Monday, May 4, 1998
Childish tactics can only hurt cause
USAC: Student group must work within system for change, not
against it
As I write this, I am livid. I’m sure many of you understand the
rage you feel when you see or read something so horrid. And in
spite of your overwhelming urge to cause physical hardship on the
author of the misinformation, for all your power, you can do
nothing but stew. This is precisely how I felt when I read in the
Daily Bruin that some self-righteous student group demanded
Chancellor Albert Carnesale should resign if he did not agree
whole-heartedly with it on the issue of affirmative action. The
group held a conference that the chancellor attended and actually
had the gall to recommend that if he would not come down 100
percent on affirmative action and promise to violate the law by
ignoring Proposition 209, he should give up his job.
Being the upstanding and mature student that I was, I
immediately realized that the wrath coursing through my blood was
something that I could temper in an effort to partially right the
wrong that the foolish student group had perpetuated. After all, I
had fooled the Viewpoint staff into giving me a forum to foist my
particularly twisted views on the unsuspecting UCLA campus. I have
the ability to undo the shameful stand that the student group
attempted to make. No longer do I have to stand against the one-way
onslaught of idiocy that the media throw at me. I can and will lash
out.
First off, it’s important to remember that my stand goes beyond
personal feelings about the merits of affirmative action (an
oxymoron if ever one was written). I’m talking about two things
here. The first is the group’s inability to accept that others may
have opinions differing from its own and going to the childish
extreme of demanding a resignation. The second disturbing thing is
that the group had the unmitigated gall to ask a public official to
openly violate a law the voters of California overwhelmingly put
into the books.
The first of these is particularly laughable – that the
chancellor’s personal opinion should determine his career
placement. I wonder if that student group understands how desperate
it looks when it demands that the chancellor give up his
constitutional right to express himself.
Perhaps the group wants that voice for itself in spite of the
fact that it hasn’t earned it. And it must feel that if it can’t
have what it wants, the chancellor shouldn’t either, because, like
children, the group can’t tolerate authorities who envision
something in a different way. People see this, my friends, people
who aren’t polarized on either side of the fence, people who are
the most susceptible to persuasive appeals based on the merits of
your case, people who might be in a position to help you. Obviously
the chancellor doesn’t feel that the reasoning of the student group
was very logical or else he would have jumped at the chance to join
in its quest to demonize Proposition 209 and its supporters. But
others, perhaps those in more superior positions than the group,
might be swayed by testimonials and rational arguments.
However this juvenile tactic of "our way or the highway" is not
only futile – since the chancellor most likely scoffs at such idle
threats – but also disastrous to the group’s cause. It goes past
proving that the group is in serious trouble since it has to
threaten a high-ranking official into aligning with it. This
pathetic attempt at discourse demonstrates that the group is not
worth anything besides laughter.
The second issue of contention is much more serious than the
first and is what really got my pantihose in an uproar (read into
that what you will). The fact that this student group would ask the
chancellor to commit an illegal act by violating Proposition 209 in
an effort to take a stand he’s obviously not willing to take, shows
the ethical veracity with which it conducts itself.
There are some laws that are ridiculous and should be changed if
possible. For example, as a devout libertarian, I’m sickened at the
constant efforts of our government to impose its own morality on
actions that should be based on nothing but our own choices; thus,
in my opinion, drugs, gambling, prostitution and other "vices"
should all be left up to individuals to decide on. However, if I
was caught pounding the reefer or smoking the bowl, would I be able
to seriously go up in front of a judge and say, "Your honor,
despite what I did was illegal, I really, really feel that drug
laws are restrictive so this is my way of protesting"? The judge
would be laughing all the way until my 10-year sentence was over!
Why is this any different? The people of California clearly made
their voice known and the chancellor has an obligation to honor it
regardless of his own opinion.
There are ways to change Proposition 209 that are perfectly
legal and open to the student group. Some are so obvious that the
reason the group hasn’t thought of them yet is that its fervor has
driven it insane. The old axiom that one should work within the
system to change the system applies here:
1. It’s the only method that won’t get them arrested
2. It’ll actually get them some respect since they’ll appear
more mature than they were in the past.
I’m sure some members of the student group have heard of
petitions before, so they should go onto campus and get
signatures.
Or even better yet, the group’s members should go to malls and
beaches and other places where people gather to give their cause a
more diverse mix than just students would allow. If the cause is as
self-evident as they contend, they will gather the signatures they
need and the chancellor will see with what popular muscle he’s
fighting against.
Or they can take this a step further and use these signatures to
put another proposition on the ballot to repeal Proposition 209 and
start a massive advertising campaign to guarantee its passage.
To its credit, the group did wait until the Supreme Court
decided not to hear the Proposition 209 appeal case before it made
its preposterous request that the chancellor ignore it (though this
may have been a coincidence). Still, there are other legal
recourses that the wacky group has available to it before it is
truly out of options. The group’s members would do well to remember
that they’re not going to a school full of morons who won’t see
their inane and insipid tactics as demeaning to their movement. The
suggestions shouldn’t make me out to be a genius. But with the lack
of rationality that the student group has been practicing it may
seem that way.
So there. I’ve done it. I’ve actually reacted to the
unanswerable media in a way that will force them to listen. Now
commence the tearing up of this paper over emotional cussing and
obnoxiously loud physical threats to its existence. Trust me, I’ve
been there.
Eric Jacks