Each year, through democratic elections, thousands of UCLA students choose leaders whom they trust to better our campus and improve the Bruin experience. According to our constitution, the Undergraduate Students Association Council was established to “fairly represent student interest, needs, and welfare,” and “promote the general educational welfare” among other laudable goals.
One tool that USAC uses to accomplish those goals are resolutions – statements reflecting the unified opinion of the council on issues of interest to the student body. Prior to the bylaw amendment passed Nov. 17, however, the power of the council to pass resolutions was unlimited in both scope and duration. Without guidance on how long resolutions were to be in effect, and without a clear definition of a resolution, USAC had been free to speak on behalf of all present and future UCLA students on any issue – an expansive power that had the potential to silence students yet to come.
In order for the council to fairly represent students and promote general welfare, it became clear that the power of USAC would need to be limited in some manner. The preamble to our constitution offered guidance – the Undergraduate Students Association was established to “fairly represent student interest, needs, and welfare,” to express opinions on “issues affecting student life” and “to promote the general educational welfare.” We found it necessary and appropriate to define resolutions using the very language implemented in our guiding principles.
Language was proposed that would require resolutions to be expressly related to student welfare, in line with the purpose of our student government to express opinions on issues affecting student life specifically and to promote the general welfare. It should be noted that the Undergraduate Students Association was formed to promote the general welfare, not just the welfare of particular groups, and that we are supposed to “fairly represent” students, not prioritize some student voices over others. Some disagreed, and, as a compromise, we changed the amendment and decided that, at a minimum, our official statements of opinion – our resolutions – should not be permitted to harm members of our campus community. As student representatives, it is crucial that we consider the consequences of our words and actions beyond Kerckhoff 417.
We also decided to clarify that our words today do not define our campus tomorrow, that each and every council, and all future generations of Bruins, should have the right to find their own voice and speak for themselves. Clarifying that resolutions are the opinion of the current council allows resolutions to stand as powerful statements made by the student body at crucial moments in time – it does nothing to erase history.
The third amendment allows Council to suspend the bylaws with a two-thirds vote, rather than blatantly violating them, as past councils have done. Requiring a vote to suspend the bylaws ensures that our guiding documents are not violated arbitrarily, as was the norm in years past, a practice that had great potential for abuse.
It should be clear that these changes do not silence voices, erase history or give USAC sweeping new powers, as some alarmist rhetoric has claimed.
Those opposed to the amendment have argued that the 14 elected council members do not have the capacity or the right to represent the student body. They have said that unless our experiences or identities align perfectly with every student, we can only act on our own behalf. But that is not is not how a representative democracy functions.
The power to vote gives everyone the right to select leaders who they believe can best represent their point of view. In fact, one of the powers granted to USAC by our constitution is the power to act as the “official representation of the Association.” That power comes with the responsibility, however, to take the narratives and experiences of others into account while making decisions. As student representatives, this responsibility must be our top priority.
Resolutions are clearly an important aspect of student activism and student power, and we should work together to ensure that they bring our campus community together, empowering students rather than harming communities. And while USAC does have the power and responsibility to represent the student body, it is imperative that we strive for better representation, higher voter turnout and engagement in student government.
As representatives of almost 29,000 students, we must think critically about how our decisions affect our constituents. Of course every council member is entitled to their own set of beliefs, but as representatives and as servants of the greater student body we must consider how one comment, one vote, one decision will impact those around us.
Rosen is president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council and Cocroft is facilities commissioner of USAC.
“They have said that unless our experiences or identities align perfectly with every student, we can only act on our own behalf. But that is not is not how a representative democracy functions.”
I believe the students were concerned that they were NOT being represented in a way that they wished to be, which is a valid concern given the low level of outreach on this particular resolution. The students that were at public comment told the council how they wanted to be represented; not everyone spoke at public comment, nor were there many supporters of the resolution, but the majority of the students who commented were not listened to.
Also, I would not be so hasty to call student government “a representative democracy” – last year’s elections had a low voter turnout (less than 30%), and there are populations that are either over-represented (Greek life) or under-represented (international students). Appealing to a platitude like democracy doesn’t make you correct.
The people who show up to public comment don’t represent the student body any better than the council does. Thousands of students elected the representatives who made the decision, but only about a dozen spoke at public comment. Everyone has the ability to vote (and thousands of students do) but not everyone is available or able to come to make a comment.
Do you think that the entire student body should have to vote on any question the council takes up?
There is a reason we have a republic and not a democracy.
You elect representatives who will best represent the school and you personally. However, they are not elected to agree with your every view. They need to make the best decision they can, regardless of opposition.
In a true democracy, voters vote on every issue. This would be fine except, for most part, nobody cares. If this bylaw were put to a vote, it is doubtful the turnout would be more than a fraction of a percent. The handful of people who came to the meeting would likely be the same handful that votes at all. This would leave the majority of UCLA students unrepresented on this issue. This is why we elect representatives. While not perfect, the turnout for elections of officials is far greater and far more representative than the turnout and representation for any single issue would be. We then expect those officials to follow their word that led to their election. That is part of our social contract. That is why this decision needed to be made.