Friday, 5/2/97 Student groups need university patronage to
survive Proposed change to Bruin Belles highlights dependency
Last week’s article on feminism and Bruin Belles (April 23) was
the hardest article I’ve had to write. It wasn’t so much that I had
trouble saying what I wanted to say, but I feared the consequences
of my actions. I feared that I could inadvertently hurt Bruin
Belles, or that various members would be angry with me. I could
blast MEChA any day. I don’t care for them and they really don’t
like me either. But to be critical of an organization I love –
that’s different. The point I was trying to make through the
article was about conflicting definitions of feminism, not
necessarily about Bruin Belles. I did not choose the headline or
subhead, but I am glad that the copy department saw our sponsor’s
"request" as an ultimatum, which is what it was. So why am I
bringing up Bruin Belles again? Because there is a larger issue
here, one that affects all student groups. I know the majority of
campus could care less about Bruin Belles or our possible name
change. I’m sure that within Bruin Belles, there are members who
look upon a name change as a decision similar to deciding where
we’re going for Mom’s Day or what color T-shirts we print for the
tournament. Sponsorship, though, affects all student groups, Bruin
Belles included. The university requires that all officially
recognized and registered student groups have a sponsor within the
university. That means that an academic department or recognized
group, such as the Alumni Association or the honors programs, must
assume legal and financial responsibility for a group’s actions.
For the most part, groups are given mentors, a cubicle, or maybe
just a mailbox and a meeting room. More often than not, sponsoring
departments can’t offer students a large working budget, so groups
must still raise their own funds. But without a sponsor, an
organization does not exist at UCLA. Without a sponsor, you are
unable to use the name UCLA or in any way associate or represent
yourself as an extension of the university. You may exist as an
independent group, but your activities and use of resources are
highly limited. A sponsor validates your position within the
university structure. A sponsor must approve your constitution. I
was told a sponsor may request you to amend your constitution
(including name changes), but I found no such provision in the
posted rules and regulations regarding sponsorship. A sponsor has
the power to limit or expand your group’s activities. In return for
this control, a sponsor accepts responsibility if you should break
any university rules and advises you in all aspects of the
organization. Once a sponsor is secured, the constitution is
approved and the expectations on each side are set. Then, groups
must go to the Center for Student Programming (CSP) in order to
register. This agreement is approved, and hopefully an appropriate
match can be made between compatible student groups and the
sponsoring department. This sponsor-group match is extremely
important. A folk dance group can’t be sponsored by the biology
department, nor can a Tae Kwon Do club be sponsored by the honors
program. CSP is the direct link to student groups and is overseen
by the dean of student affairs. The rules and regulations governing
campus groups are the same throughout the UC system. Other than
dealing with sponsorship and university bureaucracy, every
organization has its own internal politics and ideological issues
to resolve. Bruin Belles has always had to reconcile both
conservative and progressive goals of the organization. We have
always had to reconcile our hostessing responsibilities with
hands-on community service. There has always been a wide
representation within Bruin Belles of personal political
ideologies, ranging from feminism to ultraconservativism. However,
we are not a political organization. Our constitution and
university policy limit us in this manner. So I question the
validity of a sponsor’s drive to change a group’s name based on her
own personal political beliefs. I frown upon her attempt to play on
the natural differences which already exist within our organization
to push this measure through. Since last week’s vote, CSP has
requested that we re-vote due to "confusion" among members about
what we were voting about. I find this exceedingly ironic, since
two weekly meetings prior to voting were devoted to discussion of
this issue. Conflict Mediation, as well as two advisors, were
brought in for a "moderated discussion." It wasn’t much of a
discussion, since both advisors left after saying their part. They
obviously felt it wasn’t their responsibility to listen to the
additional half-hour of comments from the people who were actually
voting on this issue and are directly affected by it. I was told
that our advisor didn’t really appreciate my taking this issue
public. Well, maybe if she would have stayed for that "discussion,"
she would have heard me make these same points, instead of waiting
to read about them in the Daily Bruin. Others felt that I shouldn’t
"air dirty laundry in public." I admit I had reservations about
this, but I don’t feel I am airing dirty laundry. I’m not talking
about internal politics or mundane issues like changes in our dress
code. The politics of this issue and the questions it raises about
the power of sponsors over student groups are extremely vital.
