Wednesday, January 22, 1997
REFORM:
Judicial Board under fire when heat should be on council
As the nation starts focusing on the ethical problems of our
political leadership, it is high time the UCLA student body does
the same. The recent controversies concerning the Undergraduate
Students Association Council’s misuse of student fees and abuse of
power call into question Students First!’s ability to effectively
serve students, and by extension, the legitimacy of student
government.
What is the latest controversy regarding USAC? Well, it all
began last quarter at the massive No on Proposition 209 rally. At
that event, sponsored by the UCLA Affirmative Action Coalition, a
banner was unrolled conveying the rally’s message. Simple enough
you say? What else would you expect at an anti-affirmative action
event? Well, it’s not that easy. The banner also carried the "Paid
for by USAC" logo, and therein lies the problem! The Smith vs.
Regents decision prohibits the use of compulsory student fees for
political or religious purposes. I’m sorry, but not even the
greatest spin doctor could disguise an event where the participants
march through the streets of Westwood and get arrested as anything
but political (it just ain’t gonna happen).
Naturally, the use of student fees was challenged, and
naturally, the student Judicial Board decided that USAC was in the
wrong. USAC, having the constitutional power to do so, overturned
the J-Board’s decision and declared that they were not in the
wrong. The conflict-of-interest charges enter the scenario, not
because USAC ruled on the validity of its own actions, but because
the African Student Union (ASU) is a member of the Affirmative
Action Coalition and Jihad Salah (a Judicial Board justice) is a
member of the African Student Union.
You might be thinking,"Well it makes sense that Salah would
excuse himself from the case because of his ASU affiliation." Well,
the charges did not surface until after the Judicial Board ruled
that USAC’s actions violated Smith vs. Regents, which causes me to
wonder, "Why, then?" The answer again is very simple and plain to
see. Jihad did not vote the way USAC expected him to. In fact, he
acted impartially and voted against the interests of the ASU. His
actions may not have been the best politically for the ASU and the
Students First! slate, but they were noble, nonetheless.
As you can see, it’s not a matter of conflict of interest but a
matter of USAC’s ability to control and manipulate the Judicial
Board and its individual members. Throughout all of this, no one
has mentioned that another Judicial Board justice is a member of
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, and MEChA is part of the
Affirmative Action Coalition. Could it be that this has not been
questioned because it is a vote Academic Affairs Commissioner Max
Espinoza and the rest of Students First! can depend on? It should
also be noted that last year, Espinoza served as chair of MEChA.
There is scant evidence that Salah’s actions were prejudiced by his
ASU affiliation. However, a clear conflict of interest arose when
council members played judge and jury on themselves.
Our generation is constantly reminded that we are the future,
and that one day the mantle of leadership will be our
responsibility. If this is our future, then we are in a sad state.
If the past has anything to offer us by way of advice, then this is
also our future (at least as far as USAC is concerned). The fact
is, the past three USAC presidents held other positions on council
prior to assuming its helm. Don’t think this has gone unnoticed by
today’s USAC members; the continued attacks on the Judicial Board
should be viewed in a politically charged context. Espinoza’s call
for Salah to step down is part of the scrabble to succeed John Du
as president.
Rather than scapegoat the Judicial Board and its individual
members, USAC should deal with the fact that it is recklessly out
of control. When previous slates dominated USAC, progressives
slammed them for their disregard for rules and wanton abuse of
power. Now that so-called progressives run student government, the
same thing is going on. Is the institution of USAC flawed?
It could be, but we must also look at the personalities of our
leadership. With leadership comes responsibility; this we all know
(hopefully). However, the importance of humility is often lost on
our leaders. The sweeping victory of the Students First! slate in
last spring’s election should not be seen as a blank check. Their
actions since have been akin to those of Republicans following the
1994 takeover of Congress. The public’s image of them was negative,
a factor in Bob Dole’s loss, and almost cost Newt Gingrich the
speakership.
It is not too late to turn the tide that is mounting against
Students First!, but they must act now. They should be credited for
their Book Lending Program and for aiding in the increase of
student activism. Unfortunately, all of their positives will
continue to be overshadowed by politically inspired witch hunts
like the one currently being conducted concerning the Judicial
Board.