Wednesday, 5/21/97 Election tactics create discord, apathy among
student body Candidates focus on own differences, lack spirit of
cooperation
By Lea Endres USAC elections were evidence of growing
intolerance and division. If you cringed at the word USAC, don’t
worry; the focus of my article is not campaign funds or chalk on
the sidewalks. Rather, it’s the fact that our election process is
ineffective and generates frustration, anger and apathy in the
student body. Methods used simply enhanced the division and
intolerance already apparent on our campus. I’ll be honest. I feel
like the recent elections revealed many underlying issues our
campus is dealing with. So for the two minutes it takes to read my
article, I ask you to put aside how you personally feel about the
outcome of the elections. Put aside your first reaction to the word
USAC. Many people say UCLA is a mini-representation of the world.
We are home to nearly every ethnicity, religion and belief
structure known to the human race. What exactly are we doing with
this unique opportunity? Using USAC elections as a time to
distinguish between the group that "represents minority interests"
and the group who’s "Greek – thus not representing minority
interests." Handing out flyers to people who "look" sympathetic to
our cause. Targeting people based on ethnicity. Campaigning on the
basis of mudslinging, reading that the presidential debates allowed
"presidential hopefuls (to) use forum to attack opposing parties."
It’s obvious that this process is not effective. Judging by the
many letters to The Bruin, people are pissed – not necessarily
about the candidates or their views, but about their tactics. Yet
to me it isn’t just frustration at a process. What seems to lie
below all the surface emotions is the feeling that if groups are so
"die hard" and not seeking compromise or cooperation, then it
really isn’t possible to have a representative government. This was
shockingly clear to me when I heard, "I won’t let the bastards beat
us." (Ironically said by people on two different slates.) Excuse
me? Are we not all students? Do we not all study, talk with
friends, enjoy ice blendeds and try to graduate? The sense of
division was so great, this "us and them" mentality, that after
hearing the above statement I had no hope any of the slates would
represent me. I want a student government that represents the
entire student body, not just the non-bastard groups! It’s kind of
weird, like everyone suddenly forgot what it’s like to work
together, to gain and lose a little so the majority can be
represented. Remember that representing everyone does not mean
giving up your own beliefs! It means communicating in a manner
which encourages understanding and compromise. It means being
willing to put one-track thinking aside to LISTEN and communicate
effectively with people who think differently than you. It means
fighting stereotypes and existing prejudices. But this is not just
about student government. Divisions on our campus are glaringly
obvious, and the recent elections fit what we already seem to do –
break down people into categories or labels. How many times have
you heard: "Oh, you’re Chinese – you must belong to CSA; you’re
white – you must be Greek; Indian – ISU; oh, you’re not active –
sellout." What’s going on? Where is this leading us? To a future
where groups stick to one area without interacting with others?
Where we only care about the advancement of one group? (Is this
already going on?) I don’t see how things can change if we are
content with such labeling. We seem comfortable with outright
intolerance. The recent election shook me up and destroyed a lot of
my hope because of a process designed to divide. But maybe that’s
what we needed, to wake up and realize there are some serious
issues going on that need attention. Maybe we saw the need to get
past people’s exterior "resumes" and listen to what they are really
saying, focusing on similarities, not differences. Student
government could be a group which brings people together, not tears
them apart. We need more tolerance and understanding, breaking down
of barriers to help people of all ethnicities celebrate themselves
and each other. When we can respect each other (realizing other
groups are probably not all evil people), and listen with the
intention to understand where the other person is coming from, we
can begin to break down the division and the classifications. In "A
Time to Kill," the lead character says "the eyes of the law (or of
student government) are human eyes, nothing but a reflection of our
own prejudices. So we have a duty to look for truth not with our
eyes or minds – where fear and hate turn in to prejudice – but with
our hearts, where we don’t know any better." If we could really do
this – suspend fear, hate and prejudice – we would achieve so much
more than just changing USAC elections. We could change everything.
"Every issue, belief, attitude or assumption you have of a person
is exactly the issue that stands between you and your relationship
with that human being." – author unknown. Endres is a second-year
political science and international developmental studies student.
Previous Daily Bruin stories: Negativity influences campaigning