As University of California students, we deserve a student representative who is transparent, honest and has the trust of his or her constituency. Avi Oved, the current student regent-designate nominee for the UC, is not that kind of representative. His reactions to emails printed by the Daily Cal showing alleged donations made to Hillel at UCLA by pro-Israel philanthropist Adam Milstein have, so far, fallen short of the ethical standards necessary for him to represent the tens of thousands of UC students as student regent-designate. His lack of transparency and accountability and his unethical behavior make it imperative that he step down or be removed as the student regent-designate nominee.
The emails show Oved actively undermined student democracy:
The email from Oved to Milstein thanking him for his “generous donation” has been authenticated by Oved, which means that in 2013, a candidate for student government office undermined the democratic process by seeking this kind of outside funding for his campaign. Though the Election Code is too flimsy to prohibit such rampant abuse, there is little question that these actions have significantly undermined public confidence in Oved’s judgment and transparency. Moreover, it is extremely troubling that Oved’s emails implied that, going forward, he would be making sure that the donor’s political preferences were fulfilled. Shouldn’t USAC officers be focused only on UCLA students’ preferences? And if student opinions contradict Oved’s donor’s opinions, who gets the final say?
Oved’s attitude toward fellow students is unbecoming of a student leader:
Oved’s attitude regarding his campaign opponent Lana El-Farra in the email shows a level of hostility that indicates that he cannot represent students with whom he disagrees. He associates El-Farra’s membership with the Muslim Students Association and advocacy for Students for Justice in Palestine as part of her record of “silencing the Jewish voice.”
Moreover, Oved’s failure to acknowledge the issue of Milstein’s shocking and repugnant bigotry, including blatant Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism and a bevy of conspiracy theories and caricatures of President Obama displayed on Milstein’s Twitter account, is another slap in the face to multiple communities on campus. Oved should have denounced those views and assured students of his anti-racism, but instead he has yet to address this issue. Further, a leaked GroupMe message shows Oved joking that he should sit on the UC Board of Regents’ Committee on Investments, ostensibly in order to block motions of divestment. This points to more than poor taste in humor – it hints at something more sinister and difficult to swallow. Clearly, regardless of how UC students feel on a particular issue, Oved’s vote has already been determined. Oved’s refusal to address Milstein’s bigotry, as well as his characterization of MSA and Students for Justice in Palestine, further demonstrate his inability to fairly represent UC students.
Oved’s response to the scandal again indicates that he is unfit for office:
Finally, Oved’s response to the revelations by the Daily Cal is perhaps just as troubling as the allegations themselves. Oved failed to attend a conference call set up by the UC Student Association in which he was supposed to address questions from students. He released a statement just before the meeting that failed to address any of the substantive issues raised against him. Finally, and most troublingly, in a closed follow-up meeting, Oved told UCSA that he had never received funds from Milstein – hours later, the Daily Cal published more personal emails that, while not yet authenticated, directly contradict Oved’s statement to UCSA. No explanation has yet been provided by Oved to explain these discrepancies. Given this pattern of behavior, it is hard to believe that his tenure as a student regent would be one of transparency and accountability.
The real issue here isn’t that there aren’t mechanisms within the USAC Election Code that force Oved or Bruins United to reveal their funding sources, although there should be; the real issue is that Oved’s actions have deeply diminished public confidence in his ability to represent students. On matters of tolerance, Oved has not had a word to say about the intolerant beliefs of his campaign supporter Milstein. On matters of transparency, Oved has avoided opportunities to clear the record, even as his statements continue to be contradicted by reports from the Daily Cal. At this point, the UCSA and UC Regents would be doing the students a disservice by appointing Oved as our representative.
Michael Oshiro is a graduate student in education at UCLA.
Beautifully put. This thoughtful article brings up some excellent points. How can Oved possibly represent students if he takes no issue to seeing segments of the student body harassed and discriminated against? There is a very clear and very disturbing conflict of interest here. After all the tuition students fork over, you’d think the Regents would listen when the students vote unanimously against a nominee. This makes a mockery of the university electoral process.
