Submission: Diversity requirement opposition not racist, follows democratic process

I am thoroughly disappointed with a recent Daily Bruin submission written by a group of students who support the diversity requirement. I am disappointed not by the opinions held regarding the requirement, but because of the thorough misunderstanding of terms, the blatant lack of respect for democracy and the deliberate misleading statements present in the article. Let me take each in turn.

The writers state that they are confronted by “racism embedded in UCLA’s bureaucracy.” But this is a baseless, unsupported, McCarthyistic claim. Racism, by dictionary definition, is a “belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.” Alternatively, it is “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.” As I and many other groups have frequently pointed out, failing to support the diversity requirement is not racist. It does not involve hating any racial group. It simply means you oppose a policy that forces a whole college to take a very select, and likely politically biased, set of courses. It means nothing about your inherent like or dislike of other races.

Then there is also the word “bigoted,” used specifically to describe 59 professors who bravely dissented from a vocal and suppressive group of supporters. Again, I return to the dictionary, where bigot is defined as someone who is “extremely intolerant of another’s creed, belief, or opinion.” Given that the only thing the authors know about these professors is that they oppose a policy change in graduation requirements, I ask by what right they call people who oppose their view bigoted. This claim is both hypocritical and verges on defamation. It is hypocritical because, by the definition I mentioned earlier, it is these writers that are verging on bigotry. In their article, they ask “why are they (the professors) appointed to teach in the first place?” They further call for “consequences” for those who oppose any “diversity initiatives.” These are outright calls for suppression of free speech. The consequences they are calling for represent a step beyond debating an issue: they represent a desire to silence opposition or, to quote a certain definition, to “be utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion.”

Next, there is the section that shows contempt for democracy. The authors attack the ability of a small group to oppose the majority, even when that small group is only asking for a more thorough vote. This attack seems to question the ability of any minority to oppose the will of the majority, even though this ability is critical to our conception of a Madisonian democracy. Further, the article infers that debate and opposition are not only wrong according to the merits of the arguments, but also wrong to exist. This idea is not only unhealthy, it is plain dictatorial hubris. One cannot choose who receives free speech, because doing so makes speech no longer free.

Finally, there are the misleading statements that are corroborated by important unsaid facts. By far the most prominent is the stipulation that the 59 professors are opposing a decision made by more than 600 people. Yet, the article fails to mention that the vote was extremely close, with 332 individuals casting votes in support of the requirement and 303 against. Thus, saying the decision was made by more than 600 without supplying the results of the vote takes the number entirely out of context.

All of these points show the contrary to what the submission stipulates. These 59 professors are trying to get a fair vote, and they are using the legitimate bylaws of the Academic Senate that allow a number of professors equal to one-third of the Legislative Assembly to file a petition for a faculty-wide vote. If the authors of the submission think this bylaw, meant to protect the democratic process, is somehow racist and bigoted, I urge them to lobby all legislative bodies to remove all bylaws with any sort of minority protection. I also urge them to file a complaint with James Madison.

So, with all this in mind, I encourage the authors of the submission to not only pick up a dictionary, but also take a look in the mirror. If we value diversity of thought, democracy and free speech at this university, then we should not imply that we should kick out professors for opposing a policy change. We should not imply that legitimate democratic processes are too much of a bother for certain causes. We should stand up for each others’ right to express and to oppose, regardless of how much we disagree.

Kohlhepp is a third-year economics and political science student and the external vice president of Bruin Republicans.