their attention. Answer me truly, which is more attention grabbing: ""Ethnic Diversity Increasing in Hollywood"" or ""Why Female Friends Suck""?

Admit it. Most of you read my column because you either get a kick out of hearing me call it as I see it, or because I piss you off and you're curious how much of a rise I can get out of you. I knew when I took on this job that I would offend people. That's generally what happens when one voices one's opinion. There's always going to be someone who disagrees.

What I don't understand is why some people get so upset when they see my opinions in print. You know that somewhere out there, someone thinks the exact opposite of what you think. If that someone happens to be me, why does it upset you so? Do you believe that because twice a month I get my opinion published that somehow my opinion is more valid than yours? Perhaps you resent me for having the opportunity to voice my beliefs. If that's the case, then get off your ass and submit an application to the Guardian office to become an opinion writer.

So yes, I sometimes write about topics that are unconventional and my opinions are often controversial. I find these subjects interesting and I think others do as well. If you don't like my subject matter or my opinions, then stop reading my articles, quit your whining and get your own damn column. Until someone replaces me, I'm going to keep writing as I have been. Change my tune? Not a chance.

By proposing a plan that would protect the United States from a nuclear attack, President George W. Bush has demonstrated that the protection of American citizens is his No. 1 priority.

Bush's new missile defense program focuses on American security but still keeps international relations in mind. Most notably, it looks to effectively abolish the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The treaty currently prevents either country from building any kind of shield against nuclear weapons.

The new plan, if implemented, would set up an intricate system of ballistic missiles from land, air, sea and space to destroy potentially devastating nuclear weapons fired at the United States. In addition, Bush has said that he plans to significantly reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

It is still uncertain when and if the program will be put into effect and whether it will actually be effective, but it is clear that something has to be done to relieve the tension caused by the potential for nuclear warfare and that it will be necessary to revise the ABM treaty or create a new one altogether.

Challenging the flawed negotiations that ended the Cold War and kept the world in a precariously uneasy respite from nuclear threat, Bush's plan takes a much-needed step in the right direction toward both national security and healthier international relations.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the ABM treaty has become outdated and irrelevant. Though the treaty put a temporary halt to the so-called ""arms race"" and the immediate threat of nuclear warfare, it did so by way of seriously inverted logic.

The key point of reasoning in the treaty has fittingly become known as M.A.D. -- ""mutually assured destruction."" For decades, we have been living unprotected with the idea that other countries have the ability to eradicate us, but they do not simply because they know that we can do the same to them.

Therefore the only defense we have against complete annihilation is the fact that we have the same potential to counterattack in the event that anyone actually does fire at us. We build bombs as a bluff -- a vulgar display of power that means nothing because we know other countries have the same power to kill us.

The Bush administration realizes the absurdity of this shaky agreement, and is currently negotiating to revise the ABM treaty.

""To maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us,"" Bush said in a May 1 speech given at the National Defense University in Washington.

Although the actual missile defense program is still very rough and by no means complete or ready for implementation, Bush makes the good point that the current policy is illogical and does not provide adequate protection for any country. What is important now is for lines of communication to remain open so that all parties involved can help to comfortably eliminate the possibility of nuclear warfare over time.

There is a fear that Bush's program will come off as overly aggressive, and possibly spark a new race to build more nuclear weapons. Whether this occurs depends on how we handle the situation. As long as the United States continues to communicate with and not alienate other countries, common sense will prevail -- nobody wants a nuclear holocaust. Rather than watch others stockpile bombs that we are defenseless against, we should strive to have everybody stop building bombs altogether.

The ABM treaty was built upon the residue of distrust and suspicion left over from the Cold War. Using its convoluted logic, being defenseless is the way to be safe and building defense systems is an act of aggression. Therefore we keep each other in check by keeping offensive weapons that we never use.

As Bush said, this is a rather grim and pessimistic plan. Hopefully, our leaders can come to a consensus and update this treaty together before the confusion and uncertainty get out of hand. A new trust must be created from a new foundation.

As Bush said, ""We should work together to replace this treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War.""

President Bush has shown that he is dedicated to his country, and not only that, he has also shown that the United States will not waver indecisively in the middle ground, and will not compromise logic for the sake of sitting still.

