As a first-year African-American transfer student here at UCLA, I thought I would walk into a welcoming environment where my voice and activism would be respected given my position of marginalization. Instead, I experienced many instances of racism and microaggression. For example, the “Kanye Western-themed” party during Black Bruin Welcome Week. I did not think it could get any worse. However, on Nov. 17, 2015, the Undergraduate Students Association Council voted to amend its bylaws to prevent resolutions from subjecting the welfare of students to “substantial harm.” Moreover, past and future resolutions have been relegated as simply the opinions of those councils that passed them.
Taken at face value, this amendment seems reasonable because no one wants to harm students on campus. However, this amendment is a major power grab by the council in an attempt to silence marginalized communities on campus; in the past, some found the activism of students of color to be divisive and dangerous to campus climate. Bruins for Israel and other groups launched a campaign in 2014 to limit resolutions that only deal with “campus issues” after last year’s council voted in a landslide to divest from companies that profited from human rights abuses against Palestinians. The result of the campaign is the passage of an amendment that further silences students like me – not that I’m surprised – who now would find it more difficult to voice concerns on a campus that has proven, time after time, that black lives are not a priority.
Ultimately, this resolution is detrimental to racialized students of color by giving those in positions of power and privilege the authority to decide on our validation through the use of a vague definition of student welfare. In addition, the amendment attempts to erase the history of students of color on this campus by invalidating our historical campaigns against oppression and relegating past resolutions as simply the opinion of those councils.
Letting the council have the authority to decide whether or not our resolutions are valid through the use of their definition of student welfare is unacceptable because it can invalidate the oppression of various communities. For example, if undocumented students wanted to re-introduce a resolution calling for the use of “undocumented” as opposed to “illegal” because of the term’s dehumanization, a student group who supports the use of “illegal,” could object to its passage. Their potential argument? Its passage would accuse them of dehumanization for simply invoking the language of U.S. immigration laws, thus, harming their welfare.
The council might have to consider such possible harms. What if black students want to introduce a resolution that condemns various acts of racism on campus, including the “Kanye Western-themed” party that the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority threw? What if they, along with others in Greek life, came to their defense by claiming, as they already have, that their offensive displays of stereotypical black culture had nothing to do with race? The council might consider objecting to the resolution based on the harm to their welfare. These examples illustrate just how problematic this amendment is for communities of color on campus.
In addition, USAC’s attempt to invalidate past resolutions is a slap in the face to students who worked on historical campaigns such as the movement to divest from South African apartheid, a movement important to the African diaspora. If this amendment was in place, it could have easily prevented UCLA’s place in the history books.
Why would Bruins United, the slate that unanimously approved this amendment, insist on unilaterally usurping power from the student body because some don’t like the fact that students of color have the audacity to utilize their student government to give themselves a voice? It’s bad enough that the societal power structure renders communities of color voiceless, so it’s shocking that USAC would do the same. It seems to me that this university is a microcosm of how racism and oppression work outside their parameters. First, the oppressed rise and they make progress; then, there’s a backlash by nonracialized benefactors of the societal power structure who utilize the system through legal action, thus, the sustained oppression of communities of color.
Members of USAC, you do not have the right to decide, especially when you’re in a position of privilege, when black and brown bodies matter, nor will I stand idly by as you attempt to erase our people’s history. This attempt to hurt our communities will not go unchallenged; we will mobilize for our rights and demands. You attempted to erase our struggles from this campus – you have failed, for our struggles can never be erased. Every social justice resolution ever passed because of our activism still stands and lives on. As far as I’m concerned, you are not my council and you do not speak for me – you never could.
Gardner is a third-year political science student.
There is a statement being made in this piece that is extremely problematic. The author is asserting that Jewish students are not students of color. As an Iranian woman of SWANA dissent, the accusation that my Jewish identity somehow strips me of any ethnic identity is problematic at best..and blatantly anti-Semitic. I urge Bruins to keep in mind the political angle at which this piece as written. I will not stand by as individuals politicize my identity for their own personal gain.
