Column’s argument was misdirected
Columnist Tristan Reed muddled his message and made improper connections in his column (“Stop empowerment discourse ““ just serve,” April 27).
Regarding Tristan’s time spent in Zambia, he recalled that his refugee clientele had asked for a “loan or a class, or a book,” remarking that such pleas were in fact a manifestation of a disempowered person.
On this point, I agree. But I disagree with what he puts forth as the cause of this disempowerment. Disempowerment cannot solely be attributed to the effects of this “empowerment discourse.”
It is true that refugees living in sub-Saharan Africa are reliant on aid workers. But that reliance was not born of the aforementioned discourse, but of legalities imposed by host governments and a lack of urgency from the international community.
Refugees are denied the rights of employment and mobility, effectively preventing the initiation of any sustainable livelihood for themselves and their families.
Whether or not Reed labels the organization he worked with as “empowering,” his work symbolizes an opportunity.
It seems completely understandable that a refugee might think, “I’ll go ask the rich white kid who says he’s here to help me.” It is incredibly shortsighted to label such a plea as stemming from improper discourse. Rather, such a plea is the direct result of a system that is, by nature, limiting and disempowering.
Reed, if you really want to direct your efforts toward service, stop arguing semantics and start pinpointing the root of the causes of the problems. If your approach had been more appropriate, you might have bolstered UCLA’s service-oriented student groups rather than attacked their programming.
Diana Essex
Advocacy Operations Director,
F.O.R.G.E.
Fourth-year,
international development studies
USAC less wasteful than you may think
As a student representative elected to the Undergraduate Students Association Council and a frequent critic of its policies and practices, I appreciate Jennifer Mishory’s message that USAC will only improve when students take an interest in our government (“Become invested in council,” News, April 30).
Still, I believe the article took USAC’s budget numbers out of context, ultimately giving students who read the article an unfair perspective that USAC is wasteful.
I can speak to the programs I have led within my office to reduce waste and return more money to student programming.
For one, we cut phone costs by switching to Internet telephone providers, saving more than $3,000.
We have also reduced redundant advertising and focused on more cost-effective measures, such as word-of-mouth advertising.
This resulted in savings of more than $10,000.
We have also calculated cost-per-attendee figures for all of our programs to ensure that we produce only cost-effective events that will appeal to a wide range of students.
We did all of this, I believe, without substantially impacting the programming we provide to students.
In the end, I estimate we will be able to save $15,000 this year, and the money saved, of course, will go into programming additional events for students, without costing a penny more.
Students should know that some of us are doing our best to ensure that we spend their money most effectively. We never forget that the money we are spending ultimately belongs to them.
Ravi Dehar
USAC Campus Events Commissioner
Fourth-year, English