Urrea is a third-year English student and general coordinator of
Concienca Libre.
By Marlene Urrea
Last week, the Daily Bruin ran a story concerning our
organization, Conciencia Libre, and the crosses we erected last
quarter to represent those who died while trying to cross the
U.S.-Mexican border in the past few years (“Conciencia
Libre fine creates rift in USAC,” News, Jan. 16). The
article describes a conflict we had with the administration, and I
would like to clarify a few issues associated with the
incident.
First, I would like to address the statement that
“Conciencia Libre has not responded to the $150 fine issued
by the university.” We did not become aware of the fine until
finals week, a good two or three weeks after Nov. 28, when USAC
began debating the issue of who should pay for the event.
We also attempted to set up a meeting with Berky Nelson,
director of the Center for Student Programming, but due to the
chaos of finals week, the meeting didn’t place. Now our
priority is not only to pay the fine, but to also reestablish a
working relationship with the administration.
More importantly, I would like to address the issues of the
event itself, which was planned under the limits set for us by the
administration. Unfortunately, the afternoon before we erected the
crosses, the administration began to back out on its agreements
claiming that our project was “too controversial.”
Regardless, Conciencia Libre met on Monday night to erect the
crosses on campus.
 Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin Although the
approved spaces were limited, we were willing to comply until the
administration imposed ridiculous demands on us that included the
removal of all 600 hundred crosses at each night at 5 for the whole
week. They justified this by saying the crosses would incite hate
crimes and riots among students, particularly the students who
identified with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As students and
activists who tried using the correct means of making a political
statement about Operation Gatekeeper, a government program that
militarized the U.S.-Mexican border, this was an insult to us.
Operation Gatekeeper has killed hundreds and probably thousands
of people forced to immigrate to U.S. soil to survive due to the
impact of foreign economic policies on their countries. Our crosses
originally had stands as required by our contract, but we decided
as a group that our crosses should stand proudly and remind
students, faculty and staff that many of the luxuries we enjoy come
at a high price.
The crosses represent real people, and they deserve real
respect. Though the crosses were threatened, we stood by them,
fully aware of the inevitable consequences. Yet we also knew of the
impact that we would have on the university and getting students to
address the issue. In fact, many people on campus are still talking
about it today.
As prevalent as immigration issues are in Los Angeles, many UCLA
classrooms fail to bring such matters into discussion. As a matter
of fact, on the day prior to our event, the Daily Bruin published
an article about bringing L.A. into UCLA (“Faculty explores
need for community involvement,” News, Oct. 31). Yet when
Conciencia Libre did exactly that, we were reprimanded because, as
the administration put it, our exhibit was “too
controversial.”
We do not believe that the display was controversial; rather, it
was a reflection on the harsh realities of Los Angeles. Contrary to
what some people may think, we did not offend the student body; in
fact, we received a positive response to the project, which
fulfilled the useful purpose of creating dialogue among many
students who are otherwise apathetic to their surroundings. A
lecture in a classroom could have never compare to this
exhibit.
As far as USAC President Elizabeth Houston’s claim that
the violations of the rules outweigh the educational benefits of
the program, I would like to ask her how she came to such a
conclusion. None of our members ever saw her approach us to educate
herself on our project; nor did she attend our program.
One of Houston’s duties as USAC president includes
educating herself on issues affecting the UCLA community. Clearly,
she failed to do this by not attending our program, despite all of
the “controversy,” as was apparent by the press, the
petition signing, and the overnight protection of the crosses.
Houston cannot make a valid statement over the educational benefits
of the program if she didn’t attend the events.
In addition, I would like to address USAC Facilities
Commissioner Steve Davey’s comment that we lied to the
university. This is simply not true. As I stated earlier, our
intentions were to follow the university regulations; it was not
until the university began to make ridiculous demands that we stood
our ground by planting our crosses.
We did not set out to defy the university, but only to make a
strong political statement; unfortunately, in this case, the verbal
agreement made with USAC administrative representative Lyle
Timmerman to allow us to keep the crosses up overnight was not
respected and university officials continually threatened that the
crosses were going to be removed.
I am especially disappointed that some of the USAC members
stated that this highly educational, political and humanitarian
event will have a bearing on our future funding. Funding for our
events should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not be
determined by a single event.
With that said, I would like to mention that it is shameful and
highly unprofessional for university officials to mask their
discomfort with the political content of our exhibit behind the
guise of technocratic violations. I would also like to add that the
damage to the grass was minimal considering the impact we made on
the student body and considering there is no more sign of any
damage to the lawn.
If the university didn’t like the content of our exhibit,
it should have admitted it rather than hindering our right to free
speech on the basis of two damaged sprinkler heads. If this truly
is the case, shouldn’t the L.A. Times Festival of Books be
fined as well for the hundreds of tents staked into the lawn around
the campus for their event? For now, our priority is to pay the
fine and move on with our events for this quarter.
Finally, I would like to point out that this display was not
only powerful for the students but also for the hundreds of food
service, facilities, and cleaning workers on campus who finally
felt a real connection not just with the campus but with the
students.
We will continue to show concern for the social and political
reality of Los Angeles and promote educational programming in an
effort to create a greater consciousness for the entire campus
community.