Editorial: USAC should reverse precedent, heed students’ voices

The recent uproar over stipend increases by the Undergraduate Student Association Council is this group of councilmembers’ first major run-in with vocal opposition from the student body.

At their last meeting, councilmembers chose to ignore outcry from students who felt it was improper for them to raise their own pay. During the discussion, several councilmembers said that reversing their decision on stipends would constitute “flip-flopping.” Never mind the ethical implications of public representatives boosting their own compensation.

“Us flip-flopping on something we’re doing will (reflect) poorly on us,” said External Vice President Maryssa Hall.

For a councilmember, changing one’s stance in response to opposition from students is not “flip-flopping,” but a judicious appraisal of his or her constituency. If anything reflects poorly on the council, it is the stubbornness it displayed by failing to heed the students who elected the councilmembers.

Facilities Commissioner Armen Hadjimanoukian said at the meeting that students’ opposition to the stipend increase was “the most united (he’s) ever seen the student body” about an issue facing USAC.

Given this response, the only reasonable course of action would have been for the council to make an about-face and resolve to increase stipends for next year’s council. But at the urging of USAC administrators, councilmembers held steady to the path they had chosen, despite its unpopularity.

The councilmembers’ reluctance to succumb to popular opinion is admirable. But USAC will have to make many difficult and complex decisions as the year progresses, and it must cultivate the flexibility to adapt to situations as they evolve.

In addition, the council must take any opportunity to reverse the precedent that students’ voices should not factor into its decision-making.

Further, several councilmembers said during their last meeting that students failed to understand the conversation at the council table, instead buying into a false “narrative.” This reading of events is an underestimation of the student body’s capability to understand issues that USAC addresses.

Low stipends essentially constitute an issue of access: Students who can’t afford the low pay won’t be able to serve on council. UCLA students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds, understand the problem of access.

As this board has stated before, the council is right to try and fix the inequity of stipends that have stayed stagnant even as student fees and the cost of living have risen. But for a member of student government to raise his or her own pay is a conflict of interest. This board argued as much in a previous editorial, and the recent feedback shows that many students agree.

Councilmembers can be sure this episode will repeat itself. They will make decisions that will make some students unhappy. When such events arise, especially when the ethics of their decisions are in question, it is imperative that councilmembers take into account where students fall on the issue and learn to “flip-flop,” at times, for the good of the student body as a whole.