This year’s Undergraduate Students Association Council ends its term with a concrete example of its ability to make national headlines and have a real effect on the reputation and standing of the university.
Unfortunately, that effect has been anything but positive.
The Rachel Beyda appointment incident – in which councilmembers questioned a Judicial Board candidate’s ability to remain unbiased because of her identity as a Jewish student – will remain a black mark on UCLA and its student body for years to come. It is a mark that cannot be easily erased by quick-trigger resolutions and half-apologies.
But while the events of Feb. 10 will undoubtedly overshadow the rest of the council’s tenure, the year as a whole was an exercise in political education full of positive and negative actions by our undergraduate representatives.
Oftentimes, these actions seemed as if they were in diametric opposition to each other.
We’ve seen a student government willing to reform campaign finance to make funding from outside sources more transparent. Yet we’ve also seen three elected officials resign with little or no explanation to the student body they are ultimately accountable to.
We’ve seen a student government handle the divisive issue of divestment from companies that some say profit from alleged human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank with a higher level of maturity and poise than in prior years.
Yet we’ve also seen political infighting and petty rivalries, which led to an attempt by some councilmembers to block the line of succession outlined in the USAC bylaws after the resignation of the president.
We’ve seen a student government that was able to quickly mobilize and change focus when the critical issue of tuition increases was sprung on the student body in November. Yet we’ve also seen councilmembers that have used resolutions as a last-ditch attempt to fool the student body into believing they have made any tangible progress on the issues outlined in them.
We’ve seen a student government that was able to band together and successfully advocate faculty for the passage of a diversity requirement for the College of Letters and Science. Yet we’ve also seen events which lead us to believe that councilmembers themselves may be the ones most in need of it.
Council-wide efforts and campaigns were dedicated to important issues like mental health on campus but suffered under the weight of council resignations and frivolous factionalism. The All of Us campaign has started a real conversation about mental health on campus, but a concerted multipronged enterprise to tackle the issue through programming and advocacy has been replaced by piecemeal solutions through the Student Wellness Commission.
This year was not perfect, but mistakes by council are partially the student body’s responsibility to shoulder because of low voter turnout during USAC elections, political apathy and a general sentiment that what happens around the council table is meaningless.
With a new election comes a fresh chance for us as students to truly engage with USAC and work to keep them accountable.
This board’s sincere hope is that USAC as an institutional body can learn, move forward and continue to represent the best interest of students without making the same mistakes of the past.
What happens around the Council table is not meaningless. Nor should the perception be so.
USAC represents the interests of 29,000+ undergraduates at UCLA, and that responsibility needs to be taken seriously. When I first arrived on this campus, I was significantly surprised at the low level of participation by students in their political affairs and student government. I recommended to USAC the creation of a Student Senate or other type of body, where public discourse could be had and issues discussed by a much broader spectrum of the student population than a few elected officials. There is tremendous value in such a body – having an official student Legislative voice helps keep the Electeds more accountable, and helps defuse situations where high amounts of stress are placed on the shoulders of a few for the benefit of the many. We remain students first, and without a Senate or other deliberative body to parse out issues before they make it to where action must be taken, it falls on a few individuals to deliberate on the views of a large many. This isn’t how the Federal government works, nor is it how state government works, nor is it how the GSA works…and I do not believe it should not be how the Undergraduate government works. If you want to address a system where individuals resign year-to-year, where the strain is enormous on people who get into these positions with the noblest of purposes…then I strongly recommend addressing the Undergraduate political system on this campus.
Consider yourselves in the eyes of, say, a City Council or the like. Individuals in student government are technically held to the same standards, if not higher, because we’re in a University setting, than those on City Councils. Members of USAC have a direct and substantial long-term impact on the course the University takes and it plays an important role in the outcomes of students on this campus. Things like funding student units, proposing faculty changes, curricular changes, direction of resources in technology and student fees – these are all directly influenced by the actions USAC takes. There are many active and committed students on this campus, but their efforts have had to be directed outside of the undergraduate student government, since there are so few outlets to engage through that vehicle.
I wanted to reply to this editorial but unfortunately my position keeps getting censored and deleted. I have not broken any rules. My language was appropriate. Obviously, the “journalists” at Daily Bruin can not handle valid criticism. What a disgrace.
This Editorial States…
“The Rachel Beyda appointment
This Editorial States…
“The Rachel Beyda appointment incident – in which councilmembers questioned a Judicial Board candidate’s ability to remain unbiased because of her identity as a Jewish student – will remain a black mark on UCLA and its student body for years to come. It is a mark that cannot be easily erased by quick-trigger resolutions and half-apologies.”
And then it states…
“We’ve seen a student government handle the