In the wake of the resignation of Undergraduate Students Association Council President Devin Murphy, the council has an obligation to postpone its vote on an upcoming controversial divestment resolution.
Murphy’s resignation left a vacuum of power on the council, pulling former Internal Vice President Avinoam Baral out of his voting seat and leaving a gaping hole in the council. Until USAC has each of its 14 positions filled, any vote on the divisive issue of divestment will lack credibility.
Baral announced Saturday that council still plans to vote Tuesday on the resolution that calls on the University of California to divest from several companies some say contribute to human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Knowingly weakening the council’s decision by voting with an empty seat is reckless and irresponsible.
A similar resolution failed last year after a heated and emotional 12-hour council meeting and made national headlines. An issue as divisive as this one needs the input of a full council.
To ensure the resolution is given its due consideration, council should immediately move to postpone the vote one week and fill the empty position of internal vice president in the intervening time. One week provides enough time for the council to find a new internal vice president, but is not so long that the hard work student groups have put into advocating for or against the resolution in the past two weeks would be wasted or forgotten.
Regardless of the outcome, there will be many critics of the council’s vote on the resolution. Those who oppose the council’s vote could use the incomplete council to discredit its decision.
This is particularly true if the council votes in favor of the resolution. Since the impact of the resolution is already a point of contention, an incomplete vote would give fodder to opponents to criticize the resolution’s validity if it were to pass.
UC administrators have said many times that a student vote in favor of divestment would do little to sway their investment strategies. Even so, a vote in favor of divestment undermined by an incomplete council would result in the loss of some of the power it may otherwise have held.
If the vote goes the other way, council’s decision could easily be called into question next year – without a full council, the resolution would not receive fair consideration by students’ only governing body.
Students for Justice in Palestine, the group that drafted the resolution, said it thinks postponing the vote would have “biased political consequences.” The group’s leaders claim that Baral, who is openly opposed to divestment, will likely nominate a replacement who mirrors his political beliefs, skewing the vote.
But even if an opponent of the resolution fills the vacancy, the political makeup of council won’t have fundamentally changed, since Baral, in his new role as president, only votes in the unlikely event of a tie.
Students voted Baral into his position knowing his stance on the issue. His appointment of an officer with a similar stance in no way compromises representation or skews the vote.
Academic Affairs Commissioner Allyson Bach, Campus Events Commissioner Greg Kalfayan, Community Service Commissioner Cynthia Wong and Financial Supports Commissioner Heather Rosen have all said they think the vote should be pushed until the empty seat is filled.
Council’s choice to move forward with the vote despite these reservations is frankly negligent.
Before Tuesday’s meeting, this board implores the rest of council to remember its commitment to the students who elected them and remain dedicated to fair, representative voting.
And if Nihal were still GR2 instead of Sophia he probably would have voted no while Sophia will probably vote yes. We can play the “what if” game or we can recognize that USAC should have all of its officer seats fully filled before making such a large vote. The IVP position should be filled by someone qualified to lead and continue the initiatives of the office (like the current chief of staff). This worry that Avinoam will choose someone who is anti-divestment to sway the vote in that favor just highlights the way that the divestment issue completely takes over USAC (in a way it shouldn’t). We shouldn’t be choosing our officers based on their personal views on a single geopolitical issue, and yet that is exactly what UCLA politics has come to. Also, the concern of the replacement IVP being anti-divestment also just further shows how silly it is that USAC is even entertaining this highly contentious and divisive resolution in the first place. Do we really think that 14 individuals should make such a decision on how to represent the highly scattered views of the entire student body When one council member is replaced and everyone questions if that will change the outcome of the vote, clearly the answer is no (for this reason and many others).
How do you figure it’s tied?
Are you still beating that dead horse? Have you nothing else to do at UCLA-like study and get an education? Have you not yet awakened to what SJP is trying to do?
Absurd.
The different circumstances that led both Nihal and Devin to resign are irrelevant to my point.