Tuesday, May 8, 1996
By Darrin Hurwitz
The scene in Westwood Plaza early last Friday morning was almost
surreal. In the middle of the night, about 300 students, divided by
slate, ideology and background, stood apart, chanting, dancing,
singing and crying. As the election results were read, as it became
clear that one slate would win a landslide victory and the other
side would go home empty-handed, I doubt that anyone present could
have ignored the fact that these elections have almost taken on a
life of their own on our campus.
But what do they mean? Many students (the 70 percent who didn’t
vote) probably regard student government as an irrelevant part of
their campus experience, and last week’s elections as trivial
overhyping. But rather than simply dismissing the Undergraduate
Students Association Council election as frivolous student
politics, it is important that we consider its fallout and
implications for all UCLA students.
The results of the elections were encouraging for those of us
who consider ourselves activists at a time when educational access
is being threatened at a level unseen in decades. The flip side,
though, is that the past few election cycles have revealed
substantial disunity on campus and a general lack of civility
between opposing groups.
At the heart of this year’s battle for student government were
diverging views regarding the role of student government and its
relationship to students, particularly how involved it should be in
political advocacy. It would not be an overstatement to call this
year’s elections historic; I think a case can be made that these
elections represented the fundamental transition of leadership from
the fraternity and sorority system, which historically has
dominated student politics at UCLA, to a coalition of ethnic
student advocacy groups.
These elections also saw the full solidification of slate
politics on campus, where an individual can no longer conceive of
winning an independent campaign. Slates are not necessarily
detrimental to the election process, but their existence does mean
that the groups who organize the slates hold the power, and thus
the obligation, to set a positive tone for student government and
be inclusive in the candidate selection process.
Last week, whether each of us intended to do so or not, those of
us who voted collectively defined the role of student government at
UCLA; we made the decision that we prefer an activist, politicized
body who seeks to mobilize and educate students. The alternative
view, represented by the fraternity and sorority-led United
Students, was more of what students tend to imagine when they think
of traditional student government, one which promotes school pride
and focuses on on-campus activities, steering clear of more
complicated and controversial political issues.
Why United Students was so handily defeated cannot be fully
ascertained  no exit polls are conducted and no formal
political analysis is done. But I think it is relatively clear that
United Students suffered because it did not have a larger political
message or a substantive campaign platform to take to non-greek
students.
While considerations of student unity and an on-campus focus to
student government are justifiable concerns, United Students’
mistake strategically was that its message was overgeneralized and
limited to those students who were unlikely to vote anyway.
Ultimately, Students First! was better equipped to galvanize its
bases of support to vote, both because it had a relevant message
and because its political themes have become increasingly
significant and timely thanks to the recent actions of Governor
Wilson, the UC Regents and congressional Republicans.
The rise of Students First!, whose base of support lies in an
increasingly diverse campus community, in many ways reflects two
different trends which have developed at UCLA; one, of course, is
the rise of minority student politics, whose development and
success on campus is striking.
As we are all well aware, inter-minority group relations have
typically had a troubled and difficult past; a look around Los
Angeles provides sufficient evidence for this. On campus, though,
these groups have come together to build a winning coalition and
develop a single, relevant message of educational access and
renewed political activism. This is something that all of us, as
UCLA students, should be proud of. They have set an example which
elected officials, community leaders and political organizers could
do well to follow.
Students First! has also succeeded because its rallying cry
exists against the backdrop of the 1990s’ societal backlash. What
we are witnessing nationwide, and to an even higher degree in
California, is an attempt to overturn many of the gains of the
1960s, which, if carried through, would have an enormous impact on
people of color and low-income families.
In an era when political activism on campuses should be on the
rise, when students need to be vocalizing their interests, United
Students appeared unconcerned with issues affecting large numbers
of students, particularly this campus’ ethnically diverse student
body. Students First! was able to appear relevant to its
constituency; its candidates provided students with a credible
record of their grassroots efforts this year, and they campaigned
with a vision for the coming year.
Ultimately, the lessons from these student government elections
present positive opportunity for all groups and students who desire
proactive student government and a greater level of campus
unity.
Students First!, as simply a minority progressive coalition, has
matured. Its leadership would do well now to broaden its base and
to reach out beyond its original constituencies.
By bringing in groups who have been on the outside and
outreaching to the opposition, Students First! could build a
unified, diverse political slate which could lead UCLA students
(new ones, not just those on a 12-year plan!) into the next
century.
Most importantly, Students First! should be constructive with
the criticism it received during its first term and during the
campaign  the lesson learned should be that political
advocacy does not mean that less-political campus issues can be
pushed aside. A student government can and should deal with a
diverse set of concerns and extend its hands equitably to all
student groups.
The defeated United Students slate and its supporters would be
wise to reconsider their message and leadership base. This begins
by realizing that student government has a responsibility to be
political, especially now when the political winds of the times
demand it.
As we head into a critically important election year, what
better role for student government than to mobilize and educate on
issues, such as affirmative action and financial aid, which affect
all students? These are complex issues and demand student activism.
Meeting with administrators certainly must be a first step, but
realize that many of these steps have been taken and have
failed.
Ultimately, an opposition to Students First! will probably only
succeed when it ceases to be primarily a greek slate. Fraternity
and sorority students deserve to have a voice on council, but they
should learn from the lessons of Students First!. Winning elections
comes from year-round action and successful coalition building. It
also comes from running for something substantive, not just against
the status quo.
There are two directions we can now take. One takes us down a
path like last year’s, where year-round mudslinging and tension
creates division, dissatisfaction and leads to another election
cycle like this one. The other path, the more hopeful one, takes us
in a new direction, towards coalition-building, creative solutions,
outreach to all groups, open-mindedness and, most of all, a real
and hard-earned campus unity. Let’s make the right choice
.
Hurwitz is a third-year political science student.