Rising fees at UC and Cal State; a terrorist tried in civilian court; Proposition 26.

UC costs keep rising

Re “UC tuition to rise 8% for 2011-12,” Nov. 19

As a graduate of UC Berkeley and the UCLA School of Law, I am deeply troubled by the ever-rising cost of an education in the University of California system.

When I was a student at Berkeley in the late 1990s, my tuition was about $4,000 a year, low enough for me to work my way through school and cover expenses with a nominal amount of debt. At UCLA, I saw my law school fees more than double, from $12,000 to $26,000 a year. My hefty education loans, presently on a 25-year repayment plan, reflect this substantial increase.

Arguments that the UC system is still a “great buy” are disingenuous. For the rich, yes. To the average Californian the system was designed to serve, a first-rate public education is fast becoming out of reach. I would gladly pay more taxes to ensure that future generations are afforded the same opportunities that have so enhanced my life.

Amy Loeliger

Los Angeles

Whenever UC or the California State University system announce a fee increase, they always make the point that one-third of the increase will be set aside for financial aid. The policy is meant to be an indication of how much they care about the financial burdens their decisions place on students.

My son does not qualify for financial aid because by UC and CSU standards, he is wealthy, even though he does not have enough money to cover his fees, so he must borrow. This means that he is borrowing money to pay his fees while about one-third of what he pays goes not for his own classes but to other students.

Though needy students should get help, forcing my son to borrow money to pay others’ fees is unfair. The state should just provide funds to support needier students and not place the burden on others.

Terrence R. Dunn

Bakersfield

Torture taints a terrorism trial

Re “Terror case yields lesser conviction,” Nov. 18

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was found guilty on one count of conspiracy, but the evidence for 276 counts of murder and attempted murder couldn’t be used because it was tainted. The evidence had been gained through torture and was not admissible. We can thank the previous administration for that.

Had Ghailani been tried by a military tribunal instead of a criminal court, the result would have been the same. Military tribunals do not allow evidence gained through torture and “enhanced interrogation” methods either. The Bush/Cheney interrogation policies have denied justice for the families of those killed by this terrorist.

For the record, about 90% of terror-related cases that have been tried in civilian courts since the 9/11 attacks have resulted in convictions. Of the 20 cases brought before military tribunals, there have been just three convictions.

Richard Green

San Clemente

How does a terrorism suspect “get too many rights and protections in civilian court”? I guess everyone knew in advance that Ghailani was guilty.

Rep. Peter King of New York calls the results of the trial a “total miscarriage of justice.” And yet testimony by a key government witness was inadmissible because the information was obtained through torture.

So we get our justice — torture, presumption of guilt and evidence that could not convince a jury. Are we a nation of laws or just plain hypocrites about it?

Ralph Mitchell

Monterey Park

Illegal and successful

Re “Student body president and an illegal immigrant,” Nov. 18

My dad always asked, “Who owns this problem?”

When you apply his very simple, clear question to the issue of illegal immigrant Pedro Ramirez’s desire for a taxpayer-supported education at Cal State Fresno, the answer is equally clear. Why is it the California taxpayers’ problem that Ramirez’s parents broke our laws by illegally entered this state?

As our beautiful state crumbles into the Greece of America, our scarce tax dollars need to go to benefit those who pay them in the first place, not the lawbreakers.

Catherine Wirtz

Westlake Village

It is obvious that those with college degrees are better able to find employment.

I fail to see the problem in giving individuals like Ramirez citizenship and a Social Security number so they can earn their degrees, find employment, pay taxes and contribute to Social Security.

Miguel Rosales

Glendale

No wonder there are about 13 million illegal immigrants in this country. There is hardly any incentive for them to become legal, as is seen time and time again, until someone gets caught and attracts publicity, as in Ramirez’s case.

There should be a burning desire to repay this country for what they have, but instead there seems to be only a sense of entitlement as they gradually become assimilated into our society.

Young children who are brought here do eventually grow up. Ramirez got here because his parents took advantage of our country’s generosity. Where is the gratitude?

The fact that our government will not address this crisis is a major reason we are in this drastic situation. There has to be an attainable and easily understood path to citizenship.

Lorraine B. Kirk

Rancho Palos Verdes

Ramirez turns out to be the ideal student, the ideal son and the ideal American.

He is also the ideal candidate to be legalized under the DREAM Act, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants Congress to pass.

The act would legalize Ramirez and other undocumented children who were brought to the United States at a young age and have been exemplary students.

Rogelio Quesada

San Diego

Not so sure about Prop. 26

Re “Prop. 26 leaves many questions,” Nov. 15

Big business sneaked in a roundhouse punch. Proposition 26, which The Times called “one of the most sweeping ballot-box initiatives in decades,” has passed, its implications never having been discussed in a meaningful way.

As a result, major industries have just succeeded in redefining most fees as taxes whose enactment now requires a two-thirds vote at the state or local level. The oil industry’s contribution to the passage of Proposition 26 — a few million dollars — will be amply repaid.

“Taking responsibility” is a conservative mantra, but apparently it does not apply to big business.

Grace Bertalot

Anaheim

Proposition 26 passed with just under 53% of the vote. I can accept that legislative bodies are now required to meet a two-thirds vote to pass new fees. What I cannot accept is a 53% vote mandating a two-thirds vote. How can today’s 53% dictate to future electorates a standard that is higher than 53%? I am not an attorney, but I would think that such a requirement is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, how can 53% dictate to voters in cities and counties throughout the state that they must meet a two-thirds requirement to

pass a new fee for their locality?

Josef Colman

Santa Monica

Memory loss?

Re “Aiming to give business a break,” Business, Nov. 16

Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue says excessive government regulation is hampering economic recovery.

He must have a very short memory. The reason we are in this mess and need to recover is because we did not have enough government regulation.

Thomas Penfield

Cardiff by the Sea, Calif.