UI is justified, not a contradiction
As leader of the United Independents USAC slate, I feel it is
necessary to answer the questions raised in Wednesday’s
editorial, “LaFlamme’s new slate could raise more
conflicts” (April 9), regarding the seeming contradiction
between United Independents’ goal to diminish slate influence
and the fact that UI is itself a slate.
The UI “contradiction” arises from many structural
facts within the USAC electoral system. Chief among them is the
Elections Board’s code, which first and foremost does not
recognize slates. For example, it is not illegal for a slate name,
such as Student Empowerment!, to be publicized incessantly in the
run-up to student elections. However, it is an election violation
(that can result in disqualification) to publicize a person’s
name as a candidate for student office before the actual three-day
polling period. This gives slates a huge jump in publicity in that
students can be familiarized with a slate name, accomplishments and
perhaps even a method for identifying the slate’s candidates
on the ballots. On the other hand, independents are precluded from
publicizing their names beforehand.
Because the Elections Code refuses to recognize slates as part
of the electoral process, S.U.R.E. and Student Empowerment! are
free to place unlimited promotional signboards around campus, free
to hand out flyers with slate names and free to place unlimited
media advertising. All of these campaign activities, when done on
behalf of a specific candidate (usually an independent unable or
unwilling to join a slate), are illegal under the Elections
Code.
A second large point to make about the UI contradiction is that
the only way to reform this system is from within. By assembling
our candidates under a unified ideological banner of full
representation for students ““ even those who we know will not
vote for us ““ we put ourselves in the strongest position for
accomplishing the reform that we know is necessary.
Without a united slate, an eloquent and convincing candidate,
genuinely concerned about the need for fundamental reform, will
lack support from other elected representatives. As a result, there
will be no reform.
I hope these two factors serve to explain why the apparent UI
contradiction is in fact an intelligent plan for advancing the goal
of solving the problems of slate dominance and the division of
campus groups by partisan affiliation.
Andrew LaFlamme USAC financial supports
commissioner
Dahle did not do anything wrong
Given the continuing war in Iraq, I wonder why the paper chose
to print a non-war issue, “Manipulation is the key”
(News, April 9), as its cover story.
There wasn’t anything remotely illegal or wrong with David
Dahle’s memos. And Robert Salonga’s companion piece,
“Student group funding reflects USAC loyalties” (News,
April 9) shows that Empowerment! has also increased the budgets of
its friendly groups while in power. So, what was the problem? The
memos only show how politics are realistically conducted in an
adversarial environment.
By giving way too much attention to this, the newspaper is only
providing ammunition to that other slate, which is the real
obstacle to progress in our student government.
Mike O’Young Fourth-year, political science Former
Daily Bruin Electronic Media director
Free speech isn’t just for liberals
Rachel Sizgorich’s recent column, “Celebrity
boycotts act against free speech,” (April 4) clearly
demonstrates how liberals believe free speech only protects their
right to speak out and not the right of those who disagree with
them.
People have the right to refuse to listen or watch people they
find unpalatable. This is the exercise of free speech, not an
attack on it. Liberals have a right to speak their mind, but people
also have a right to not support those people, if they so
choose.
Actions do not come without consequences. And those consequences
may mean that people tell others to shove-off.
Daniel B. Rego Class of 2000