Hamdi is president of the Engineering Graduate Student
Association.
By Naser Hamdi
Over the course of the past two days I have seen several
articles warning of the grave injustice you will be committing by
voting “yes” on the Student Interest Board Referendum.
It has ranged from those attempting to justify why the current
system “works” to those who resort to slandering our
campaign by saying, “Deceit is an insidious part of their
campaign.”
Let me make it clear ““ this referendum was formulated in
order to allow the graduate students of UCLA to decide for
themselves what they think is their best interests. I am not
soliciting a yes or no vote. My job was over the minute I got the
referendum on the ballot, and now it is up to the voters to
decide.
As the Engineering Graduate Students Association president and
delegate to Graduate Students Association Forum, I have the moral
obligation to protect the rights of the graduate students I
represent. Previously, the only thing hindering student interest
groups’ ability to join GSA Forum was the failure to reach a
10 percent voter turnout during GSA elections. But, with the advent
of online voting, it is clear that this will no longer be an
obstacle to potential student interest groups interested in joining
GSA Forum. It is becoming evident that the number of student
interest groups can only increase in the future. Hence, it is
important to create a new framework to maintain the fair and
responsible representation of the graduate student body.
The constitution of the Graduate Students Association states
“that reasonable procedures must be established to guarantee
the fair and responsible representation of all graduate
students.” It appears that the Graduate Students Association
is no longer abiding by the rules set forth in the constitution
upon which it was established.
I do not believe I have the right to decide the fate of student
interest groups on GSA Forum. I believe that right belongs to the
graduate student body as a whole. What I find truly disturbing is
that GSA officers, student interest groups and some council
representatives do not even want to give this right to choose to
the students they are supposed to represent.
I do not wish to engage in the unprofessional and childish
practice of “tit for tat” that I have seen in some of
the recently published articles on this issue, but I feel it
necessary to reply to some of the gross accusations made against
the council and me. For example, no signatures were “gathered
under false pretenses.” It was clearly explained to students
what the current situation is, what the proposed changes are, and
the justification for those changes. Also, it has been suggested
that we “gathered signatures standing at the check-in table
of one of GSA’s GradBars.” This is not entirely the
case ““ the total signatures gathered during GSA GradBar were
a little over 80, out of a total 560 gathered in support of the
petition. As a sponsor of the referendum, EGSA representatives
attending GradBar invited graduate students to sign after giving a
detailed description of the issue to those interested. I spent the
better part of four hours explaining this referendum to graduate
students and gathering signatures from those who decided to sign.
In no way were they “given the false impression that this
measure is a GSA-sponsored referendum.”
If the needs of these groups are so diverse, then there are
inherent conflicts. Why should this inherent conflict be given an
unequally larger voice on GSA Forum? Shouldn’t the loudest
voice always be that of the majority, while also assuring that
student interest groups’ voices remain to be heard now and in
the future?
If it took the American Indian Graduate Student Association the
better part of three consecutive years to gain representation on
GSA Forum, wouldn’t you want to make it easier for other
student interest groups to get a voice on GSA Forum? And for those
of you who were under the false impression, as I was when I voted
yes on giving AIGSA a seat of GSA Forum last year, that student
interest groups are an issue of minority representation, it is not
a minority issue.
Affiliation with a student interest group is not always based on
race. Any group of 10 people who possess a similarity of ideas,
culture, living arrangements, political party affiliation or even a
favorite food can petition to form a student interest group.
Finally, the ultimate justification for why some Graduate
Student Association officers, student interest groups and some
counsels believe that the graduate student body should not have the
right to vote on this issue is that they have already cast their
votes when these student interest groups petitioned to get a seat
on GSA Forum individually. It is clear when they petitioned to
join, the situation was taken out of context. The graduate student
body should have the right to vote on the issue as seen in full
context. But I won’t tell you how to vote ““ only that
you have the right to do so.