Recently, UC Regent Ward Connerly brought a resolution before
the UC Regents attempting to discontinue university funding for
student activities based on race, national origin and sexual
orientation. This proposal, known as Resolution 38, would have had
sweeping effects, eliminating university funding for a variety of
activities, from ethnic-specific outreach programs and student
retention centers to culture nights and ethnic graduations.
Fortunately, this misguided and divisive resolution was rejected,
but it raises some important issues.
The basis of Connerly’s argument is that the funding of
the aforementioned activities leads to balkanization, because it
nurtures separate identities and celebrates differences through
various political positions and activities. He also claims it shuns
any common “American” identity. Connerly argues that by
recognizing these differences, the goal of achieving “One
America” is hindered.
Yet close examination reveals we hardly live in a country which
can truly be characterized as “One America.” I make
this statement in the hope that we can recognize our problems and
work to solve them, rather than just cover them up. Blacks and
Latinos are several times more likely to end up serving long jail
sentences for nonviolent drug offenses than whites, while South
Asians and Arabs are more likely than average to be victims of hate
crimes. Even on campus, disparities persist, with the admission and
retention rates of members of certain ethnic communities being much
lower than other groups. And gays and lesbians, while enjoying an
important legal victory in a recent Supreme Court decision, still
lack protection in areas such as job discrimination and health
care. These are only a few examples of the many problems people
encounter constantly in the area of race and group relations.
However, some of these “divisive” groups for which
Connerly hoped to eliminate funding are in fact seeking to solve
these problems. Groups such as the African Student Union, MEChA and
the Asian Pacific Coalition have helped establish a variety of
outreach and retention programs. These groups, through the
establishment of ethnic studies centers, have also ensured that the
curriculum of UCLA is at least marginally representative of the
experiences of diverse groups. UCLA’s Queer Alliance, along
with activist groups at the state and national level, have sought
to fight so that gays and lesbians enjoy the fundamental rights
that all people should enjoy.
These groups have ensured that students whose experiences were
traditionally excluded from mainstream attention are recognized. If
funding were eliminated for these types of activities, this would
only strengthen feelings of exclusion and further sow the seeds of
division. Also, in pursuing such cuts, the regents would ignore the
interests of a huge number of students who belong to these
organizations, and in effect, would discriminate against certain
political beliefs by giving funding to other activities that are
deemed politically or socially acceptable by the elite who oversee
our university. Most of all, such an action would only aggravate
existing disparities by failing to provide constructive solutions,
and this ultimately will make the dream of “One
America” even more unfeasible.
Connerly seems to believe these groups seek to exclude members
of other ethnic groups and view themselves in an antagonistic
relationship with other ethnic groups. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The annual cultural shows organized by a variety of
ethnic clubs reach and educate members of many different ethnic
groups. If Connerly would open his mind and attend such an event,
he might comprehend this. Furthermore, all of these ethnic
organizations are open to members of any ethnicity, and members of
other ethnic groups who view themselves as allies, often do
participate in these activities. This only helps build community
and cohesion among different people, rather than cause hatred and
antagonism.
More than anything, Connerly’s proposal sought to impose
excessive bureaucratic control on students and prevent them from
having any say in shaping their own educations. Currently, the
Undergraduate Students Association Council provides funding for a
variety of activities and student advocacy groups. If his proposal
had been passed, control over how student groups receive funding
would have been removed from the hands of our elected student
representatives and questionably placed in the hands of
administrators.
Connerly’s proposal, while it has been defeated, is still
significant because he has brought this same proposal forward
several times. If a board of regents unsympathetic to student
issues and people of color or gay and lesbian issues were to
materialize in the future, Connerly’s resolution could very
well pass and irreparably harm student groups and educational
freedom at UCLA. Furthermore, the prospect of using ballot
propositions to bring about these changes is hardly unforeseeable.
Clearly, funding for these groups must be preserved, and UCLA
students should remain vigilant in ensuring that it does.