All too often, politicians are forced into irrational positions by trying to satisfy everyone. Before Bush, the Clinton administration also made an attempt to create a missile defense system but was hindered by the ABM treaty. The proposed new plan lets the world know that the United States will not jeopardize its citizens to pacify other countries.

The time has come to make a change to the treaty. It is a sensitive issue, but let's hope that Bush's decisiveness garners the respect and cooperation that it deserves.

Are you hungry? I¹m hungry. Seventh week always makes me hungry. And not just for food, though a good vegan bean and rice burrito hits the spot. I¹m hungry for the joyously neat things that only UCSD can offer.

Maybe you¹re scratching your head in befuddlement. ³Cool stuff at UCSD? Not under this suppressive administration.² Maybe those aren¹t your exact words, but we all know the apathetic sentiments that threaten to drown any voice of fun around here.

In a series of four columns over these last four weeks of the quarter, I¹m going to call on all of you to help me resuscitate the life of this school. You may know me from previous columns, such as ³The Top 10 Things You Have to Do While At UCSD,² or from one of my various Get-Fun-Quick-Schemes, such as dodge ball in front of Center Hall. I¹m perpetually hungry for excitement and entertainment.

First things first, do me this favor: Get informed and involved with the new fee initiatives. Note the plural. Maybe you voted against the Student Leeching Fee Referendum because you hate sports, or you despise the Price Center, or you want Division II funds and a new mall on campus but none of that social services junk. Or maybe you voted for Joe Watson and Tommy Tucker¹s Price Center Expansion, pork barrel and all, because you¹re in favor of all of the above. Get involved.

Committees are convening, groups are gathering, and if you don¹t show up to share your views, someone¹s going to claim to be speaking for you. Maybe me. You have no idea how exciting it is to stand up at one of these meetings and pretend to be speaking for hundreds. When I¹m hungry for that special public speaking buzz, nothing else hits the spot.

But I¹m also hungry for justice, and for socially progressive viewpoints and for the kind of nutty ³We can change the world² optimism that filled the Price Center when Ozomatli came by. There¹s only one place on campus offering that on a regular basis, and its the Ché Café.

Sure you¹ve heard of the Che´´ before. You¹ve passed it on the shuttle; its that ramshackle building with faces painted on it, down the hill from Stonehenge. You¹ve heard how it¹s the last all-ages music venue in San Diego, where hundreds of kids party every couple of days ... wait a minute ... hundreds of kids ... every couple of days? Even Greek freaks can¹t keep up that kind of pace!

The Chégans can. They¹ve been known to put on four, five and one-in-an-activist-moon six shows a week. Local and touring bands play punk, hip-hop, acoustic, grindcore and everything else you can shake an et cetera at. Call 534-2311 for details.

But let¹s not forget about food. Tuesday and Thursday nights, two dollars gets you a plate of delicious nutrition, without any mad cow or other animal byproducts. Four dollars gets you the All-You-Can-Eat magic, complete with as much protein/yeast powder (tastes like parmesan) as you can handle! Call 534-2311 for details.

If partying, dancing and eating aren¹t really your thing, how about politics? The Che´´ is home to lots of dynamic activist groups, people working to feed the homeless, save the environment, legalize ganja and keep your student fees down. That¹s right, the Che´´ and other co-ops were major centers of organization for the opposition of the Student Leeching Fee Referendum y¹all just voted down. Call 534-2311 for details.

Do I remind you of a drunk fella trying to ply you with a phone number? I¹ll make it easier. Get on the Campus Loop Shuttle. Tell the driver to let you off at the Che´´. Directions don¹t get any more user friendly than that. Or, you could call 534-2311 for details.

If you like hands-on pragmatic work and want the fast track to getting involved with any of the above, make some time this weekend to help out with the Che´´ Garden Collective. They¹ve got grasses and weeds and crops galore, more than they know what to do with. You can help them decide. It¹ll definitely make the world a better place. Call 534-2311 for details.

Speaking of making the world a better place, I¹ll be back next week with more unsolicited advice on how to spend your time at our fine university. Until then, do me this favor.

