A Teachable Moment

          Alexandra Wallace, a junior at UCLA, posted a 3-minute video blog on YouTube which would forever change her life. In the video Alex ranted about the customs and manners of the "hoards of Asians" on campus. Wallace, in her video, comments about Asians talking on cell phones in the library during finals period. Many of them were trying to get a hold of relatives to see if they had survived the deadly earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan. It gets even worse, Wallace goes on to mock an Asian accent and ethnic slur in order to show her version of what Asian students said on their cellphones in the UCLA library: "Ohhh. Ching chong ling long ting tong."

The video which Alex titled "Asians in the Library" went viral on YouTube and Facebook almost immediately and drew half a million views the weekend it was posted. Other UCLA students, including Asian American students, soon retaliated with hateful response videos on YouTube. However despite all the negative attention and overwhelming outcry of angry responses from the Asian community, the school failed to react and use this incident as a teachable moment.

In a statement, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janina Montero explained that Wallace’s video rant did not violate the Student Code of Conduct. She went on to explain that the university does not punish free speech, and that the administration has “no intention of pursuing a discipline matter.” In another statement the administration, in an attempt to defend their decision after being scrutinized by the UCLA student body, explained that:

 “The bar on free expression is very high. However offended one might be with the comments that were in the video the fact remains that campus policies do not punish free speech. They punish hate speech.”

This incident was a perfect example of a 2011 version of an act of outward discrimination, hate speech, and profiling. However, because this incident occurred on the free world of expression on YouTube the University was unable to prove that Wallace was in violation of the student code of conduct, and she was let off the hook with only a slap on the wrist. The administration’s lack of response spurred outrage within the UCLA student body and Asian community and responded with hateful and threatening videos to Wallace and her family.

This incident could have been used as a teachable moment on two levels. Today, we are so quick to login to our Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube accounts and rant and rave about whatever or whoever we want at the moment that we forget about the repercussions that may come of our actions. Because of this widely accepted norm of freedom of expression that we have grown so accustomed to on the Internet we have forgotten the idea of proportionality and how what we say and do on the internet, even if posted anonymously behind a computer screen, can haunt us forever.  This incident could have been used as a teaching lesson for generations to come to understand that there is the need for proportionality, especially in the age of the Internet in which anything and everything can go viral. As we have seen with Wallace’s video, the Internet has no boundaries, and college students and young children in general are prone to saying or doing inappropriate or embarrassing things. However, at the same time we see that college students also have the most potential and opportunities for personal growth and learning. Colleges, in turn, have a responsibility to educate their students to be able to grow and become the most accepting, well-rounded, tolerant, and successful individuals possible.  This incident not only brings to the surface the need for proportionality on the Internet but also the role of the University.

UCLA law professor and noted First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh weighed in on this issue by stating that:

“The premise of the American university (and, I think, American self-government more broadly) is that people need to be free to express their views," Volokh wrote, adding that implementing that premise meant "boneheaded statements have to be as protected as more well-reasoned statements."

However, I think otherwise. The whole point of a college education, or education in general is to prepare and teach students prescriptions and proscriptions of how to act in the real world, and UCLA has clearly failed at it’s most important job with regards to the incident involving Wallace. Her remarks made throughout the video, as ignorant, and “boneheaded” as they might be, were clear and explicit acts of hate speech, discrimination, and profiling. The University of California at Los Angeles, prides itself on its diversity, however when it comes to promoting tolerance to acceptance among their diverse community they completely missed the mark. In this case, racism, discrimination, and profiling, even if performed by a female college student cannot be justified through freedom of speech. As a result of the laxed response by the administration, they have opened the door for more behavior like this to occur, and that is exactly what has happened.  Thousands of hateful and threatening responses were sent to Wallace and her family forcing her to withdraw from the Unveristy.

The Univeristy should have used this moment to express the need for tolerance among racial and ethnic diverity in the Univeristy by either inviting students to participate in a diversity program which would promote tolerance and acceptance among the diverse student body, or by disciplining Wallace, to set the precedent for future and current UCLA students to demonstrate that this type of behavior is unnacceptable and will not be taken lightly by the administration. Whichever option they choose, the University must ultimately step up to the plate and take a stance on this issue after all this negative attention that this incident has received, and show its commitment for teaching all students tolerance and acceptance to be able to become peaceful, successful, and well-rounded members not only of the University but most importantly of our increasingly diverse world.  