I’m sorry, did the entire student body vote unanimously against him? I don’t think I ever voted for this. I thought another organization votes on that kind of thing?
This business with the Hillel donations looks like a clear case of money laundering, which while “legal” should be a cause for concern.
Almost everyone’s vote on divestment is predetermined, and the only reason people vote or campaign for council is divestment. This is a smear campaign by pro-divestment people that really do the same or worse. If Avi is not representative of UCLA, they aren’t either.
Waiting for people to write-off this very concise, completely valid and logical list of reasons as to why Avi is completely unfit for for the position, as simply an anti-Semitic attack or silencing Jewish voices. Newsflash people: we don’t care that Avi is essentially a step away from being an illegal Israeli settler or an IDF paratrooper ideologically, we care that he lacks the integrity of a good leader. This young man wants to play politics and I’m sure he’ll be very good at it in 5 years, but right now his job is to speak on behalf of the students not his Zionist supporters.
Also it is a huge misjustice that the Regents plan on confirming Oved despite the well-voiced opposition. Almost as great a misjustice as their already lack of transparency, accountability and access for the students. I understand they would rather invest in companies that profit off the military occupation of Palestine than work to reduce tuition costs, I get that they would rather a political figurehead like Napolitano as opposed to someone actually qualified to run the UC, but keeping Oved as the regent is something I simply do NOT understand. They have everything in their power to please the students who no longer trust Avi, and are simply choosing not to despite how feasible of a solution it is. Sorry regents, saying he didn’t break any rules (which we never took issue to, that is a separate problem in and of itself) and not actually taking the time to hear why we no longer want him, WILL NOT CUT IT.
It is anti-Semitism. The whole thing is based on hearsay, as the emails describe quite legal behavior. There has been no investigation of whether it was even anything out of the ordinary. There cannot be such an investigation, as the UC system ultimately does not require any more financial disclosure than he gave the first time around.
No one unconnected with the BDS movement has actually given an argument against Avi. No one has made a case that Avi is unable to represent students. And when you attack his ethnicity (“Avi is essentially a step away from being an illegal Israeli settler or an IDF paratrooper ideologically”) and wear BDS on your sleeve, it is proof that this is nothing less than sleazy politics on your end. It is as Ms. Delgadillo said: This is not about ethics or transparency. This is an attack on Avi, because he holds views different from your own. This is revenge on Avi because he foiled your divestment measure. Just as you took revenge on Sunny and Lauren by accusing them of crimes they didn’t commit. The pot calling the pot black.
You never trusted Avi, because he is an Israeli. You never liked Avi because he opposes BDS. You never wanted Avi, and you looked for a reason to spite him. This email does not affect your views on him an iota. So no, it is not that “he lacks the integrity of a good leader.” It a personal vendetta. You have made abundantly clear that the rabble-rousers against Avi would only accept a pro-BDS candidate, and all others are presumed genocidal racists. When you hold such outlandish views, it is a small wonder you cannot convince anyone.
I agree that the transparency policies need some work. I agree that Milstein appears to hate Muslims and is a jerk. I agree that the students do have a right to know who donated money to campaigns. And that politicians should be careful in accepting gifts from extremists. Or in thanking donors on behalf of other organizations. But honestly, none of that matters to you. None of that matters to Michael Oshiro. None of that matters to the SJP.
Your last paragraph pretty closely sums up all the reasons why Avi is unfit to represent us and you seem to half-agree with the argument I’ve presented here, so I’m a little confused. What you summed up absolutely matters to us and absolutely matters to me. My position, anyone’s position on divestment or Palestine is frankly irrelevant here. There is no hearsay present and I took great care to make clear that only one email, the first between Oved and Milstein, was confirmed as authentic. In that AUTHENTIC, REAL, NON-HEARSAY email, Oved ensured his vote on a particular issue would reflect his donor’s view and he disparages Lana’s membership in SJP and MSA as the only evidence of “silencing the Jewish voice. This conduct is absolutely unacceptable for a individual who is supposed to represent ALL students. His failure to apologize for his behavior and distance himself from Milstein is more than enough evidence of his inability to represent us. All of this criticism has nothing to do with the fact that he’s Israeli or he’s against BDS. Criticism of his poor choices and a failure to apologize for problematic comments about SJP and MSA, and a failure to denounce Milstein’s bigotry are NOT anti-Semitic. It’s holding him accountable for his actions.