Editor,

This letter is in response to Monday's opinion piece by Andrew Fu that attempts to make martyrs out of the Marshall Nexus slate.

I want to point out that if this group of people really wants to change the system, as they claim, they should go to each and every council meeting and participate in their college government. Council decisions typically arise from group consensus on issues, and proactive students should take charge of their representative government and sit in on meetings to influence it.

Of course, this is true only if Fu is, in fact, correct, and this ""bunch of average college kids"" are truly trying to make things happen. Sixty-seven individual elections code violations committed by the members of the Nexus slate certainly indicate that they have the fervor to do something.

‹ Cristina Villegas
Former Muir College Council chair

Age discrimination Appalls Student

Editor:

It is not often that I am at the blunt end of such blatant discrimination as I was last Friday evening. It was absolutely appalling, as most cases of discrimination are.

However, this case was different. I was not discriminated against due to race or gender. I was discriminated against because of age. And though some may take this lightly, the injustice of it is still present, as in all cases of discrimination.

What happened that unfortunate night to make me feel so slighted? It had to do with alcohol. (Of course‹what else could it be about?)

Yes, I am underage (a minuscule 20 years old.) But that is beside the point. The point is that I was merely the companion of someone legally able to purchase alcohol. And although he was over 21, he was not allowed to purchase the drinks at Sav-On because his underage friend didn't feel like waiting in the car by herself so late at night.

The manager claimed that the alcohol was a dual purchase, and therefore he would need to see both of our identification cards.

Where does the law claim that, in order to purchase alcohol, you need to be of legal drinking age and have no friends that are underage? Where in Sav-On does it say that all alcohol purchases made by more than one person require the identification cards of all persons in the party? And how far does this rule extend?

If I was purchasing some beer with my father, would they check my ID? What if my Dad sent my older brother and me to get some beer because we were running low at the barbecue? If my 8-year-old sister were to go to the store with me, would she have to show ID? Or should I leave her wandering alone all over the Sav-On playground? Should I dump her in the car while I go get my drinks?

Tell me, where does this madness end? The manager claimed that he was technically selling it to a minor. He was selling it to the person who paid for it, not little . I was just standing beside the legal purchaser. Why must innocent people be persecuted because they associate with others younger than they are?

The whole point of this letter-to-the-editor rampage: Either boycott the crappy, unrefrigerated alcohol at Sav-On and purchase the nice, cold drinks at Albertson's and Ralphs instead, or leave all underage friends in the gutter when purchasing alcohol there. Either way, it saves us all the anguish of discrimination.

‹ Shirley Hwang
Third-year Marshall Student

recently read a rather disturbing article in the Los Angeles Times. The April 25 article, titled ³To Be Chinese in America,² written by Lisa Richardson and Hilary MacGregor, is about a recent poll on how Americans view Chinese-Americans. The poll was taken before the incident over the spy plane.

In March, the poll, sponsored by the Committee of 100 (a Chinese-American leadership organization) telephoned 1,216 people nationwide and asked them various questions about their feelings regarding Chinese-Americans. The answers are, to say the least, frightening because ³it burst a long-simmering bubble of frustration,² as the writers put it.

One-third of the respondents questioned Chinese-Americans¹ loyalty to the United States. Most Chinese people here in the United States are here for a reason: They don¹t want to live in China under communist oppression. One-quarter claim to have ³very negative attitudes² toward Chinese-Americans; all I can do is shake my head and wonder where race relations have gone in the 50 years since the immigration laws against Asians were finally lifted.

True, only 1,216 people were polled, and how accurately such a small sample can predict the true feelings of 281 million people has to be questioned, but the poll does bring up interesting questions and has, as the old saying goes, opened up a large can of worms. It brings into the limelight how Asians (not just Chinese) are still regarded as the ³enemy,² how America continuously upholds the view of Asians as ³forever foreigners² and how the ³yellow peril² hysteria has taken over this nation once again, when one considers the backlash Asian-Americans have received lately.

If you¹re Asian, I¹m sure you¹re nodding your head right now. If you¹re not Asian ‹ well, white ‹ you¹re probably scratching your head right now But that¹s the main issue here, isn¹t it?

