The first day I stepped foot onto campus as a newly admitted Bruin was for transfer orientation day two years ago. As my orientation day went on and on, I got to know a little bit more about my fellow orientation group members. As I spent my day listening and talking with a few other newly minted Bruins, I started hearing strange stories. Some students were sharing how they exaggerated their college applications to increase the odds of admittance.
Remembering my own application, I too recalled inflating numbers here or there, wanting to polish my application. I thought to myself that, in actuality, this action is only human; stigmas drive us to be our best. Nevertheless, after hearing the extent to which these new Bruins had exaggerated their experience, I left that day annoyed, thinking about the thousands of honest applicants denied admission.
If you had asked me a year ago what I felt about the Undergraduate Students Association Council, the answer would have been negative. I have always abhorred the negatives of slate politics, and many a time, USAC has seemed more political than the federal offices I interned for during the entirety of my first year at UCLA.
But this year looked to be different. The external vice president had established a more bipartisan, “mixed-slate” office, expanding with a corps of students experienced in federal lobbying. Somehow, as a transfer and USAC outsider, I found myself serving as the EVP’s chief of staff.
It was for this reason that I watched the debates Friday, to see how Ria Jain and Rafael Sands planned to continue the office I have lost sleep for, sweat for and once even bled for – I am a klutz.
Then, that annoyance from orientation reared itself once more. As I listened to Jain’s debate answers, I was taken aback. While Jain has spent a commendable amount of time organizing and combating stigmas alongside co-campaign manager Lauren Phinney at the All of Us campaign, I was puzzled by her claims of work done this year in the EVP’s office.
Jain’s most active office role was in preparation for a February lobby visit in Washington, D.C., at which she would lobby on a bill reforming mental health care nationwide. For weeks we had been researching the bill. In a preparation meeting she contributed to the dialogue, ultimately stating she wanted to lobby in favor of the bill. She promised to have All of Us provide research on the different sections of the bill to complement our researcher’s findings. From then until the day of her flight to Washington, D.C., Jain failed to communicate with anyone in our office about the bill despite constant inquiry, and the research never materialized in meetings.
Going straight from her flight to the first of 16 meetings over two days that I scheduled, I started to question what she would say. When I followed up with several staffers, none could tell me what substantive changes or alternatives Jain suggested to them, aside from detesting a provision on institutionalization that would benefit thousands of families, including one of my staff whose brother is homeless, ill and refuses treatment.
After the debate I noticed a campaign picture of Jain’s listing bills she has lobbied on. Interestingly, most of these bills were lobbied for at University of California Student Association statewide conferences, at which hundreds of students did the same lobbying she did. Compared to the hundreds of federal and state office visits members of the EVP office and I have had so far this year, I find Jain’s claims of experience to be exaggerated.
Ultimately, it is up to all of us this election week to research as much as we can and make the most informed decision possible – more than this one editorial can tell you. I hope this article complements others this week showcasing the talents and drawbacks of all USAC candidates. I don’t wish to endorse any candidate. To do due diligence to my staff, I have taken this time to identify what Jain has and has not done in the EVP office this year, to respect the hard work done by other staffers left unrecognized.
Skadsen is a fourth-year political science major and the chief of staff of current External Vice President Zach Helder.
Wait, didn’t the Editorial Board endorse Ria Jain for External Vice President because of her experience and accomplishments? Folks, she was endorsed for a reason, and that Is because Ria has 3 years of experience in the EVP office with an undisputed track record.
And I was at the State Capital with Ria when she lobbied for those bills. Yes, there were hundreds of students, but it is unfair to suggest that because of student proliferation, her lobbying was not relevant. Newsflash: Student power is in numbers. Even then, Ria is a leading voice for change and knows how to effectively lobby Assembly members like she have in the past.
You talk about not “endorsing” anyone, but clearly this is a hit piece against one of the most qualified women running this election season, and its the reason why the Editorial Board endorsed her. Read it for yourself folks.
Instead of you playing dirty slate politics, why don’t you inquire about Zack Helder’s trips to New York that he paid for with student fees that none of you seem to care about? OOPPSS. Now there’s something the Daily Bruin can investigate.
I don’t believe the Daily Bruin goes into detail of what exactly every candidate does before endorsing them. They only hold a meeting with them and ask questions and make the majority of their judgements on that. And just because the Daily Bruin is endorsing a candidate, it doesn’t mean we should all be sheeps and do what we are told. Nathan is just asking us to make an informed decision.
Not true. I know a friend that works at the Daily Bruin. Each candidate is researched in depth before the interview process. Then, once they are interviewed, the board makes a decision. They do not make a decision based on the interview alone. Interviews are meant for candidates to defend their platforms. So, if anyone wants to make an informed decision, follow the editorial board that actually does research before they endorse.
I find it disgusting that a fellow bruin would go to such lengths to defame a student. This only serves to create a negative campaigning environment. Shame.