Bruin Belles plays an active, although often silent, role within
the university. I’m sure the student athletes and band members
would miss the little acknowledgments we make for them, but what
about the athletic department, the Alumni Association and the
School of the Arts? The organizations we work with would continue,
but not without the ready pool of volunteers which exist within
Bruin Belles. The amount of volunteer hours we perform would cost
over $50,000 dollars a year if we were paid minimum wage. This
doesn’t take into account the monetary donations we make and the
supplies we use in our service efforts. The issue of financial
support has also arisen. Linda Klein noted that Bruin Belles is
largely self-supporting, since members pay yearly dues and raise
funds throughout the year. Granted, this is true. But why were we
told that our sponsor’s financial support (roughly $2,000) was so
vital to an organization which has its own budget of $35,000? Why
are we changing our name in order to keep 6 percent of our funding?
To make up the difference, we would just have to raise our yearly
dues by $15 per member. Some may say we need the office space and
our meeting room in the James West Alumni Center, but I think
$2,000 is a small price to pay for our dignity. I would rather meet
in an empty classroom and share a smaller cubicle than to submit to
the whim of $2,000. I would rather seek out a sponsor who respects
us than to submit to the will of a woman who doesn’t care for what
we have to say and attempts to bully us into keeping her signature
on the books. A representative from the CSP said we have the right
to split into two separate groups. I don’t think any member of
Bruin Belles, the president and myself included, want to see that
happen. I think the name you should value is the name you make for
yourself. Bruin Belles has existed for nearly 50 years, and
although we don’t give out oranges to the rugby team anymore, the
dedication and commitment of 46 years is intrinsically tied to our
name. There are reasons why Bruin Belles has not changed its name
in over 40 years. We are recognized as Belles by the people who
know us best. We shouldn’t break with tradition simply because one
woman doesn’t agree. So why should you care? Simple. If an
individual can force a group to change their name because of her
personal bias and political ideology, what’s there to stop other
sponsors from making their groups jump though hoops to keep a
signature on the books? What would happen if USAC was run by
conservatives who wanted the Student Advocacy Groups to change
their names? This whole sponsorship and by-laws issue reminds me of
the Greek de-sponsorship of a few years past. Following the Theta
Xi songbook fiasco, the Interfraternity Council (IFC) was
de-sponsored as a SAG. The council was extremely upset by this,
since de-sponsorship meant it lost many rights, privileges and
resources. The next two years were a constant battle to gain Greek
control of USAC and to gain re-sponsorship. The Greek system
protested by not advertising in the Daily Bruin and by rewarding
Greek voters with a barbecue. In the end, it was the political
genius of Rob Greenhalgh, USAC president from 1994-1995, which
achieved Greek re-sponsorship. Greenhalgh believed that if you
can’t win by playing by the rules, then change the rules. So that’s
what he did. The board changed the definition of a SAG so that IFC
could once again qualify. Sponsorship, then, is vital to all
student groups on campus. Constitutional amendments within Bruin
Belles arise every year, and until recently, they have stemmed
solely from the executive board. The recent amendment to make
pantyhose an optional and not compulsory part of our dress code, by
contrast, did come from within the organization’s members. The
actual breakdown of votes for a name change were as follows: 12
abstentions, 40 "no" votes and 68 "yes" votes. That breaks down as
10 percent abstaining, 33 percent no change and 57 percent yes to
change. I question to what degree the threat of de-sponsorship
influenced these yes votes on an issue which did not originate
within Bruin Belles. I regret that Linda Klein, the president of
Bruin Belles, and I have yet to discuss this in public. I have
nothing but respect for her and admiration for the work she has
done within Bruin Belles. Regardless of what we’ve said in the
Daily Bruin, we both want what’s best for Belles, and are taking
two different ways of ensuring that Bruin Belles continues to exist
at UCLA in one way or another. Guzman is a graduating sociology
student.