But I¹m not going to debate here. You can take an ethnic studies class next quarter or professor Lisa Lowe¹s excellent English Literature 18 class.

The point of this article is to ask: How the hell am I supposed to react? How am I supposed to feel? Angry? Threatened? Disappointed hat there has been no evolution in the last 50 years in the way Americans feel about Asians, as is evidenced by the recent racist backlash?

The simplicity and blind ignorance of some people utterly amazes me. Last week, I was on the No.34 bus, going from campus back to my apartment. At the stop closest to Roosevelt college, a white guy and his friend, both UCSD students, got on.

From then until my stop at the corner of Nobel Drive and Lebon Drive, all I heard him say to his impish friend was, ³Yeah those Charlie Chan fucks ... took our plane ... fucking Charlie Chan ...² Whether he meant for me to hear his choice words, I don¹t know, but it was hard for me not to notice. All his friend could respond was, ³Word, word.² Hm, quite a vocabulary there.

So I ask you, dear Guardian readers, how am I supposed to react? Was I to unleash God¹s fury and wrath with some choice words of my own? Cry havoc and let loose the hounds of war? Or do I go Bob Probert on them (hockey reference-thumbs up to those who caught it)? Or do I let them wallow in their own ignorance? Do they even know who Charlie Chan is?

If the incident had happened in a more appropriate setting, I would¹ve let them know how bad my temper can get.

But my stop wasn¹t too far away, and a bus isn¹t the best of places to get into any arguments. And the last thing I want is to get stuck on the bus with these two any longer than I have to. So I let them sink deeper into their own little hole. They just seemed so happy being blind.

So how am I supposed to feel? Angry? Yes, at first. Annoyed? Yes. A little sorry for them? Most definitely.

What¹s the moral of these stories? This country is still far from being racially tolerant. There is a lot of pent-up anger and frustration on behalf of the dominant culture.

From our fellow college students to journalists that say on television, ³Chinese are not nice people,² to our own leaders, there are a lot of people building up a stash of gunpowder, ready to blow, behind a friendly smile.

The sooner we acknowledge this, the faster the fuse can be blown out. I would hate to see what the poll responses would be if it had been taken after the spy plane incident.

Affirmative action is one of the mt controversial topics facing colleges today, and one with which the UC system has had a lot of contact in the past few years.

In 1995, the UC Board of Regents passed measures SP-1 and SP-2, banning the use of affirmative action in hiring and admissions practices throughout the UC system.

In 1996, California Proposition 209 passed, banning affirmative action statewide, superceding any effects SP-1 and SP-2 may have had.

The UC Regents are now considering a measure called RE-28 that would replace SP-1 and SP-2, affirming the regents¹ commitment to diversity in the student population, as well as the staff of various UC campuses. The measure will be addressed at a board meeting next Wednesday.

We at the Guardian believe that the actions of the regents on this matter are both shady and deplorable, as they are using RE-28 as an empty gesture to boost their popularity and improve the image of the UC system.

Knowing that RE-28 is only a statement and has no real effect, the regents are taking the popular stance. They would not be doing this is Proposition 209 had not passed, which might make this actually have a real effect on admission and hiring practices.

It is also an attempt to bring an end to the issue that has plagued the regents lately. It has put them in the limelight of the nationwide debate on affirmative action and given them a lot of negative press.

In addition, RE-28 is not a full repeal of SP-1 and SP-2. It is more of a statement of the importance of diversity in the UC system today, and it reaffirms that the UC system will still follow the statewide ban.

Furthermore, the vagueness of RE-28 is a shield to hide behind if, in the future, Proposition 209 is overturned.

Because RE-28 is vague and unclear in its stance on affirmative action, it shows that the regents do not actually believe what they say: They still do not support affirmative action.

If they did support it, they would go all the way and fully repeal SP-1 and SP-2. This would be a stronger statement than enacting RE-28 and would require a more forthright and official stance on the regents¹ feelings regarding affirmative action.

Although the Guardian has not yet taken an official stance on whether SP-1 and SP-2 should be repealed, we think that if the regents truly believed that these measures do away with negative effects on the UC system and do not reflect their current feelings on affirmative action, they would go all the way and repeal them.

Instead, they are acting like cowards by merely throwing something at us to stop the debate on the issue.

