After the faculty rejected a diversity requirement by a vote of
141 to 108, the Bruin sat down with Eligio Martinez, the
undergraduate student association council’s academic affairs
commissioner, who has made the diversity requirement a central part
of his commission’s mission.
Daily Bruin: In your opinion, what is the main reason a
diversity requirement is necessary?
Eligio Martinez: In my opinion, it’s necessary to educate
students about diversity. Not only in L.A., but in the United
States itself, a lot of students have misconceptions about what
diversity is or what the importance of it is. I think that without
a requirement, we’re not able to understand what each other
goes through, and to see how we perceive each other. For UCLA to
not have a diversity requirement, being where it’s at,
it’s kind of shocking. A lot of people say you don’t
need a requirement because you’re in L.A., but that
doesn’t really mean a lot because a lot of people still
don’t know about the diversity that exists within Los
Angeles.
DB: Why do you think UCLA is the only UC without a diversity
requirement? What do you think is the impact of this?
EM: My honest opinion is that this shows where the faculty is at
when it comes to diversity. It sends a message to a lot of
students. All the other UCs have one, and there are some which are
very specific or very out there, or at least what a lot of people
would consider out there. I just think the faculty here is
resistant to having a diversity requirement, and I think that shows
what their views are, and what they think education, and the value
of education, is and should be.
DB: Why do you think this particular requirement was voted
down?
EM: I think the reason this requirement was voted down, as was
the first requirement, comes down to racism. The faculty
doesn’t want it, the faculty doesn’t value diversity.
They don’t want diversity in this population. To me
it’s racism, period. This is a proposal students have been
working on for over 17 years.
DB: How will you respond to the vote?
EM: In terms of our response, we’re going to keep lobbying
the faculty we need to lobby. We’re going to go to the school
of film and theater and the school of architecture, and hopefully
they’ll implement it. That will send a message that the
college is falling behind.
DB: How likely is it that the other schools will implement
it?
EM: When we talked with them last spring they were more willing
to listen to us, more willing than the (UCLA) College.
DB: Why do you think there was such a low faculty turnout in
the vote?
EM: Apathy. I think also the timing might have been bad just
because it was during tenth week and finals week. Just like the
students, the faculty are concerned about finals and grading and
turning things in. Some faculty might also have just been
overconfident going in because there was a lot of momentum.
DB: What do you think would help improve faculty turnout in
the future?
EM: I think we need to be more aggressive and lobby them a lot
more. We need to hold them accountable. So, as students,
we’re going to be more aggressive and we’re going to
lobby more and make sure they vote. We’re really going to
find out who our allies are, and we’re going to try to work
with faculty members who have been friendly to students and do care
about this requirement.
DB: Will you try to make a different proposal, or will you
stick with the current one?
EM: We’re going to stick with the current one as it
hopefully will be implemented by the other two schools. But if that
doesn’t work, we’re going to go back to what we
originally wanted. What we wanted is a two-course requirement. One
which would focus on local issues, but also one which would focus
on international issues.
DB: How would you respond to faculty members who are
concerned the requirement could impede their academic
freedom?
EM: That’s a contradiction. I think the faculty members
that are saying that are the conservative faculty members that want
to impose what they consider vital education onto us. And, as
students, this is a liberal arts institution. UCLA has been the
center of a lot of activism, a lot of politics ““ students
have fought to create ethnic studies, students have fought to
create departments on this campus. For them to say that it’s
impeding their academic freedom, that’s ridiculous. By not
implementing the requirement they’re violating someone
else’s freedom of expression ““ like our studies, like
ethnic studies, women’s studies or LGBT studies.
DB: Concerning the diversity requirement, what is your main
goal for the rest of the year?
EM: For us, it’s to get it implemented by Fall 2005.
We’re going to continue working on it with the faculty. Even
though Raymond Knapp said it was a defeat, it’s never a
defeat. We won’t take no for an answer. When we take no, we
compromise and we lose, and we’re tired of losing.
We’re not going to wait. Two more years is too much.
DB: Did the faculty’s vote come as a surprise to
you?
EM: It did. It was shocking. We didn’t expect the turnout
to be so low. We’re only getting what? 249 votes? In what is
supposed to be the largest, most liberal and most progressive
school on the campus? It was very shocking. Where were the faculty
that claim to be student allies? Where were all the faculty who
were saying “vote for diversity”? And for all the
conservative faculty, it’s really showed where they stand. To
me it’s sending a message because it’s saying that
students like me shouldn’t be here, or that our histories,
our cultures, are not important, they are not valuable, they are
not good enough for everybody to learn about.
Interview conducted by Colleen Honigsberg, Bruin Senior
Staff.