An action agenda item is currently on USAC’s table to divvy up the solo office spaces allocated to the Afrikan Student Union at UCLA, the Queer Alliance and MEChA. Having more student groups compete for less space is problematic and divisive.
Additionally, it penalizes organizations that have been active, organized, and formed for the express purpose of including underrepresented groups.
The Office Space Allocation Committee’s process is unfair. It does not provide clear criteria for selection, and its process changes every two to three years. Last year, according to the process, the Afrikan Students Union was promised that it would not have to move for another three years. Despite having earned the highest score based on the allocation committee’s selection criteria last year, ASU was aced out of promised office space when the process changed this year.
When members of Bruins United were elected, they changed the office space allocation process so that they could give office space to their supporters. This has little to do with being inclusive of the entire UCLA community. To add insult to injury, the allocation process is on the table to be changed without clear criteria to implement the process.
Student governments should be consistent ““ especially when it comes to office space allocation. If said council is selective of which promises they do and do not honor, on what grounds can they justify their actions? Certainly not based upon student needs.
These safe spaces are not optional. Campus climate has been hostile to many marginalized students and their allies for decades. If campus climate were not hostile, then it would not have taken so much campaigning and protesting, in 2006 and 2007, to increase African American enrollment.
Thousands of highly qualified students were unjustifiably being denied entrance to this public university, which was not and is still not representing California’s population demographics. These spaces are necessary for congregation, support and exploration of personal identity.
Dr. Beverly Tatum notes “the developmental need to explore the meaning of one’s own identity with others who are engaged in a similar process,” emphasizing the need for safe spaces for underrepresented student groups. Her and other research has shown that spaces like these encourage positive coping strategies in response to environmental stressors like racism and heterosexism. Consequently, many quality institutions have provided programs on campus to facilitate group bonding and exploration.
Simply put, safe spaces that address the specific needs of students are an invaluable and necessary resource, be they concerned with gender or racial equity and inclusion. Do the student leaders of USAC respect that need? In light of the continued diversity crisis, the roles of ASU, MEChA and the Queer Alliance have not diminished, and neither has their need for office space.
By dividing office spaces, you pit more groups against each other to compete for fewer resources and smaller spaces. The plans of being inclusive are not inclusive at all.
Instead of eliminating these few safe spaces, why doesn’t USAC make more space available for student groups that demonstrate a need? In their selection criteria, they could include factors such as the social realities of different student communities on campus, as well as the group’s civic engagement, size, sustainability and effective use of office space.
This way, we can come up with new selection criteria that will benefit everyone.
Fortier is the administrative coordinator of the Afrikan Student Union. She is a fourth-year neuroscience student.