I don’t see what your talking about. She didn’t say anything about Jewish Identity stripping you of any ethnic identity. Infact, its not even about Jews. She didn’t mention Jews not once. I think your making it about Jews. You seem to be making it personal yourself in order to call her anti-semitic, which itself is sad. Infact, she pointed out that “others” supported the campaign to amend the Bylaws such as Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats. These two orgs don’t focus on social issues important to those who identify as students of color. In addition, they are not Jewish organizations. I would say that your walking a dangerous line by accusing fellow Bruins of antisemitism without reasoning.
My identity as a Jew is very much connected to my relationship with the Jewish state — as is the case with many Jewish students on this campus. The incessant attempts to demonize, delegitimize, and defame the Jewish state — and often, the Jewish people — on this campus is haunting. I would think that nobody would better understand the phenomenon of marginalization, politicization, and racism better than students of color.
This bylaw change in no way limits the scope of the student activism of students of color because the scope of “students of color” represented by this author and many other individual on this campus continuously bars any individuals who dare not agree with their prescribed method of “social activism.” It is an ideology that has systematically denied Jewish students seats at the table and it’s time that we call it out for what it is.
So I think @Politicized is saying that Gardner committed a microagression against her, and no matter how trivial you or Gardner may think it is, she was offended.
It’s just like Gardner’s experience of “racism and microagression” as an African-American student.
Ironic huh?
So what we can learn from all this is that microagressions happen everywhere … in most cases unintentionally. No one is perfect, not even the victims. But you can’t complain about someone else’s faults when you yourself commit the same crimes.
Pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).
Your example about the resolution calling for the use of “undocumented” as opposed to “illegal” undermines your opinion. The Bruin Republicans are entitled to be free from a student imposed speech code.
“Position of privilege”, “Students of color”, “brown.” When did students stop talking like adults and like infants? Can’t wait until Robert gets into the real world and finds that he won’t be coddled and that people won’t put up with his verbal diarrhea.
“Every social justice resolution ever passed because of our activism still stands and lives on. As far as I’m concerned, you are not my council and you do not speak for me – you never could.”
USAC is voting on symbolic resolution to determine if past symbolic resolutions or more or less symbolic. If USAC is so racist / oppressive / etc. why do you need its symbolic seal of approval for your advocacy movements? Especially if such advocacy movements don’t necessarily represent the majority of the student body.
“Ultimately, this resolution is detrimental to racialized students of color by giving those in positions of power and privilege the authority to decide on our validation through the use of a vague definition of student welfare … Letting the council have the authority to decide whether or not our resolutions are valid through the use of their definition of student welfare is unacceptable because it can invalidate the oppression of various communities”.
The council already votes resolutions up or down based on any criteria/beliefs the members choose to vote by. This bylaw amendment formalizes one pretty basic criteria for resolutions (that they have to relate to student welfare). That seems fairly basic to the definition a *student* association. At the end of the day, USAC will be passing resolution that are supported by a majority of the members.
“Members of USAC, you do not have the right to decide”.
I’m fairly sure they do get to decide the rules as they were elected by an overwhelming majority of the student body. That’s how majoritarian democracy works. Let’s Act can change things back when it wins a majority.
“Why would Bruins United, the slate that unanimously approved this amendment, insist on unilaterally usurping power from the student body”
Again, they have a majority and were democratically elected by the student body. This argument is just a ridiculous as saying “Why would Let’s Act, insist on unilaterally usurping power from the student body to speak on the issue of Israel”.
Overall, I give this op-ed a D- grade. Arguments are feeble and illogical. Author is overly relies on emotional appeal. Sentence structure is weak. Especially poor for a supposed “third-year political science student”.
Get over yourself homie. You’re being way too touchy. I’m Latino and also experience “microaggressions” everyday but I just shrug it off and get on with my life. I have plenty of brown, black and white friends and NONE of them are touchy like you. So just man up and quit being such a little wussy. When I see a non-Latino wearing a sombrero or some other Mexican gear I just give them a thumbs up and smile. Your life is going to be very unpleasant if you get offended by every trivial slight you come across like the Kanye Western thing. So quit being such a girly man and get over your over-sensitive self
This is not a solution. This is called “giving in” or “surrendering” and admitting defeat. You’re in for a real shock when you enter post-college life.
You really have learned the language of academia, haven’t you? Here’s a tip. If you choose to go through life feeling sorry for yourself as a victim it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.
As for the resolution, why should any student govt waste it’s time dealing with issues that have no effect on student life?