At the presidential debate for the undergraduate student
government, candidates espoused their respective platforms and
allowed old slate animosities to resurface.
Three of the four candidates running for president of the
Undergraduate Students Association Council attended the debate to
reiterate their campaign goals and to respond to some issues that
have been raised in recent weeks.
Arash Mozayan Isfahani, an independent candidate for president,
was unable to attend the debate due to a scheduling conflict.
Candidates representing Students First! and the Equal Access
Coalition, the two slates vying for a majority on next year’s
council, each explained the merits of their own slate while the
sole independent candidate present at the debate stated that his
lack of slate affiliation made him best able to deal fairly with
all students.
Josh Lawson, presidential candidate for the Equal Access
Coalition, opened the debate with an explanation of the
slate’s collective goal ““ to fight against fee
increases and open USAC funding too all student groups.
The Students First! candidate, Allende Palma/Saracho, said that
he and his slate will work at “reclaiming the
university,” explaining that factors such as the fee
increases and minimum progress report were preventing students from
having fair access to a UCLA education.
The differences that have existed between Students First! and
the Equal Access Coalition took an important position in
Friday’s debate, and independent candidate Doug Ludlow
pointed to this animosity as evidence that only a candidate without
slate attachments could successfully lead and represent the student
body.
Ludlow said he would be best able to compromise the agendas of
the two slates.
“I’m running to repair the divided campus that is
UCLA. … I’m the only one who can bring together a divided
council,” Ludlow said.
To support his claim that an independent candidate is the best
choice for USAC president, Ludlow pointed to problems that have
existed on council throughout the year to show that neither Lawson
nor Palma/Saracho would be able to work cooperatively with other
slates on council.
“Josh and Student First! are not good friends. They
won’t be able to work together,” Ludlow said.
After the debate, Palma/Saracho echoed these feelings of tension
between himself and Lawson.
Palma/Saracho said he had thought the debate was informative and
generally successful, but that inevitable tensions arose between
himself and the other candidates, Lawson in particular.
“It’s hard not to take offense,” Palma/Saracho
said, referring to Lawson’s allegations that this
year’s council had not acted as a cohesive unit. “I
felt that sometimes he was just actively lying,”
Palma/Saracho added, citing as inaccurate Lawson’s claim of
victimization by council throughout the year.
But Palma/Saracho also made statements that could be seen as
less than accurate, particularly a claim that there is currently
less diversity at UCLA than there was during the 1930s, an
exaggeration at best.
Throughout the debate, candidates were asked to comment on some
of the more controversial issues they have each had to deal with
during their campaign and during the past year.
Palma/Saracho was confronted with concern expressed by some
students that councilmembers currently on the Students First! slate
have shown bias towards their constituency groups in the funding
process and passed amendments that have acted to limit the voting
pool to a certain type of student.
In response, Palma/Saracho said that the sheer number of student
groups that received funding this year ““ more than any
previous year ““ was evidence enough that Students First! did
not only fund its constituency groups.
“It’s unfair to say that we have funded our groups
disproportionately. … We went a really long way to expand
USAC’s inclusivity,” Palma/Saracho said.
Lawson was asked to address concern by some members of the
student body that he would not be able to deal fairly with all
students, particularly members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community.
Throughout the year, Lawson has voted against certain
resolutions in support of same-sex marriage and certain gay rights,
which some students have taken as a sign that, if elected as
president, he would not represent or respond to the concerns of the
LGBT community.
But Lawson explained that he did not believe his personal,
political and moral beliefs should be a primary factor in the
elections. Lawson said he will advocate equally for the rights of
all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or any other
factor.
Ludlow has faced some controversy during his campaign due to his
decision to put up a Web site prior to announcing his candidacy and
before the date prescribed to begin campaigning.
There was worry that this decision may have been in violation of
the Elections Code, but Ludlow maintains that the Web site was
legal to the best of his knowledge based on a packet he received
earlier in the election cycle.
“It made for a really good debate,” Palma/Saracho
said, adding that although there was tension between himself and
other candidates, he thought it was an informative and productive
evening.