A petition calling for the Social Justice Referendum’s disqualification was declared null last week after signatories decided to withdraw their names from the submission.
While not the case for all who withdrew, many former signatories said they felt uncomfortable after learning their names were circulated among supporters of the referendum after the petition was made public.
Joe Jacobson, a third-year political science student who worked on the petition, corroborated the sentiment and said that he was threatened after the petition was made public.
The fact that any student felt the need to withdraw their support because they felt unsafe is absolutely unacceptable. In order to better protect future petitioners, the judicial board should redact personal information, including names and ID numbers, from all petitions published online.
While petitioners’ identities would inevitably be revealed during the hearing process, revealing their names beforehand opens petitioners to intimidation and coercion from other students with opposing views.
Whether or not those that supported the referendum would have made good on any potential threat is beyond the point. Removing personal information from petitions published online would only help students advocate against wrongs they feel have been committed without having to put a target on their back.
There is no logical reason for publicly publishing the information in the first place. What matters to the public is the possible violation, not who is submitting the complaint. Once the judicial board reviews the case, petitioners’ identities can be revealed, but it is premature and superfluous to publish their names before a hearing when they can be coerced into changing their positions.
It’s true that redacting petitioners’ information won’t solve the problem completely. Shubham Goel, who signed the petition and formerly ran for the USAC general representative office under the MakeUCLAGreatAgain slate, said he thinks some signatories withdrew their names when they learned the petition’s call for action was so severe.
It’s also true that publishing names could be hailed as a positive, transparent measure. However, the judicial board should prioritize safety above transparency prior to the hearing process.
Bullying students out of supporting a petition is unacceptable. If the judicial board wants to host a truly fair, free petitioning process, it should protect petitioners from intimidation and redact their personal information from petitions.
Students should not be afraid to demand accountability from USAC candidates and ballot measures, despite how just they may claim to be.
The Editorial Board shows a lot of restraint in addressing a turn of events that was really messed up, to put it lightly.
While I understand the UCLA administration’s hesitation to intervene in student elections, this year’s cycle doesn’t inspire much confidence in the student body’s ability to manage the affair. Intimidation is the last step before actual, physical violence. The actions of the SJR supporters should be condemned harshly.