PUBLIC FORUM : NOW TAKEN TO TASK FOR CSUN SPORTS CUT.

I am writing in regard to Title IX gender-equity laws.

I am a student at California State University, Northridge. The president of CSUN recently made the decision to cut four men's sports teams, including baseball, volleyball, swimming and soccer, from the university. Five sports were being considered for elimination, leaving only golf to remain. Golf has only eight members and obviously does not draw a great amount of school pride.

Being that I am a female and have never been particularly athletically inclined, the cuts do not directly affect me. The announcement of the decision did, however, shock and disappoint me. It is completely unfair to the men who came to our campus on sports scholarships and also those who simply find college to be more bearable because of the joy they receive out of playing on sports teams.

I wonder if the National Organization for Women ever considered the possibility that simply fewer women are interested in playing organized sports. Men generally tend to have a naturally more competitive interest than women, although not in all cases.

The school spirit and morale will very likely suffer as more students feel completely betrayed and totally uninvolved in the decision. Our baseball and volleyball teams attracted attention from many fans and conjured a little school pride in even a sports-ignoring student such as myself.

I do not see how bringing the level of men's sports down to that of the women's sports can be good for anyone. Since when can a problem of inequality be solved by lowering the level of the prospering side?

It is very unfair for the men to have to look at the women's teams and know that they are not allowed the opportunity to participate in the very same sport. This is most definitely reverse discrimination.

While I am not solely placing the blame on NOW, I do wonder why so much time and effort has been placed on this cause. It should not even be of importance to a group such as this. A women's group has so many more important causes that it should focus on, such as domestic violence and true cases of discrimination.

- Rachel Young

Sylmar

O.J. juror corrects word

In response to Jason Wyland's rebuttal of June 30 regarding the civil verdict on O. J. Simpson:

Yes, he is correct. I should have used the word ``decided,'' instead of ``proved,'' as it is true the plaintiff's attorneys are the ones who proved that Simpson was indeed guilty. The jury didn't really prove anything; we just had to find by a preponderance of the evidence presented whether Simpson was responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

It was an unusual trial and at first most of us jurors really didn't know why we were there. This case was a civil suit matching Simpson against the families and estates of the murder victims.

The jury was told by the judge that ``each of you must decide the case for yourself.'' It was a trial about liability and money. We couldn't send Mr. Simpson to prison because he had been acquitted of the murders in October 1995. All we could do was ``decide'' whether he was responsible; and if so, then decide on the amount of penalty he must pay the victims' families.

- Clarice Randall

North Hollywood

Movies belittle Christians

Here is another opinion regarding the ``Groups waging fierce fight against perceived persecution of Christians'' by Economist Newspaper Ltd., Viewpoint, July 6.

That commentary has value. Not addressed, however, was the topic of Hollywood's output - films that have not infrequently contained a belittling anti-Christian slant.

This is usually presented subtly, so much so that it can often almost escape detection. But it's there.

It's an admittedly touchy subject. One which could garner a spate of denials. Yet, I happen to believe the situation is real and that moviegoers of all faiths, not just Christians, should be cognizant of same.

- Donald A. Burns

Los Angeles 

Dads who pay victimized

The ongoing articles that deal with the backlog of child-support cases - and the state Department of Social Services computer system that is unable to find deadbeat dads for support - should be fascinating to all of the nondelinquent dads who have been ``found.''

These dads have been ground through the courts, their support payments increased and ordered to pay that increase retroactively, even though support has been paid for the entire life of the child, to the mother's satisfaction.

When one's ``ex'' applies for welfare for other children, their child is automatically covered, even though the dad is supporting her or him. This automatic coverage is so social services can come after the father, via the district attorney, because it can't get to the fathers who aren't paying. So, this hapless lot has been thrown into the hopper with the deadbeat dads when, alas, they are the exact opposite.

Why have all of you nondelinquent dads allowed yourselves to be treated like this? Stand up and fight the injustice of being treated like delinquent dads. Everyone wants the delinquent dads to pay. But, why prosecute the dads who are paying?

- Berta Vittier

Camarillo

Safety in parents' hands

Have you ever doubted the justness of our current judicial system? Have you ever become frustrated that the guilty, especially by admission, are free to roam the street because of a technicality, or that innocent people become victims of the system?

Many of us make this claim, and it is my sincere hope that the witch hunters of Megan's law bear this in mind. I'm not referring to the high-risk repeat offenders. I'm referring to the victims of a judicial system that fails, the victims of vindictive ex-wives who claim molestation to ``get it all.'' It has become a trend to accuse in this manner.

Safety lies in the hand of the parent. Danger lurks beyond the sex predator, and parents shouldn't assume that the directory will keep their neighborhood safe. Common sense and watching over your children at all times is the only answer in today's world. The sex offender directory could fail and promote unjustness, just as the judicial system could and does.

- Kathryn Thomas

Lancaster

Who's next on hit list?

Why is it that the powers that be sit around thinking of ways to inflict pain and suffering on the poor and disabled?

In a country that spends billions financially on programs and research and foreign aid, there are people who have to wonder if they are next on the hit list.

Welfare mothers and children, the disabled and senior citizens seem to be the victims of mean-spirited committees that can decide their fate by a vote. How cruel. I've always been proud to be an American but I'm ashamed of what's being done here.

- Geri Warwick

Glendale

Something wrong at UCLA?

The University of California released statistics Friday which indicate that 1997 minority admissions to UC schools, based on commitments to attend, will be 4 percent greater than 1996 levels. Of the anticipated 25,182 enrollees, 56.5 percent will represent minorities, as was the case in 1996. Specifically, African-American enrollment is expected to be 5 percent higher and Chicano-Latino enrollment 1 percent higher, than last year's numbers.

Perhaps the time has come for admissions officials to spend less effort criticizing Proposition 209 and more time tending to the now competitive task of recruiting the best and the brightest of the minority candidates - and assuring them that they are, indeed, welcome.

- Jo French

La Canada

Tyson's fine should be used for good

The $2.98 million fine the Nevada Athletic Commission handed Mike Tyson has been placed in the state's General Fund. What does this General Fund finance? Is this a type of miscellaneous expense account? One can only imagine where this money will be used.

Let's see, Nevada needs a great deal of street work and first-class seats for traveling dignitaries and darker lines down the centers of many main throughways, and the list goes on and on. One thing is for certain, there will be many meetings held to discuss just how to use this blood money.

The solution to all the questions floating around the Legislature's offices is the most logical: Children and elderly.

Instead of widening a street, how about up-to-date and accurate books for the classrooms? Rather than planting more trees along the Las Vegas Strip, why not provide working air conditioners for retirement homes.

Doesn't it make more sense to purchase computers for the high schools than to buy paint to redo the parlor of the State House?

Where do our priorities stand? We as a people should be concerned with humanity rather than material appearances. It is time to care for one another and for our future.

We shouldn't be all that surprised if not one red penny is spent on schools, Boys & Girls Clubs, safe park playground equipment or the elderly. After all, this is the state that thinks covering the Mike Tyson bite is more important than reporting about little Sherrice Iverson's murder and the suspected killer by a margin of about 4-1. There is no logic.

- Robyn Tunson

Las Vegas