Every day, school children in Georgia, Texas, Louisiana and 20 other states across the South live with the threat of being physically assaulted, often with a wooden paddle, at the hands of school administrators and teachers.

It completely shocks me that the government will not step in and stop corporal punishment in our schools. What also stuns me is that corporal punishment is legal in public schools in 23 states. It is committed with the full sanction of the law.

Once the shock wore away, anger set in and I couldn't stop myself from digging until I exposed the whole, ugly truth.

The reality in which these children live is scary. Whether it is elbowing another child, passing a note, getting up without permission or ignoring directions, small infractions can earn corporal punishment for a child.

Take the example of a fourth grader, Megan Cahanin, who was paddled by the schools principle for elbowing a friend in the cafeteria. She received the customary three whacks on her behind with a 3 inch by 15 inch wooden paddle. When her parents saw the purple, doughnut-shaped bruises on her behind, they filed suit against the Georgia school district in which the altercation took place.

The Cahanin lawsuit argues that corporal punishment violates the guarantee of equal protection, since it is illegal to hit prisoners, nursing home residents or children in foster care.

So far, the courts have not agreed with extending the guarantee of equal protection to school children.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1977's Ingraham v. Wright, that the eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, applies to convicted criminals but not to students.

Robert Fathman, president of the National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools said that almost every democracy in the world has banned corporal punishment but that the United States is going in the opposite directions.

""You can't whack a prisoner, but you can whack a kindergarten child,"" Fathman said.

Children need equal protection under law. Just as a prisoner is at the mercy of the guards or law for his well-being, the children in those 23 states are at the mercy of those in charge of the school. At any point during the day, for the smallest infraction, these childrens'' rights are smashed to bits with the blows from that wooden paddle.

There is plenty of evidence to convince a reasonable person that school children are entitled protection from this primitive and unconscionable practice of corporal punishment.

Yet the fact that the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to children's right to learn in an environment free of abuse makes the court a conspirator in the continued abuse of school children across our nation.

The purpose of government is to protect those who are weak and defenseless from being abused. It is the government's duty to protect the life and the rights of everyone in our nation.

So why do those lofty principles of protecting the rights of all come to a full and complete stop when they are applied to children? Aren't children the most exploitable group in our society?

Why does our government continue to abuse our children under the guise of corporal punishment? How can the government justify their its use of abuse as an acceptable punishment on school children?

According to a recent New York Times article, some school districts and states insist that corporal punishment is necessary to maintain order. As sickening as it seems, it was reported that corporal punishment is a treasured tradition in the South.

Robert Surgenor, a detective from Berea, Ohio who investigates corporal punishment cases, claims that paddling works because, ""pain is the most effective form of punishment.""

Pain is the most effective tool? Give me a break.

Pain scars, Mr. Surgenor. It doesn't teach kids to be obedient; it just trains kids to temporarily outwit the pain or to shutdown so as to avoid it.

Many experts argue that corporal punishment can cause depression or can worsen existing aggression.

Corporal punishment is a dangerous lesson to teach in schools. Experts say that paddling perpetuates a cycle of violence, teaching children that violence is the appropriate tool for managing the behavior of others.

Violence in the form of corporal punishment should not be promoted as the effective solution for student misbehavior, especially in the view of the recent school shootings.

Corporal punishment's devastating effects can be seen in Cahanin's life. She has started biting her nails and tries every morning to avoid going to school.

In an interview with the New York Times, Cahanin said, ""It's so painful seeing [the principal] every day. Whenever I see a paddle, I just move away.""

Cahanin is only one example of a child forever scarred by corporal punishment. There are hundreds of thousands of kids who have also been abused at school because of corporal punishment. According to Department of Education research from the 1996-1997 school year 365,000 children faced corporal punishment.

That should make 365,000 assault convictions against the school administrators, right? Nope ‹ in those 23 states, assault on children is legal.

The number of children facing corporal punishment in these schools should be zero. We have no excuse for punishing children with violence in schools. If prisoners are afforded the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, so should children. Corporal punishment must be outlawed. We must protect our children.

I call upon those 23 wayward states: Let us break the chain of abuse. Let us break those wooden paddles.