Broader issue illustrated by unfair censure of Hamilton

Wednesday, October 29, 1997

Broader issue illustrated by unfair censure of Hamilton

RACISM: Are we willing to accept any claim of racism without
proof?

By Jeff Ellis

I was extremely disappointed to see that nothing was said of the
response written by Kendra Fox-Davis ("Unfair attack by Bruin,"
Letters, Oct. 21), who was trying to defend Cultural Affairs
Commissioner Mike Hamilton. She was responding to an article in
which Jaime Nack, last year’s commissioner, had critical words
about some of the choices that Mike Hamilton has made so far this
year.

There is one statement Fox-Davis made that I wish to take issue
with. Fox-Davis stated that Nack "is a disgruntled past staff
member who resented an African American man heading up the Cultural
Affairs Commission, plain and simple." Fox-Davis is saying that
Nack is racist. I tried to read this statement to mean something
less offensive, but Fox-Davis is saying that Nack resents Hamilton
for the "plain and simple" reason that he is an African American.
Indeed, this is the equivalent of saying that Nack is racist.

I have two problems with this attack by Fox-Davis. The first is
that she does not support her accusation of racism in any way,
shape or form. She calls Nack racist, and expects that we believe
her. Fox-Davis may have reasons for believing this to be true, but
to make a public accusation of racism is a serious matter, and one
that she has a responsibility to defend. The reason I take issue
with this is that I fear that at UCLA, we have developed into a
community that no longer questions accusations of racism.

We should all question the motives of an individual who publicly
calls an individual racist and does not find it necessary to
support this claim. Such an irresponsible attack should not be
tolerated, especially one coming from the chief of staff of the
Undergraduate Students Association Council president’s office.

My second issue with the response by Fox-Davis is that race was
even brought into the discussion of the merits of the Cultural
Affairs Office under Mike Hamilton. Fox-Davis identifies the issues
as "a perceived lack of experience, or whether or not a performer
wants to ride in a limo." This is basically the issue of the
original article: the job that Hamilton was doing and how Nack felt
about it.

My issue with Fox-Davis is that I don’t understand how an attack
on Nack as a racist is relevant to a defense of the job that
Hamilton is doing. According to all of the information presented,
race had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. So I don’t
understand why Fox-Davis felt it necessary to call Nack a racist.
Why would she do such a thing? Even if Nack’s criticisms were based
on race (which I have absolutely no reason to believe is the case),
could Fox-Davis defend Hamilton’s performance based on what he has
and has not done?

Especially at UCLA, we often see individuals draw racial lines,
and define which is the right side and which is the wrong side to
be on. At UCLA, more than any other place I can imagine, the right
side to be on is more often that of the "minority."

My issue with Fox-Davis is that she has unnecessarily drawn a
line in order to define which are the right and the wrong sides. In
this instance, no racial line needed to be drawn, yet one was drawn
anyway. Never before have I seen someone so blatantly bring race
into an issue where it did not belong only to use it to appeal to a
"racism is bad" culture.

The response of Fox-Davis is a disgrace to the UCLA community.
We should not tolerate unsubstantiated attacks on any individual.
We cannot allow racism to be made into an issue where it does not
belong. It bothers me to think that many who read what Fox-Davis
had to say made a judgment about Nack, and decided who was right
and who was wrong because of it. It seems to me that this is what
Fox-Davis was trying to make people do; for some, I would imagine
it worked. Don’t let it happen again.

Has UCLA developed a culture where someone can call someone
racist without verifying the proof of the accusation? Do we no
longer question when a racial line is being drawn? Will we allow
individuals to be as irresponsible about race issues as Fox-Davis?
Has it gotten so bad that someone can’t question the use of student
funds to pay for a limousine without being called a racist just
because the individual is an African American? I would have hoped
not, but it seems that we have.