SF! agenda harms campus dialogue
Students First! has one major agenda: Talk about race, gender,
sexual orientation, insert-minority-status-granting-quality-here,
then talk about it some more. Through controlling student fees, the
slate ensures a few proprietary issues dominate the campus, leaving
few resources to consider other subjects.
SF! leaders have consistently shown disdain for the average
American, demonstrated by current USAC President Anica
McKesey’s statement that the university is “blatantly
racist” and USAC’s internal vice president and SF!
presidential candidate Allende Palma/Saracho’s comment:
“It’s dangerous to go by what the general public wants
because the general public is homophobic or sexist.” SF!
regularly shows contempt for the “racist masses,” who
tend to find SF!’s views rather extreme.
Students First! and its allies have a right to be heard ““
so long as other relevant issues and points of view are heard as
well. The problem is, that is not happening.
How do so few people set the tone of campus debate? The answer
is money ““ the lifeblood of free speech on campus.
USAC’s entire budget was $2.2 million last year, but council
bars formally religious and political organizations from receiving
funds.
Groups with “historically underrepresented
minorities,” however, are allowed funding, so long as they
don’t admit they are political or religious. Thus,
organizations like MEChA, the African Student Union, the Muslim
Student Association and others who routinely engage in political
and religious activity, are funded.
Sound unfair? The UCLA administration and the U.S. Supreme Court
agree. The administration has indicated USAC is in violation of UC
funding policies. But SF! has tabled every proposal for change.
Why? The ruling establishment is loath to take any advantages
away from its supporters. Palma/Saracho condemned the fight for
fairness and legal compliance as an attempt “to erode the
significance of Officially Recognized Student Organizations”
and “to eliminate the student body’s hard-earned
recognition of then-called Student Advocacy Group
status.”
In order to return sanity to campus dialogue, SF!’s
corrupt reign must be ended and content-neutral funding processes
must be enacted. A wider range of topics and viewpoints must be
funded. We call on all groups unfairly deprived of funding to stand
up, band together, and demand that USAC recognize its right to
equal treatment. After all, our obligation to fight is secondary to
our obligation to build the arena.
Matt Knee Bruin Republicans executive
director
Lawson’s views on LGBT community
troubling
I am appalled that Josh Lawson, as a candidate for USAC
president, believes homosexuality is a choice (“”˜I can
be an advocate in the truest sense,'” News, May 3).
While he is trying to come off as sympathetic by “respecting
this choice,” he has missed the basic concept that being gay
is not a choice, but a characteristic a person is born with.
Being a gay student, I had to struggle to come to terms with my
identity. While I always felt an attraction to the same sex, I
would deny it to both others and myself. Finally, after much
self-reflection, I was able to accept who I am. At no point was it
a decision to be gay; rather, it was a realization.
Understanding that being gay is not a choice is the first step
to knowing that being gay is not wrong or a perversion. At a campus
as diverse as UCLA, with hundreds of students in the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender community, USAC’s president should at
least possess this basic understanding; without it, he or she
cannot adequately represent all students.
If Lawson is elected and continues to hold this belief, I worry
that USAC will become an unfriendly space for the LGBT
community.
Julio C. Rodriguez First-year, linguistics
Many candidates ignore Asian Pacific
Coalition
On April 29, the Asian Pacific Coalition hosted its own
endorsement hearing for USAC elections. We decided to host this
hearing to give candidates the opportunity to hear APC’s
concerns about USAC leadership and to address the needs of the 22
APC organizations.
Unfortunately, many candidates did not attend. No candidates
from the Equal Access Coalition, and several independent candidates
for the offices of president, internal vice president, Financial
Supports Commission, Student Welfare Commission and Campus Events
Commission showed up.
For the candidates who did come to our endorsement hearing, APC
saw they either showed a thorough understanding of our needs and
concerns or could not answer our questions. Independent candidates
Doug Ludlow and Darren Chan, running for president and internal
vice president, respectively, made assumptions about APC’s
power structure which were insulting to our collective
leadership.
Without knowledge of the diversity of the many communities in
APC, it is extremely difficult for any candidate to advocate on our
behalf. Until now, only Students First! candidates have been able
to show proof of advocacy and proactive work on behalf of the Asian
Pacific community, on and off campus.
As for other EAC and independent candidates, APC found the lack
of attendance at our endorsement hearing a sad example of how
potential candidates can offer us no sort of understanding if they
do not even consider our endorsement hearing worthy of their time
and attention.
Lizzie Cajayon APC director
IP address delay not planned for elections
I am writing in order to diffuse any confusion which may have
arisen as a result of the argument presented in Thursday’s
Viewpoint submission by Joseph Vardner (“E-Board has no right
to enforce IP delay”). At this time, neither the Elections
Board nor MyUCLA plan to implement any sort of Internet Protocol
address delay.
While Vardner states that the IP delay exists “because the
majority of the council wishes it to exist,” no directive
reflecting such desires was ever made by the current year’s
council to the Elections Board. In the absence of such a directive,
preparations for this year’s elections have proceeded without
the inclusion of an IP delay.
Whether or not the Elections Board has the authority to enforce
a delay of this sort should some future council deem it necessary
is not pertinent at this point, as the IP delay will not be
implemented for this year’s elections.
Roy Samaan Elections Board chair
Viewpoint submission doesn’t speak for
SWC
I’m writing in response to the Viewpoint submission
written by Paul Marian (“Josh Lawson best choice to correct
corruption done by Students First!, May 4). First, as the current
Student Welfare commissioner, I did not approve, endorse, or even
know about the submission. It does not in any way reflect my
opinions, the opinions of the candidate for next year’s
commissioner, or, as far as I know, anyone else in SWC.
Marian’s attendance at council meetings is not related to his
SWC position. His comments appears to stem from a friendship with
Josh Lawson.
Though Marian was exercising his free speech, I have come to see
that when it comes to politics, free speech has become a tool used
to manipulate words to present one-sided stories.
What I have seen on council this year is not some champion of
students, victimized by slate machinery. Rather, I’ve seen
that each member works hard to benefit the students. From the
Budget Review Committee to the Elections Code, there was an attempt
to be fair and compromise in the best interest of the student body.
That is what I have come to appreciate about my fellow council
members, whether they are on SF! or SURE.
This letter is not to criticize Lawson or his office. There was
definitely merit in several things he presented, such as when he
wanted the bylaws to be in accordance with the Supreme Court
ruling. However, as councilmembers, we need to be responsible for
how we pass bylaw amendments by analyzing all the subsequent
effects of such actions. What is more disappointing to me is that
there was no communication between Lawson and my office regarding a
member of my staff writing to further Lawson’s campaign.
Janet Chiang Student Welfare commissioner