On Tuesday at the Undergraduate Students Association Council endorsement hearings, I walked off stage after giving my opening statement, a surprise to many in the room. But as a presidential candidate, I could not partake in a process that systematically keeps students from getting involved in their student government.
As I looked around the room on Tuesday, I saw many of the faces I always see in this space, sitting in a room that should have been filled with representatives from all the students organizations USAC represents. However, the endorsement process has become such a long process that many groups don’t want to go through it.
Bureaucracy should never prevent student groups from getting informed about their student government. And yet, Tuesday night’s endorsement hearing demonstrated the corruption of the democratic process in regard to undergraduate student elections.
The endorsement process is a setup for students already involved to ask questions tailored to specific candidates, as was evident when Heather Rosen, the Bruins United candidate for Financial Supports commissioner delivered one of her answers through a clearly prepared song. The purpose of opening the floor to questions from student organizations should be to educate and familiarize students with candidates’ platforms. But how can student groups take such a process seriously when questions like “How thirsty are you?” are tolerated as serious questions?
As I sat and watched all of the candidates go on stage and play in this game, I realized that as a presidential candidate it was my job to stand up to this injustice of the endorsement process.
Do not mistake my actions. I act with purpose to send a message. USAC as it stands needs to be more inclusive of the student body it serves. I am more than confident in my abilities to bring that change and be the USAC president this campus needs. And that was not going to be determined by a room full of students who had already made up their minds.
My actions Tuesday, and the actions of my fellow FIRED UP! candidates who left with me, speak to our character, our integrity and the belief that we should be empowering the students we represent.
We are FIRED UP! Here to put the student voice back in USAC. Rooted in community. Fired up for change.
Rodriguez-Flores is the FIRED UP! candidate for USAC president and a fourth-year Chicana/o studies and Spanish student.
So what are you going to do to make USAC less bureaucratic and more inclusive towards the organizations it represents?
When you leave the room you aren’t empowering anybody…you’re losing your voice. USAC may be flawed as a system, but if you are running to take charge of that system, learn to make change from within (as you will be an insider in just a few months if you have it your way). You don’t want staged questions at endorsements? Play their game better than they do. You plant someone to ask the question “how do you feel about planted questions and the flawed endorsement system?” Explain how you would reform it. That would have been more impressive leadership. Instead, those of us watching the live stream lost out on hearing what you had to say…and you lost any chance at our votes.
You can’t plan someone to stage the questions if the people in charge are working for the other slates and aren’t picking her people to ask questions. Think about that.
Fair point. But, you can easily talk all about it in your opening statement, especially considering she was willing to participate just long enough to make such a statement. Plus, considering the fact that all of the other candidates of this slate answered questions, it seemed incredibly awkward and last minute that she walked away. Was she afraid of answering questions? Was she not prepared? Is she the type to walk away from the council when the system isn’t working out her way? All seemed like bad signs to me, as a concerned voter.
I can definitely see your point! But I feel like she was addressing the problem within her opening statement and then they cut her off since each candidate has an allotted amount of time to speak. And as for the fact the other FU candidates answered questions, she stated she was slowly fed up after watching each of her candidates play this game, hence her leading to leave the stage. The point of walking away is to challenge the system that makes her partake in system not because it’s not in her favor. Reading FU’s website, they’re about changing the system USAC has created over the years.
I’m personally looking forward to the debates more than the endorsements hearings. Endorsement hearings don’t really mean anything at the end of the day, especially when all the groups in the room already decided who they will vote for.
Then in that case, she’s not running for a presidential seat, she’s calling for a protest. If she wants to be USAC President that badly, it doesn’t make sense for her to walk away and condemn the same process by which she’ll get elected. Does that make sense? While the saying might go, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” she’s just slapping it away. RB is right. By walking away, yes, you make a statement, but you lose out on making your voice heard and expressing your opinions. You can’t change the system if you choose to be hands off.
So, now walking out is a mechanism of being heard? WOW. And she’s actually running for President? She’s a joke.
I appreciate the statement made about the importance of inclusivity for USAC, but it seems like Fired Up is a bunch of extremists who do not even understand the power of USAC or do not actually care about change. Where are the true issues? Why are you all attacking others to build yourselves up?
Doesn’t make much sense to me…
I supports new slates that come out, but not if they’re as negative as FU. Shame on you all. I’m probably going to support Let’s Act and/or Bruins United because at least they have solutions to the issues they want to tackle.
FU to FU!