Student government shows signs of improvement

  Illustration by RODERICK ROXAS/Daily Bruin

By Ramzi Ajami
It has been all too common to expect members of the Undergraduate
Students Association Council, our student body government, to clash
over one point or another. Whether the disagreements are over petty
differences in opinion or well-substantiated concerns, they usually
end up escalating to what seems to be a partisan impasse.

The meeting I attended had its fair share of disagreements as
well, as council members argued over the extent of exposure the
meetings should have to the student body through the Daily Bruin.
President Elizabeth Houston upheld that proceedings in council
meetings are important, and the student body has a right to know
what’s going on in their student government and not simply
its results. Others, though, felt that it would be unhealthy for
the student body to see headline after headline of council
conflict.

But the meeting on Tuesday night was slightly different from
what has become the sad norm, despite such disagreements in
opinion. At this meeting, collaboration from all parties was
eventually shown, and progress was made which, however shortly,
generated a consensus in our student body government.

I won’t drone on about the details about the case;
instead, I’ll only include the highlights.

A decision on who should be on a particular committee was being
made. While it seemed for a while that another partisan vote would
conveniently circumvent the president’s recommendations, and
while tempers flared for a good long time, no vote was cast. And
then, from the disagreement the public has sadly seemed to grow
accustomed to even this early on in the year, a very strong sign of
collaboration emerged, as both sides managed to agree over an
inclusive alternative that would satisfy everyone.

My enthusiasm over this gesture may very well have readers
experiencing two very different reactions. Some may criticize my
surprise, claiming that we should expect this from our student
government anyway. Others, who have probably followed the last
election closely, will appreciate that such collaboration is indeed
enough to make even the most cynical student think twice about the
direction in which our student government is heading.

To the first group I say this: However idealistic the notion of
bipartisanship in student government is, it has not been shown to
be anything close to a reality in the past several months. It is
very common to expect the president’s recommendations to be
overturned or voted against for reasons many students would
criticize, as it is equally common to expect the president to voice
concern over the current climate in student government.

Collaboration then, ultimately promoted by virtually all members
of council, should be welcomed by the student body.

It does not mean that all differences have been set aside
““ and why should they? It is the differences and diversity on
council that allow for the personal growth and learning of
individual students in and out of student government, as long as
such differences are addressed in a healthy manner.

What this collaboration does mean, though, is that our student
government is capable of mobilizing together for some causes. It
means that our council and our president are capable of making
good-faith efforts to work together for our student body. It means
that critics and advocates of the “she vs. them”
mentality of council will be forced to think twice before making
assumptions of a lack of willingness from either party. And it also
means that having to use words like “sides” may someday
be unnecessary.

My enthusiasm and praise of council’s conduct is sincere,
but cautious.

One sign of collaboration does not mean that all members are
guaranteed to be overeager to work with one another. But several
members did explicitly state that dissension in student government
not only gives it a bad image and is hurtful to individual council
members, but may very well hurt the student groups relying on our
student government’s successful function. And these concerns
are absolutely legitimate.

Many students have lost faith in USAC and feel that the majority
on council is simply trying to control the president, and many
students have embraced misconceptions about both parties,
successfully destroying any possibility of appreciating what they
have to offer. But it is my hope that these students will not give
up on our student government. Attitudes do seem to be changing, and
an increased atmosphere of willingness is becoming apparent.

If you’ve already bought into a certain generalization
about one group or another on council, I encourage you to
reconsider it. This goes for supporters of a group as much as it
does for its critics. Question where you heard this label, and
consider that perhaps you are not as well-informed as you would
like to believe. Take the time to really understand and appreciate
what individual members on council have to offer by attending their
office hours; don’t just focus on one or two of their actions
and policies and immediately form a hasty, mistaken generalization
about what sort of people they are and what motivations they
have.

I’m not sure how long this collaboration will last.
Ideally, a new precedent has been set; but realistically, my
cautious optimism and faith in council may very well be challenged
at next week’s meeting. This singular sign of working
together is so welcomed because it is, unfortunately, rare. Let us
hope that it can occur again, and perhaps even again.

So to council I give this encouragement, and this admonition:
you have earned new respect from others and myself for your
respectable, reasonable decision to work together, as this campus
and all its students expect you to; but keep it up, not only for
our sakes, but for yourselves as well. Many of us, as you very
sensibly acknowledged, are relying on your strong function for our
activity.

A loss of respect is hard to gain from a student body that,
unfortunately, may already be cynical of the political climate at
hand. Again, no one expects ideological consensus. You can disagree
over points, as long as you do so without attack; but if partisan
politics is seen again in deliberations and decisions, then despite
council members’ insistence that no ulterior motives are at
work, the student body may inflict the greatest possible harm on
both you and itself: it will cease to care.