The undergraduate student government voted at its meeting Tuesday to indefinitely table a controversial resolution that calls on UCLA to analyze its assets and pull its finances from companies that violate human and labor rights.
The resolution, which backers say is meant to take a moral stance, asks UCLA to divest its holdings from “socially irresponsible companies” that are involved with workers’ or human rights violations, or threaten environmental sustainability.
The original language of the resolution sparked debate over what its opponents called “vague language” and the use of the word “divestment” – a term which has been tied to the withdrawal of financial support from companies that support Israel and its national policies in the Middle East.
At the Tuesday meeting, which drew more than 100 students, opponents of the resolution focused on one particular clause that cited a student demonstration at UCLA against the “2008-09 Israeli offensive on Gaza” as an example of “(the UCLA community’s) commitment to justice and equality.” They said the clause implied that the proposal was actually about divestment from Israel, not about ethical investments, and said this language was offensive to members of the Jewish community.
Other UC undergraduate student councils, including ones at UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UC Riverside, have recently dealt with resolutions that, unlike UCLA’s, ask the UC to divest specifically from Israel. UC Santa Barbara’s undergraduate student government voted 10-11-1 Thursday morning to reject a resolution calling for divestment from companies supporting Israel after a 14-hour senate meeting.
At UCLA, because of the concerns raised, the Undergraduate Students Association Council decided to take out the clause during its meeting. USAC unanimously decided to indefinitely table the resolution for future amendments at an undetermined date.
External Vice President Lana El-Farra – who helped draft the resolution with members of Queer Alliance, Students for Justice in Palestine, Muslim Students Association, Pakistani Student Association, Afrikan Student Union and MEChA de UCLA – said the core of the resolution is not about divestment from Israel but about standing for human and labor rights.
“The intent of the resolution was not to cause controversy, but to call for ethical investments from the university,” El-Farra said.
El-Farra was also one of the original sponsors of the resolution, along with Anees Hasnain, community service commissioner, and Taylor Mason, cultural affairs commissioner. Mason was not present at Tuesday’s meeting.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, several students accused El-Farra of breaking her promise to represent all students by supporting it.
Jonathan Gilbert, a fourth-year political science student and president of Bruins for Israel, said El-Farra did not ask for his or his organization’s opinions in the original drafting of the resolution and that the proposal only represents one side of a complicated issue.
“Our opinions were not asked for and we did not know about it until (after the resolution was written),” Gilbert said. “That’s being pushed to the side and almost being marginalized.”
Dana Saifan, a third-year psychology student and president of Students for Justice in Palestine, said in an interview after the meeting that she thinks the resolution is grounded in basic human rights and reflects UCLA’s True Bruin values.
Saifan said she was happy the council is at least trying to address the issue of ethical investments and she thinks the resolution is only about those investments, not Israel or Palestine.
USAC President David Bocarsly said the council’s decision to table the resolution indefinitely was wise given the divisiveness it caused among students.
“We need to have a longer, more meaningful conversation about ethical investments without talking about Israel and Palestine,” Bocarsly said.
The council also plans to host a forum on ethical investments before discussing the resolution again, El-Farra said. The forum is tentatively set for Thursday at 5 p.m., she said.
As someone who was present at this USAC meeting, it is important to recognize that while the intent may not have been to offfend any specific communities, the perception among a large sector of campus, including Jewish and non Jewish communitites, clearly did not represent everyone. After reading the resolution, I found it to be extremely vague. It is important lie define all terms in a way that also represents the campus.
Although there were claims that this was not an Israel-Palestine issue, the presentation of the bill happened to follow divestment presentations at UC Irvine, UCSD, UC Riverside, and UC Riverside.
Furthermore, the resolution spoke about violatioes of workers rights, environemntal rights, and human rights. Making a general statement about three categories can lead to misunderstanding among future councils and feelings of discomfort for current and future UCLA students
We need to adopt a socially responsible investment policy here at UCLA. There should be no reason that our investments do not match our values! By some students framing this as a resolution on Israel, you are completely pushing aside all of the communities that worked on this resolution and who endorse this resolution! You are silencing members of MEChA de UCLA, Afrikan Student Union, Queer Alliance, Muslim Students Association, Pakistani Student Association and others! If anyone reads the text of the resolution, you will see that this has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with our values as UCLA students, and making sure our financial ties match our values!
I don’t understand three things:
1) Why human rights in any form is controversial. Is the D-word (“divestment”) that big and scary a term? The very literal definition of it is “to de-invest”. People on Wall Street do it all the time–why is this such an issue?
2) How this is divisive. Anyone who has a problem with a bill targeting UNIVERSAL human rights violations (as in ones here in the US, in China, in Iran, in Syria, in Russia, and–yes–even Israel) must be someone complicit in or okay with these human rights violations themselves. This bill didn’t target any specific country, so playing the “marginalization” card is playing a victim card and crying crocodile tears.
3) Why divisiveness on college campuses is held to a higher priority by student governments and administrations than people’s human rights and dignity are. Having everyone hold hands in “coexistence” is completely useless if a large majority of those people are being slowly, silently choked to death (metaphorically, and in some cases even literally) by an oppressive, top-tier minority.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with the fact that this was tabled. Shame on USAC, and shame on the students who opposed this bill.