At best, Chancellor Gene Block’s campuswide email commenting on incidents surrounding this year’s student government election represents a puzzling divergence from his usual course of action on these issues. At worst, it is both highly polarizing and a detriment to an already-ailing campus climate.
The email, sent on May 16, spoke on the recent controversy regarding a statement that student groups unaffiliated with the UCLA administration asked candidates for the Undergraduate Students Association Council to sign.
The statement asked those signing to voluntarily refrain from accepting paid trips from certain organizations to limit interactions with groups that may marginalize communities on campus. The document specifically identified four pro-Israel groups, two of which had sent members of the 2013-2014 USAC on free trips to Israel.
Block’s email effectively condemned the students circulating the statement, saying “the pledge can reasonably be seen as trying to eliminate selected viewpoints from the discussion.” He pointedly added in the penultimate paragraph, “It is possible to express strong opinions without belittling others.”
Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about the trips or the pledge, Block’s condemnation is a strange one.
The chancellor has told this board in the past that he likes to remain a “spectator” in student government matters. He said Tuesday that he made an exception for this case because of the personal attacks levied against specific students.
However, that line of reasoning fails to hold up, especially considering that the chancellor kept quiet during the divestment hearing last winter, when councilmembers received threatening emails and social media was awash with hateful comments that singled out individuals and campus communities alike.
There’s no denying that this conflict has inflicted deep wounds and eroded campus climate, and Block is correct in wanting to promote civil discourse. Yet the chancellor told this board in an interview on Tuesday that he did not speak with any of the student groups in question and only gained information secondhand from other campus officials.
If Block wants his call to be taken seriously, he should have afforded those he criticized the same luxury of discussion he wants students to give each other.
By releasing a statement weeks after the election, Block did little more than stoke the flames of the conflict. His email reignited tensions on campus and caused this student issue to snowball in outside media coverage.
University of California President Janet Napolitano also issued a statement echoing Block’s sentiments, which further brought this local campus issue into national view.
Ultimately, it’s about consistency. The chancellor owns the right to comment on events that are affecting his campus, but picking and choosing what to comment on based on ambiguous standards does little to move the needle.
If Block is to continue this trend of administrative activism, he should be sure to apply it fairly and perhaps even take some of his own advice.
There’s nothing wrong with speaking up for what is right. Chancellor Block may have refrained from commenting on the divestment hearing and subsequent bickering, but these more recent occurrences truly crossed the line. Chancellor Block has not only the right, but also a responsibility, to make a statement when groups blatantly attempt to silence perspectives and infringe upon academic freedom as part of a political maneuver.
As for consistency, I would assert that his standards are not ambiguous. Rather, Chancellor Block has chosen to refrain from commenting on most matters pertaining to the student government, but like any reasonable leader would do he has decided to make a statement in response to the egregious behavior of some groups.
Absolutely. The editorial board needs to realize that Block has a real job (unlike SJP members) and that he doesn’t need to get embroiled in this controversy, but wants to make sure certain norms are being upheld. This was a home-run move. Shame on the editorial board.
Now, its time to give this whole divestment thing a rest. Why not focus on more important issues such as the shortening of Winter Break, next year??
It is the Editorial Board that needs consistency.
For several weeks now, the Board has allowed the Daily Bruin to be used by
an obsessed special interest group to poison the atmosphere on campus.
It is time for the Daily Bruin to assist those who wish to restore sanity to UCLA.