In that authentic, real, non-hearsay email, he said nothing of the kind. It is a pat campaign email. I have seen many of them.
I’m not connected with the BDS movement for one. Two, my issue is that Avi feels it necessary to ensure my loyalty to the Zionist agenda, when did I sign up for that as a UC student? Where did I sign my allegiance to Israel, on my tuition checks? If he wants to play ambassador, that’s fine by me, but he should so so on his own time and not use his voice (the sole student voice) on the board of regents for anything other than trying to reduce tuition and expand the UC’s impact in my opinion. It’s not that I don’t support Israel (albeit the truth) it’s that he is using the wrong arena to further his ideology that doesn’t apply to all students, he needs to focus on the issues ALL UC students face, I would say the same thing if Sadia had leaked emails of her thanking extremely problematic people for funding her (but there is no such thing as a powerful Muslim Pakistani network on university campuses, and thankfully enough, she is a more ethical leader than to accept $$ on behalf of her own personal causes).
Why do I not trust him: not because his view is different from mine, because he is ADMITTED to taking funding from a not transparent org, and then tweeted problematic shit about it. Not that I want BDS to pass, but MANY UC students do, and I don’t think having someone who cracks jokes on it is fit to represent them. He is supposed to be impartial, moderate and compromising, not extreme and indebted to people like Milstein. THAT, is what I take issue with, that he took their $$ and now they have a say in what happens in the UC, and I would oppose ANYONE who took $$ from any deeply racist, religious extremist (which is exactly what Milstein is). And he doesn’t view his opposition as simply that, HE THINKS IT’S PERSONAL! How is someone so deeply entrenched in his beliefs ever to work with others? I don’t see Lana out there taking pictures that say “I am IVP, I am Israel,” like he did. I don’t see her thanking Hamas for their $$ or sending emails about how much she hates Avi AS A PERSON. He targeted her in an email for no reason other than her view differs from him (much like you accused me of), and that is behavior unfit for a leader, and that would be true for ANYONE who acted in such a manner, even if their ideals aligned with mine perfectly. And instead of trying to address the issues behind all of this, he simply refused to speak on it as if he is somehow above the people he is representing!? Where in this entire list of my issues with him did I say it’s because he’s a Jew. Nowhere.
Why do Jewish people have such difficulty at looking at arguments against individuals who happen to be Jewish, OBJECTIVELY? I don’t want him representing me because he has already failed us in multiple ways and will likely continue to do so.
Really? You are not at all in favour of BDS? That strikes me as odd, considering your opening rant mentioned at least three praises of the movement. I think you are full of garbage.
As for Lana, she’s not running now, but when she was, she was indeed quite forceful in her loathing of Avi. You can check the archives.
Making one student play by rules that no one else has to play by is patently unfair and against the spirit of a pluralistic, democratic society. The fact that it is a Jewish student being targeted this way means it ultimately comes down to Anti-semitic motivations.
Apparently it’s only okay to associate with external groups with an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if those groups are anti-Israel. Where was your outrage for Sadia Saifuddin’s appointment to this same position? By your own argument, she is just as unfit to represent all UC students. Let’s recognize this reality: SJP and many other campus groups (across the country) are intimately associated (both financially and ideologically) with outside, anti-Israel organizations. Just saying, if this was really about “transparency” and “ethics,” why are those things overlooked for Saifuddin but suddenly of extreme importance for a Jewish, pro-Israel nominee for the same position?
OMG https://www.facebook.com/pages/UCLA-Politycs/187132161457126