In record-breaking fashion, on only the second day of the
quarter, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board managed to mislead the
entire span of its readership in such an egregious manner that it
deserves to be cited for journalistic misconduct. The total
ignorance of the facts in the editorial titled “USAC correct
in refusing nominees,” Sept. 27 shows how much a misinformed
newspaper editorial board can misrepresent a seemingly
uncomplicated situation.
At the Sept. 24 USAC meeting, the council voted against
approving four Student Judicial Board applicants ““ one
female, and three males ““ who coincidentally all happened to
be white, although all were qualified. Members of the council
thought the lack of gender and ethnic diversity would not
adequately represent the student population.
I did not disagree with this contention. But the appointment
process is done in three steps. Students submit committee
applications in the spring. The president decides which student is
most qualified for a particular committee and then forwards the
application to the Appointment Review Committee, who then
interviews the applicant in person. The committee then makes a
recommendation to USAC and the full council votes to approve or not
approve the applicant.
Nowhere on any of the USAC committee applications is there a
place for students to specify ethnicity, so when I look for
qualified applicants it is sometimes impossible to identify
people’s ethnic backgrounds, based on their names alone. Yet,
the editorial board wrote, “Dahle was wrong in not
considering people of different ethnicities or backgrounds. It
shows he needs to work on keeping these concerns a
priority.”
The assumption that I do not keep ethnic diversity as a top
priority in committee appointments based on this one incident is
not only an illogical generalization, it is also entirely
inaccurate. Anyone who takes the time to research the various
committee memberships approved by this council will see that the
percentage of minorities greatly outnumbers non-minorities. It
seems the editorial board uses selective memory when it has an
agenda to push.
Secondly, the editorial board also failed to grasp the fact that
the J-Board decides constitutional issues based on impartiality.
J-Board members should not represent any political slate, student
group affiliated with USAC, or be a member of any USAC office. None
of the applicants I nominated for a J-Board position were
associated with any slate. For this committee, objectivity is the
most salient qualification, not ethnic background. Yet, the
editorial board stated, “The various USAC boards should be as
evenly split between the SURE and Student Empowerment! slates as
the council is.” This statement is not only ridiculous, but
it displays a disturbing lack of knowledge about government
institutions. If the J-Board was appointed based on partisan
affiliation, it would just be a second USAC, rendering its judicial
authority useless.
Also, the editorial board conveniently failed to mention that
the majority of committee applicants I have nominated for committee
positions have overwhelmingly been students affiliated with SE!
organizations or offices. There are many important funding
committees composed almost entirely of SE! affiliated students, all
of whom I nominated. In contrast, SURE affiliated students make up
a very small percentage of overall committee membership.
When, if ever, do you think a winning president has gone out of
his or her way to over-represent the other slate in committee
memberships? I have even reached out in an unprecedented fashion
and appointed my election opponents and students overtly critical
of myself because I knew they were qualified for the positions. In
all objective measurements, I have been the most bipartisan USAC
president compared to those in recent years.
The truth is I do value diversity in all its forms and try my
hardest to facilitate diverse committee compositions. I do not care
if the Daily Bruin Editorial Board fails to recognize and report
this fact. What I do have a problem with is an ignorant editorial
board making a circumspect analysis of a situation it knows very
little about, and misrepresenting my position.
There is nothing wrong with being critical, but criticism should
be based on the whole truth, not a partial examination of the
facts. I warned last year’s Daily Bruin Editorial Board
during my endorsement hearing that I would not hesitate to
challenge any information I perceived as misrepresentative
concerning USAC or myself. I stand behind my words.
Just as the rest of USAC and I have much to learn, the Daily
Bruin must also realize it has an ethical and journalistic
responsibility to research the facts surrounding a situation before
making a suspect judgment which thousands of people will read.