Dwyer is a fourth-year sociology student with a minor in
education.
By Brighid Dwyer
Last Thursday I was talking with some friends on Bruin Walk
after class. Our group was composed of a white female, a black male
and myself, a biracial (half black and half white) female. We made
our way down along the left side. On the right side was a table
advertising a basketball tournament to raise money for AAP
scholarships (the multiracial Academic Advancement Program, which
offers services and opportunities to promote the academic success
and leadership of its students).
The tournament sounded like a great idea and I support efforts
to provide more scholarship money for students, especially those
who are historically underrepresented at this school. But, one of
the people who was promoting this effort did a very poor job.
As I was walking with my friends, the young woman who was
distributing flyers cut clear across Bruin Walk in front of
approximately six people to address the black male in our
group.
I would think that raising scholarship funds is important enough
that organizers would invite everyone to attend and avoid
stereotypes when recruiting people. In this situation, this young
woman was focused on the tournament instead of the cause when she
targeted the individual whose exterior is most commonly associated
with basketball ““ a black male.
AAP is a program that helps a large number of minority students.
Why then did this young woman approach only a member of the
population she was attempting to raise funds for? She obviously has
very little knowledge of the program and instead relied on her
assumptions about race.
In addition, had she taken the time to look more closely, she
may have been able to see that this young man was wearing a UCLA
baseball team sweatshirt. From this she could have discerned that
this black man’s talent and interests may lie in a realm
other than basketball.
It is possible that this woman did in fact note the sweatshirt
and made assumptions about the person’s athletic skills. If
this is correct, however, then the young woman has another bias
““ this one against a woman’s ability to play
basketball. The fact that the woman I was walking with and I, and
the six people she cut off were not invited to participate in the
tournament is left unexplained.
Regardless of which form of profiling was used, this type of
action is completely unacceptable. Again, if the goal of the
project is to raise money, all individuals need to be included in
the effort.
This type of racial profiling is a reality in everyday life. It
is an unpleasant experience that many people have to deal with and
often learn to accept as part of the world we live in. But no
matter how many times it happens, it still hurts and the target
hopes that the situation will not be repeated or perpetuated.
What makes this incident even more unnerving is that the woman
who committed this act is Elizabeth Houston, our Undergraduate
Students Association Council president. This action is entirely
unacceptable for anyone, but it is especially unfortunate to see
this behavior coming from a person who holds a prominent leadership
position in our community. As president, Houston is supposed to
represent the interests of all UCLA students. How is this possible
when she has a huge bias?
While the above mentioned incident was transpiring, I stated
loud enough for Houston to hear, “Gee, I don’t think
anyone in particular was targeted. The fact that you are a black
male had nothing to do with the fact that you were the only one
approached.”
At this point, I hoped that she realized her mistake; however, I
received no cue that she had. Still, the other young woman, the six
individuals who were cut off, and I were not invited to the
tournament. In addition, Houston failed to correct her mistake or
address my concern in any way.
This experience leads me to agree with a comment made by former
USAC president Mike de la Rocha. In the “halfway”
report on USAC officers ("Student leaders strive to meet goals for
year," News, Feb. 14), he stated that Houston shows
“antagonism and closed-mindedness to issues.” I agree
most definitely with this statement, and after reading it I felt
compelled to share my experience.
This incident has enabled me to see a part of who Houston really
is. I am not saying that she is an awful person. We all make
mistakes. But as a public figure, she has an obligation to be
especially aware of her actions. Although a single experience
cannot tell an entire story, it can illuminate a portion of it.
After meeting Houston during last year’s election and
reading about her lack of experience, I was a bit wary of her
taking on the role of USAC president. I was hoping that my doubts
would subside this year and that she would rise to the challenges
her new role presented. This incident has only confirmed my
original thoughts. It seems that she lacks experience and
understanding ““ two qualities she should be exemplifying.
This leads me to ask the question: are these the types of
qualities we want in a person who is representing the entire
student body?
Although I am not pleased with the way things have progressed
during her term, I have not given up on Houston. I hope that she
really listened to my words and took them to heart. I hope that if
others have had trouble with her, they speak out and let her know.
After all, she will only learn if we teach her.
I hope that I am correct in assuming that as president Houston
has been involved in positive behind-the-scenes work. If these acts
are not publicized more and if she does not show her face at more
campus events, she will continue to receive criticism.