Tuesday, February 4, 1997
USAC:
Judicial Board acted impartially over ‘Students First!’
logoJennifer
Nelson
Last Thursday, readers of the Daily Bruin’s Viewpoint section
were given ample reason to feel betrayed by their student
government. It was made clear that the Undergraduate Students
Association Council’s (USAC) recent reversal of its decision to
overturn the Student Judicial Board’s finding that its use of the
"Students First!" logo on official documents was hardly a part of
an effort to conform to the spirit of the UCLA constitution.
Instead, it was merely a means of placating outraged members of the
student body and will result in no substantive changes in
policy.
Unfortunately, USAC maintains that it did nothing. It in no way
regrets checking the authority of the Judicial Board, leaving the
student body to come to terms with the fact that it was only the
broad and prompt political backlash that preserved the integrity of
the board’s decision.
The fact that USAC stopped short of implementing the
constitutional amendment that would prevent subsequent abuses of
power speaks volumes. By making no apology for its overruling of
the Judicial Board, USAC members have proven themselves fully
comfortable with a constitution that allows one branch of
government the freedom to rule on the ethics of its own behavior.
In essence, USAC has declared that it should be allowed to act as
its own system of checks and balances. However, the readers of
Viewpoint have yet to be provided with one legitimate reason why
the permission to act unilaterally should be granted to our student
council.
It has been argued that the difficulty of convincing 10 council
members to overturn a decision of the Judicial Board is a
sufficient check on USAC’s power. This is completely false,
particularly when USAC is directly involved in the case. The number
of council members required to agree on a ruling is of little
consequence when each one has the same stake in the outcome.
Rather than confront the outrage over its usurpation of power,
USAC has attempted to shift the blame for its conduct upon the
Judicial Board itself. It has hypocritically been demanded that the
Judicial Board be held more accountable for its actions. However,
this weak and irrational argument undermines itself because it
ignores the checks and balances that are inherent in the Judicial
Board’s construction. Most fundamental to this internal system is
the manner in which justices are selected. Unlike USAC members, who
are elected because of their promise to implement an agenda based
on their personal ideology, justices are appointed because they are
impartial and independent.
This impartiality was recently affirmed by the behavior of
Justice Jihad Silah. Although a board member of the African Student
Union, Silah placed his affiliation aside and voted against the
interests of this organization. Unbelievably, USAC has attempted to
use this potential conflict of interest as justification for its
overruling of the Judicial Board’s decision. It has argued that
because justices are allowed to maintain their affiliations with
political organizations, it is necessary for USAC to have the final
say over its decisions. This is simply a smoke screen intended to
disguise USAC’s political maneuvering.
Silah was presented with the opportunity to use his power to
advance his own political interests. Instead, he ruled in an
unbiased manner. USAC was given the same opportunity and exploited
it. If USAC believes that Judicial Board members should not rule on
cases they have a personal stake in, why doesn’t it apply the same
standard to itself? It should be obvious where the true conflict of
interest (not to mention hypocrisy) exists.
The second mechanism that keeps the Judicial Board in check is
the fact that, like the Supreme Court of the United States, it does
not have the power to decide what cases are brought before it.
Silah did not choose to be presented with a case that would involve
the interests of the African Student Union. When that coincidence
occurred, he acted responsibly. On the other hand, USAC went out of
its way to directly involve itself in a case considering the ethics
of its own conduct. It is ludicrous to believe that USAC did this
for the protection of student rights which were clearly being
respected, not infringed upon, by the Judicial Board.
If USAC believes that permitting Judicial Board members to hold
executive positions in political organizations undermines the
authority of its decisions, it should use its power to prohibit
this. It is perfectly appropriate for USAC to demand that justices
relinquish offices in other organizations before becoming part of
the board, because there is no guarantee that future justices will
act as fairly as Silah did. What is not acceptable is USAC’s
exploitation of the issue in order to overturn a decision it did
not agree with. This only serves to further weaken the command of
the Judicial Board and removes necessary restraints on the
authority of the student council.
Finally, I would like to point out that the Viewpoint section is
intended to be a forum for the exchange of ideas, not insults. It
is painful for me to see the opinions of fellow students dismissed
by USAC members as "whines," "attacks" and "trash talk."
Ironically, those who claim to put "Students First!" appear to have
little respect for the views of anyone not holding office. USAC
cannot continue to ignore or belittle opinions that differ from its
own. Without a judicial branch and input from the electorate, a
democratic form of government  and USAC itself  would
not be possible.