BY Marcelle Richards
DAILY BRUIN SENIOR STAFF
mrichards@media.ucla.edu
We, as the students of this “entity,” must
“make agency” for one another, “facilitate
dialogue,” “advocate representation” while
“empowering” others to “act collectively”
and “mobilize” to “troubleshoot” problems
by “actively engaging” in decisions and
“unifying” to “realize our potential!”
If you don’t understand, you’re not the only
one.
Even Undergraduate Students Association Council candidates
can’t define this in plain English, but they find themselves
in the vicious cycle of perpetuating USAC-speak they wouldn’t
dare use to secure a date.
Resigning to the jargon, they’ll use it on the job, and
more recently, to secure a vote.
“We all use those words, but no one really wants
it,” said academic affairs candidate Dria Fearn.
From “vote for the quotes” of Students Unity for
Reform and Equality to “empowering students!” with
Student Empowerment!, no one can escape the use of
“dialogue.”
Internal vice president candidate Justin Levi, who raked in the
high score of 12 “dialogues” in a single interview,
finds the language inherent to student government.
Though he managed to use three forms of “dialogue”
in a single sentence, his personal word of choice is “”mdash;
surprise “”mdash; “represent.”
He can’t help using the word when he explains to Mom and
Dad why he’s running.
“Those are the answers I give,” Levi said, shrugging
his shoulders.
Campaign literature, candidate statements and slate ideologies
reflect the lingo that’s become attached to USAC.
“People use a lot of rhetoric,” said internal vice
president candidate T.J. Cordero. “People articulate it
without actually knowing what it means.”
Cordero, who comes in a close second with eight
“dialogues” in an interview, said the important part is
making sure candidates and their constituents know that, for
example, “access” entails understanding outreach
efforts and the impacts of housing and transportation
availability.
Over the last year, “dialogue,”
“facilitate” and “collective” have been
staples of the USAC lexicon.
It appears a few more may be joining the list.
Adam Harmetz, general representative candidate, coined
“troubleshoot,” which has since rubbed off on fellow
candidates.
Without mention of his name, Fearn knew exactly who was in
question.
“That’s all Adam,” she said, nodding before
speaking.
Presidential candidate Bryant Tan is all about the need to
“make agency” and uniting as a collective, collective,
collective.
His opponent, David Dahle, is equally prone to using linguistic
crutches like “visibility” and
“representation,” partially due to the fact that these
two terms are major pillars in his platform.
The golden break from USAC verbiage can’t be ignored.
It comes in the form of a
1980s-cartoon-about-five-mechanical-lions-transformed-into-defender-of-the-universe-robots
metaphor:
“It’s like Voltron,” Dahle said of working
with student group leaders.
The moment is brief.
Sigh.
No one escapes “dialogue.”