Praxis’ platform, agenda deserve respect

By Bill Elliott

I am writing this article to take back some of the statements I
made in my article about the Undergraduate Students Association
Council being stuck in George Orwell’s “1984”
(“Break cycle of domination by Praxis,” Viewpoint, May
5). Specifically, I wish to take back the contention that Praxis is
an organization that seeks power just for the sake of authority and
financial benefit.

After more careful analysis, and after having seen the profound
knowledge Praxis candidates had over issues like student-initiated
outreach and retention, my belief in their abilities has been
reaffirmed.

Also, their ability to deal with such racial stigmas as the
“model minority myth” that is often associated with
Asian Americans, has further checked my stance that there is no
longer a need for them to be in power. I state these feelings now
because many an endorsement hearing and fireside chat have
convinced me about what it takes to truly promote diversity. I am
also rarely ever above admitting that I have made a mistake.

In not acknowledging the relevance of Praxis in dealing with
student issues, I made a mistake, and I stand vaunted because of
it. I have come to realize that blind ambition has no place in
organizations such as USAC. And as people talk about tearing down
the Praxis reign, they had better realize what it is that they seek
to eliminate, and what it means for students of color on this
campus.

I do, however, wish to defend and elaborate on a few other
points in the article. I hold the belief, even more firmly now than
ever, that we have a campus of 20,000 “proles” (to
continue the Orwell analogy). I find it horrible that an active
student such as myself had to run for office before I found out how
to get involved in the Student-Initiated Outreach Committee and the
Student Retention Center. What is more chilling is how many
students will never know what these things are and what they do.
USAC must reach out to the rest of the campus and work more
collaboratively with groups with large constituencies if knowledge
about “real life” issues is to be spread (a role to
which I now offer my services).

Also, I do wish to say that the world of “1984” has
been completed on this campus in the sense that all memories of a
USAC that served as a facilitating body have been lost. The
council’s role is now only assumed to be the exact role it
has assumed for these past five years ““ that it is a
coordinating mechanism for political activism.

I fear that the role USAC could fulfill, that of an organizer
for student services and a better coordinator for programming, has
been lost. This campus has so many wonderful organizations that
present programs regarding everything from education to campus
spirit, and nearly all of them compete with each other.

USAC could and should work with the Center for Student
Programming and Student Affairs in order to reevaluate its role as
a representative body that creates more accessible and better
publicized campus programming charts, so that large programming
organizations can avoid conflict with each other. Student services
such as parking and the problem of the students’
association’s financial solvency must also be addressed. And
with constitutional reform a clear issue, now is the perfect time
for USAC to reevaluate its role as a representative body.

Finally, on a more personal note, many people have told me that
they see this retraction as a sign of weakness, and that I should
stand by my points no matter what. In my opinion, such a stubborn
and ignorant action would be the greatest of all follies. I believe
that those who speak lies and who cannot reevaluate themselves as
people breed only destruction, and I have no desire to be such a
person.