Monday, November 24, 1997
Assembly proves its disregard for student voice
ACADEMIC:
Insult typical of larger double standard in UCLA’s governmentBy
Ramon F. Velarde
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, the faculty had their first legislative
assembly meeting. The legislative assembly meets four times during
the academic year and is composed of faculty delegates who have the
power to cast votes on issues before the assembly. While some may
question the validity of airing the following in such a public
arena, the actions which I am about to describe occurred in a
public venue, in front of numerous people. Thus, the public space
becomes the chosen area for resolution.
Prior to the legislative assembly meeting in question, I was
asked to prepare a speech on the concerns and issues facing
graduate and professional students. I hope to have a complete
outline of the speech on the Graduate Students Association web page
(http:ligsa.asucla.ucla.edu) in the near future.
During the assembly meeting I attentively listened to Chair C.R.
Viswanathan, and Chancellor Carnesale give their respective
speeches. After the chancellor spoke it became my turn to address
the assembly. Not even five minutes into my presentation, the chair
waved his hand and told me to cut my speech short in full view of
about 60 faculty members, the chancellor and students. I could not
believe what had happened. I momentarily lost my train of thought
and then quickly concluded my speech with some summary remarks and
returned to my seat.
I was shocked and dazed at what had transpired. My feelings of
confusion slowly transformed into ones of anger at the indignity
which I, a student representative and guest to the legislative
assembly, had been accorded. Before leaving the meeting I was
approached by a number of people who believed that the chair’s
actions were rude and uncalled for. While the experience of being
cut short by the chair of the legislative assembly means nothing to
me as an individual student, I feel that it has much larger
ramifications for the respect given to students and their
leadership.
During my tenure as Graduate Academic Affairs Commissioner I
have slowly seen a double standard materialize, a standard which
finally reared its ugly head at the legislative assembly meeting.
As the graduate and professional student representative to faculty
government I have participated in many meetings and noticed that
people with Ph.D.’s behind their names or other honorifics are
accorded a great deal of respect and deference, even if they are
saying nothing of substance. However, when a student speaks he or
she is asked to do so quickly or is made to feel like his or her
comments serve no purpose and can thus be discounted. I can recount
many times when I have had to endure the presentations of various
individuals which ran well beyond the established time limits,
though I would never dream of being disrespectful or cutting them
short in front of their peers.
The incident which occurred at the legislative assembly meeting
points to the larger issues of students being excluded from the
"shared governance" structure which the University of California
supposedly embraces. If the faculty truly wants input from students
they must listen to what we have to say, good and bad; otherwise,
do not waste our time. I was not appointed to be "window dressing"
for the concept of "shared governance," nor am I a "rubber stamp"
of student approval for faculties’ actions. I am a student
representative with a real and tangible interest in the policies
which faculty and administration adopt.
Faculty and student leaders must remain engaged with each other,
even if we disagree with what is being said or we do not find the
topic to be one of importance. Only through mutual respect and
attention can faculty and students form any sort of meaningful
dialogue on the issues which we are confronted with.