Scenes of destruction in aftermath of 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Scenes of destruction in aftermath of 8.9 earthquake in Japan

When Disaster Strikes

            March 11, 2011, is a day that will forever scar the citizens of Japan and the world. A magnitude 8.9 earthquake, the strongest to ever hit Japan to date, triggered a tsunami leaving more than 1,200 dead, and thousands more displaced or missing. One of the most developed countries on Earth has been left in shambles as a result of this deadly quake and tsunami as thousands of miles of farmland, homes, highways, trains, boats, and even an entire nuclear plant were left destroyed. It is at a moment like this that we are forced, as citizens of our planet Earth, to look at our world around us, realize how precious our lives are, question the choices we make in regards to our environment, and most of all recognize that no matter how great our efforts to keep ourselves safe, catastrophic events such as this earthquake and resulting tsunami can strike at any moment and can leave long lasting and irreversible damage. For this reason, America along with the rest of the world must realize, that nuclear energy is not a viable alternative, and that the risks inherent in nuclear energy are too great, too long lasting, and irreversible. The events of the last few days demonstrate the need for our country and the world to abandon nuclear energy as a viable alternative and refocus our efforts to finding other alternative, renewable, clean energy sources.

            Years ago Japan made a decision to rely on nuclear power as its major source of alternative energy.  It now supplies more than 30% of Japan’s energy needs. Immediately after the quake and tsunami hit, over 50,000 people were evacuated from Utsunomiya, Japan as an explosion at a nuclear plant “hurled plumes of smoke over the Pacific Ocean.” Although Japanese authorities tried to assure the public that there was no danger of a meltdown at the plant, residents could not help but fear that this tsunami would cause a repeat much like the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine. Initially experts believed that only a small amount of radiation had been expelled, a much smaller amount than the radioactive clouds that Chernobyl spewed out when it exploded in 1986.  Valeriy Hlyhalo, deputy director of the Chernobyl nuclear safety center, stated that "the explosion at No. 1 generating set of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, which took place today, will not be a repetition of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.” However it has been reported by Japan’s NHK television that at least three residents among 90 tested at random showed excess exposure to radiation. In addition, more recent reports indicate that the cooling system which cools the core of the reactor is failing and the reactor will overheat which could result in a complete meltdown of the plant. Such an event would release radioactive material into the groundwater and the atmosphere surrounding the plant. The results would be catastrophic. Exposure to nuclear radiation at a minimum can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, loss of white blood cells, and hair, and prolonged exposure has been linked to leukemia and other types of cancer and can lead to death.

            With the recent increase in oil prices, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the ever increasing demand for energy the United States is rethinking nuclear energy as a source to meet those demands. Nuclear power plants work much like natural gas or coal plants: An energy source heats water to make steam; steam turns a turbine; and the turbine generates electricity. But a nuclear reactor differs from fossil fuel-based plants in that it does not produce any carbon-dioxide emissions. However, it’s based on radioactive materials and it produces radioactive waste. This is where the main problem lies. Until recent events our administration and leading scientists have overlooked the fact that despite the safest built nuclear plant, if a natural disaster strikes at a high enough magnitude there is no way of controlling the amount of deadly radioactivity that is released into the air and potentially groundwater.  As we saw with the explosion of the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, nuclear energy disasters can leave long lasting and irreversible effects, and as the recent events in Japan have demonstrated no matter how carefully constructed the plant is, mother nature is unpredictable and can unleash forces that can destroy a nuclear power plant. For this reason, the Obama Administration and Congress must hear the warning siren being sounded by the Japanese nuclear reactor in Utsunomiya, Japan, and recognize that nuclear energy is not a viable alternative, and that the risks inherent in nuclear energy are too great, too long lasting, and irreversible.

The events of the last few days prove the need for our country and the world to refocus our efforts to finding alternative renewable clean energy sources other than nuclear energy. We must come up with energy that does not pose the harmful and deadly effects that nuclear energy poses and instead expand research and funding for solar, wind, geothermal heating, biomass fermentation of wastes, and water based alternative energy sources.  While no one of these sources can produce all of the energy that is needed, when combined they provide viable clean, renewable, and sustainable energy with less risk of injury to persons or our environment.