Thursday, November 14, 1996
SPEECH:
Many diversity advocates fail to show tolerance to opponents
During the weeks preceding the Nov. 5 election, students
sidestepped mock grave sites, chalk body outlines and drawings of
Proposition 209 supporters dressed as Ku Klux Klan members.
Unfortunately, these were not Halloween decorations. This was the
Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) sponsored "Death
of Education Campaign" paid for by student registration fees and
geared to promote a shallow, skin-deep definition of diversity that
not all students endorse.
In answer to this, the Bruin Republicans posted a single banner
on Bruin Walk stating, "Bruin Republicans thank UCLA for affirming
fairness  yes on 209." The mild, inoffensive message was
privately funded by club members and clearly protected by the First
Amendment. It did not include attacks upon political officials, tie
up traffic at busy intersections, or insult women and minorities
with the notion that they would "die" without affirmative action.
Despite being strategically placed overhead and guarded all night
by club members, it was torn down the following day.
What made this sign so controversial? Certainly it was not as
drastic as skipping class to riot in Westwood or marring our campus
with graffiti. Why did it anger someone so much that they risked
climbing to the top of a Daily Bruin stand to remove it from view?
The answer is that despite their rhetoric of tolerance and
acceptance of differences, many advocates of ethnic diversity often
attempt to silence viewpoints that are inconsistent with their own.
This is ironic, considering that these are the same people who
claim that one of the principal benefits of a university education
is the exposure a student receives to an array of opinions.
The Bruin Republicans were not the only ones to discover this
contradiction last week. On election day, all 23,000 copies of the
Daily Californian, Berkeley’s newspaper were stolen, merely because
it had run an editorial endorsing Proposition 209 the previous day.
While it remains unclear whether stealing a free newspaper is a
crime, there is no question that the First Amendment was
violated.
Incidents like these make it very apparent that Proposition 209
opponents only strive to preserve cosmetic diversity. To them, it
is more important that students at UCLA have different skin colors
than varying political perspectives. As the Bruin Republicans
discovered, any discourse, however rational, is immediately
silenced if it is not consistent with their philosophy. In their
view, their mission to maintain a specific racial composition on
campus takes precedence over the First Amendment and intellectual
debate.
What is most distressing is that our student government could
exercise its clout to possibly ameliorate the climate of
intolerance that is developing at UCLA. However, by using student
registration fees to take a stance on an explosive political issue,
USAC has succeeded in aggravating division. Undoubtedly, they feel
that their actions are beneficial to the student population, but
little can be gained from the restrictive effect that their bias
has on campus political debate.
If UCLA wants to pride itself on being a truly diverse campus,
it should stand up for freedom of speech. Newspapers, signs and
other mediums of thoughtful expression should not have to be
guarded from theft and vandalism. Even if some students do not
agree that Proposition 209 is a positive step toward improving
racial relations, there can be no disagreement about the fact that
claims to diversity are hollow if only one perspective on the issue
is allowed a voice.
The first step toward reconciliation and the creation of a more
tolerant campus atmosphere should be taken by USAC. Our elected
representatives should come forward and condemn the sabotage of the
Bruin Republican banner. Although these representatives might not
agree with the sentiment that the banner expressed, they should
agree that such acts obstruct the most important kind of diversity
 the diversity of ideology.
With our registration fees, USAC has asserted that the passage
of Proposition 209 will mean the death of diversity at UCLA.
Unfortunately, the truth is that true diversity was annihilated
long before this ballot initiative, and the First Amendment appears
to be falling victim to these advocates as well. If USAC and other
such advocates do not step forward in the name of ideological
diversity, maybe the next banner the Bruin Republicans display will
thank them for affirming their hypocrisy.