The undergraduate student government plans to vote tonight on whether it should express no confidence in Janet Napolitano’s ability to lead as University of California president, until she meets a list of demands compiled by students from multiple UC campuses.
USAC currently stands divided on the resolution and is set to vote at its meeting at 7 p.m. in Kerckhoff 417.
The resolution calls for Napolitano to meet with undocumented students when she visits UC campuses, hold mandatory annual trainings to educate UCPD on the rights of undocumented students and ensure that general educational courses on the experiences of undocumented students are available on all UC campuses.
The resolution also demands that Napolitano prevent federal immigration laws from being implemented and prohibit riot police from acting on UC campuses.
UC officials appointed the former Arizona governor and former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in mid-July. The decision garnered push back from students concerned about the record number of deportations that occurred while Napolitano led the Department of Homeland Security and how her appointment would affect undocumented students at UC schools.
External Vice President Maryssa Hall, Student Wellness Commissioner Savannah Badalich, Cultural Affairs Commissioner Jessica Trumble and General Representative Lizzy Naameh drafted the resolution based on demands set forth by students at other UC schools and student groups at UCLA.
Councilmembers said they talked with groups such as Samahang Pilipino, the Afrikan Student Union, the Asian Pacific Coalition and IDEAS at UCLA, a group that advocates for undocumented students, to gauge student response to Napolitano’s appointment.
“The students wrote the resolution for the most part,” Badalich said. “This was (councilmembers’) way of channeling the student voice into an outcry.”
Badalich said that she has not heard any positive responses to Napolitano’s appointment from any students and she thinks it is important for councilmembers to take a stance on Napolitano in response to student demand and to Napolitano’s professional history.
“When you look at a person coming into a position, you have to judge them based on their experience,” Badalich said. “You look at their past and how they represented their constituents.”
Badalich added that she is not sure what USAC will do if Napolitano does not comply with the demands, but she thinks it will damage how Napolitano appears to the public if she does not address the resolution.
The resolution has garnered mixed reactions from councilmembers.
Internal Vice President Avi Oved said he will support undocumented students and their allies to ensure they feel safe on campus, but he thinks the wording of the resolution is premature, overly aggressive and impedes the goals of this movement.
“This resolution (could) be symbolic of wrecking a relationship that hasn’t even started yet,” he said.
Oved said that he plans to vote against the resolution because he does not want to take a vote of no confidence in Napolitano before she has had a chance to act as UC president.
He added that he thinks USAC should still give Napolitano a list of expectations, and that trying to start off on a positive note with Napolitano will make working with her easier in the future.
Hall said she thinks resolution is a necessary step to address student concerns and affect Napolitano’s decisions.
“She comes from a background that has broken up families aross this nation,” Hall said. “She’s starting at a very low point.”
She added that she thinks the resolution is not solely a vote of no confidence and that its main focus is the demands it lists, which should be helpful to Napolitano.
“If anything we’re helping (Napolitano),” she said. “We’re telling her exactly what we want her to do.”
Facilities Commissioner Armen Hadjimanoukian, Financial Supports Commissioner Lauren Rogers and Academic Affairs Commissioner Darren Ramalho also said they plan to vote against the resolution.
Rogers said she thinks that the councilmembers need to conduct more research before writing the resolution and that she thinks the council needs to talk with Napolitano before taking a stance against her.
Campus Events Commissioner Jessica Kim said she has not decided how she will vote on the resolution and she plans to wait until the council discusses the issue to make up her mind.
USAC President John Joanino could not be reached for comment.
Students who want to weigh in on the resolution can comment on it on the USAC website, reach out to USAC or attend the meeting tonight and speak during the public comment section.
avi is hot
This is perhaps one of the most infuriating things I’ve read in a while. There is absolutely nothing the council can do to regarding Napolitano’s appointment. She was selected by the regents and it’s final. She’s going to stay unless she resigns or otherwise screws up. She has made controversial decisions before and I understand that there are many concerns, especially the state of the student body.
Let’s say that council passes the vote with “no confidence”. What exactly will that do? Will it strengthen communication between UCOP and UCLA/USAC? Doubt it. Will it burn bridges that future Bruins and councils will have to work tirelessly to mend? More likely.
My question is, what exactly will “no confidence” resolve? What does it prove? It does absolutely nothing except make our entire student body look like entitled brats. Is this “no confidence” vote the best way to address ongoing concerns about attrition, immigration issues, etc? The answer is obvious.
Instead of sending a hard-ass letter to Napolitano, we should not only avoid criticism, but we should be inviting while addressing concerns of the student body. Why burn bridges that have barely been built, when we can make it stronger than the Golden Gate?
It’s so obvious that the leaders of this campaign are emotionally driven because I really don’t see any logical reason for voting for “no confidence”. No confidence is a vote that not only undermines Napolitano, it undermines the ability of the regents.
I am already ashamed that this has gotten so much traction and attention. If the vote passes, I’ll just hide in the shadows of the council members’ big egos because I don’t want to be affiliated with such childish, entitled behavior.
Using @Bruins’ logic below, no social change would ever be possible. Instead, many of us aware of our agency and of our ability to change an unjust world will continue to advance the struggle. A USAC vote of no confidence won’t immediately remove this representative of nativism and neoliberalism from the UC Presidency. However, every act of resistance, no matter how small, creates momentum for change.
The goal should be to create a political atmosphere that makes Napolitano’s continued stay in her current position so untenable, that she steps down and forces the regents to make an appropriate appointment.
While I admire your dedication for “social change” and more obviously (judging by your selective commentation here on the Daily Bruin), your drive to remove Napolitano from office, I have to disagree.
Call me naive, but has Napolitano done anything during her presidency that would raise alarm? Has she proven to be a leader that would suffocate her student constituents and repress them until they can speak no longer? The answer is no. And do you know why that is? It’s because she has YET TO DO ANYTHING in office.
And that leads me to my main point – Napolitano has yet to do anything yet we’re already refusing to work with her. Why burn bridges? Why not work with her? Why not send her a letter of our concerns and create dialogue?
While I agree that her track record is far from clean, I believe that she did what was demanded from her constituency.
Maybe it’s just me, but I actually like to give people a chance to prove themselves before I completely dismiss and undermine them.
Her abject record as Governor of Arizona and head of Homeland Security have established a legacy so tarnished, that she doesn’t deserve a chance to “prove” herself. Her politics of nativism and neoliberalism are well established. A better question would be, “why give her a chance to do anything harmful to our academic community.” I wouldn’t have given Pinochet a chance to prove himself either.