A few thoughts about the sponsorship issue

A few thoughts about the sponsorship issue

Donald Carpenter-Rios

Well, I had an interesting weekend. I spent the better part of
two days pouring over at least 500 pages of news clippings, meeting
minutes, photocopies of photographs, photocopies of songbooks
­ in short, the entire history of the recent "responsorship"
controversy ­ compiled on the
fraternity-sorority-songbook-racism-misogyny-homophobia issue.

Prior to that I had the good pleasure to see USAC in action a
week ago Tuesday at the "responsorship" meeting. I didn’t realize
that more than $100,000 dollars was at stake. That issue wasn’t
made clear by USAC, but it’s amazing what one can discover reading
fine print.

Based on what I read in the files and what I saw at the USAC
meeting, I’d say most council members hadn’t read the files, or if
they had, they were a weak pulse away from severe brain damage.
Now, I’m not trying to be gratuitously harsh nor condescending, but
the question that keeps swirling around in my head is, what place
does racism, misogyny and homophobia have on the UCLA campus? Aside
from the feeble claim that the largest membership group on campus
had USAC’s back turned to it, the question is, what of the real
world issue of common human dignity in this environment of
educational and social diversity?

After all, even Chuck Young told the president of the United
States last year that UCLA was the most ethnically diverse
university in the country, if not the world. But as a means of
maintaining UCLA’s mission to provide equality of education, free
from exclusion and bigotry, USAC has failed. The so-called win by
responsorship foes obscures the fact that the majority of USAC
council members voted for the fraternity cause. In fact, all eight
of the eight council members on last years’ "greek slate" voted for
the measure. When one council member raised legitimate concerns
over the faultiness of current bylaws governing student advocacy
groups, she was told that her job was to decide based on the bylaws
as they stood at that moment.

So much for conscientious reflection. I was also stunned by the
two-minute time limit, and caution against redundancy imposed by
undergraduate president Rob Greenhalgh on each person who wished to
contribute to the debate. And while President Greenhalgh rode his
gavel like a hobbyhorse, rough-shod over the entire proceeding,
most of the council seemed unconcerned with his authoritative
autonomy. We were told that the purpose of the two-minute limit was
to give everyone time to speak.

What this time limit accomplished, in fact, was to denude the
debate of any substantive arguments. And though there was plenty of
passion at the meeting, there was no time for substance.
Subsequently, Greenhalgh wrote to the campus that the "well-known
arguments were again heard." Given the two-minute sound bites
allowed at the meeting, I wouldn’t be surprised if the "arguments"
haven’t been memorized by now.

I’m not necessarily anti-greek system, and I don’t fault them
entirely, even though they are elitist and exclusive. Of course
that doesn’t justify their presence in a public educational
institution either, nor does it justify using student fees to
support their segregation. The issue here, particularly in light of
the so-called "songbooks," is that in my opinion USAC has abdicated
its responsibility to protect the student body that elected them
from the evils of discrimination, defamation and hate. The student
body is the largest membership group at UCLA, not IFC or
Panhellenic.

Where are the new constitutional amendments drafted by USAC
disbarring any group promulgating degradation and bigotry? Where
are the new bylaws protecting the students of UCLA, and
guaranteeing the student government’s refusal to tolerate any group
espousing the extreme cultural violence of the so-called
"songbooks"? Where is the bylaw that demands a refund of all
student money used by a group caught in the vulgarities of
degradation?

And what of the greek organizations themselves? Do sorority
women really want unrepentant fraternity brothers responsored? Do
the sororities really not object to the songbooks, which called
women "sluts," "dogs," "real dumb," "babes" who have his "dick into
her mouth," who "suck all your cum" and who "takes [sic] it up the
ass"?

Are the greek organizations only interested in the whitewashed
claim of transformation? If they have really turned 180 degrees, as
was their repetitive chant at the "responsorship" meeting,
shouldn’t these claims at least be substantive? Attending a few
rape and alcohol awareness seminars is not real transformation.

Perhaps the greek system should put its money where its mouth is
and address the grievances of the communities they’ve so thoroughly
offended. Perhaps IFC and Panhellenic should take their
"philanthropies" into the ‘hoods and barrios of the surrounding
communities and work for real social justice, thereby beginning the
long process of repayment to those they have so cavalierly
degraded.

Perhaps, were they short on rhetoric and serious about real
change, they’d volunteer at rape crisis centers, shelters for
battered women and AIDS hospices, and not simply as a gimmick to
improve their images.

While it is one thing for me to point my finger at problems and
suggest solutions, it does not mend the divisions among us. That
will not be accomplished by more dialogue, understanding and
mediation. We need real world answers to these very serious and
very dangerous problems. This is everybody’s issue, and it’s high
time to leave "kiddie-politick" on the playground and get the job
done.

By the way, where has the UCLA administration been on this
issue? I guess they’re busy doing the $$cha-ching$$ thing in
splendid isolation. They too should not forget the immortal words
of Paddy Chayevsky: "We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take
it any more!"

Donald Francis Carpenter-Rios is a graduate student in Near
Eastern Languages and Cultures.