A resolution on the table at the Undergraduate Students Association Council this week addressing incoming University of California President Janet Napolitano would cripple the chance for constructive dialogue with the incoming executive.
The council must vote down this highly politicized resolution in order to honor its role as a representative body and to allow for a fruitful relationship between UCLA and the UC Office of the President.
The resolution, penned by External Vice President Maryssa Hall, Student Wellness Commissioner Savannah Badalich, General Representative Lizzy Naameh and Cultural Affairs Commissioner Jessica Trumble, faults Napolitano for failing to meet with students before she has even started in her new position and drums up exaggerated concerns that Napolitano’s presence will endanger the undocumented and immigrant communities at UCLA.
This board agrees that the UC president selection process lacked transparency and that Napolitano’s inexperience in academia are both cause for skepticism. However, this resolution would hold Napolitano culpable for issues outside her reach as UC president.
Replete with combative language and overblown arguments, the six-page resolution touches on issues from deportations to prison reform.
Just as concerning is the misleading title “A Bill in Support of Undocumented Students and Immigrant Communities,” which ties the conversation of Napolitano’s appointment solely to the rights of undocumented students, as if one could not support both simultaneously.
The detrimental effect of deportations of undocumented individuals is cause for great concern, but does not justify the eagerness of the resolution’s authors to pin their frustrations with national policies on Napolitano, who has been a vocal supporter of DREAMers and comprehensive immigration reform.
The resolution asks the council to pass a vote of no confidence in Napolitano’s “ability to actualize the mission of the University of California Office of the President” until she completes a list of “demands.”
These demands include vague requests that campus police and staff be trained in the rights of and issues involving undocumented students, the prohibition of riot police from interfering with campus protests and the stipulation that UC funds may not be put toward information gathering or arrests of undocumented individuals.
All this points to a misunderstanding by the resolution’s authors of the jurisdiction of state and federal governments and the power available to the University presidents as compared to members of the cabinet of the president of the United States.
As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Napolitano oversaw the implementation of programs mandated by the United States Congress. That included the controversial Secure Communities program responsible for the deportations of tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants.
In the top spot at the University, Napolitano no more retains the ability to deport an individual than to open a UC campus in Nevada.
The proposed resolution amounts to a handful of undergraduate students shaking their fists at the moon. Substantive institutional progress does not stem from confrontation and toothless threats – these actions only push the undergraduate government toward the fringe.
USAC stands as the representative of UCLA’s undergraduate population and must come to understand that progressive and substantive change within the UC will come from cooperation and clear-minded dialogue, not saber-rattling and empty threats.
The only cogent part of this editorial: “This board agrees that the UC president selection process lacked transparency and that Napolitano’s inexperience in academia are both cause for skepticism.” Skepticism is quite the understatement.
The choice of this individual to serve this position is a slap in the face to all of the UC Presidency’s constituent communities. It’s appalling that a non-academic was appointed to a position that by its very nature called for candidates steeped in academia. It’s insulting that an individual responsible for the fracturing of countless families is now the head of a university system with countless immigrant students, faculty, and employees — unconscionable really.
The notion of not taking a principled stand against Napolitano from the start is a call for capitulation. Taking the stand USAC is considering still allows a chance for constructive dialogue. However, it would make clear from the get go that we as an academic community hold strong principles. In other words, we would be starting dialogue from a position of strength rather than acquiescence.
I salute my fellow students who are speaking truth to power and neoliberalism. None of their concerns are, as the editorial board puts them, “exaggerated.” Rather they are very real concerns based on Napolitano’s abject record of gleefully supporting neoliberalism, nativism, and policies that tore families apart. No need to try to deflect the blame to Congress or legislation. An individual with a conscious and principles would have simply resigned their position had they felt their job was violating their moral principals. Napolitano had no problems doing what she did, and her record in Arizona reeked of the same anti-immigrant supremacy.
We won’t stop until she’s out of office! Stand up for undocumented men and womyn!
I agree with this statement completely. This resolution would not only destroy lines of communication with UCOP but undermine the significance of the “No Confidence” vote. While the situations of the undocumented immigrant population is saddening, I feel that the blame for deportation can’t be laid squarely on Napolitano. It was literally her job to stop immigrants from entering this country through non-legal means. Furthermore, placing the blame of the nomination process on Napolitano is unwarranted. She has no more control over that than any of the other UC presidents have during their respective nomination process. While I do find it odd that a non-academic was appointed to the position, this does not, by any means, show that she is incapable of performing her duties as the UC president. During a time of budget cuts, perhaps the UC system needs a more politically minded individual in office to lobby for the UC needs.
I think the more reasonable route to take in regards to Napolitano would be to send the UCOP a list of REASONABLE requests to be completed in a REASONABLE timeframe. But for now, I can’t fall in line behind a resolution that essentially states we don’t believe she’s fit for her job when she hasn’t been in that position long enough to actually accomplish anything tangible.
These demands do not sound vague at all: “These demands include vague requests that campus police and staff be trained in the rights of and issues involving undocumented students, the prohibition of riot police from interfering with campus protests and the stipulation that UC funds may not be put toward information gathering or arrests of undocumented individuals.” This resolution does not sound like a bad idea, grateful for students speaking up and acknowledging the UC system is heading downhill in terms of transparency and equity.
This editorial is just as incoherent as the resolution it criticizes.