Conciencia Libre should follow rules
By Daily Bruin Staff
Jan. 25, 2001 9:00 p.m.
Henderson graduated from UCLA in 2000 with a B.A. in political
science and a minor in classics.
By Paul Henderson
In regard to Marlene Urrea’s submission “Group
sets record straight on display“ (Viewpoint, Jan. 23), I
think it is clear that we are dealing with smoke and mirrors here,
rather than truly setting the record straight. The social
conscience of Conciencia Libre appears to be functioning well. It
is an admirable goal to attempt to raise the awareness level of
society.
While Conciencia Libre and I most likely do not agree
politically, I can understand their belief in the need to remember
those who have died. I will leave it at that, and not go into the
motivation behind illegal border-crossing, or the impact of
domestic economic policies (including corruption and mismanagement)
of these peoples’ countries.
Unfortunately, the moral conscience of Conciencia Libre seems to
be a bit lacking. According to an earlier article, “Conciencia
Libre fine creates rift in USAC,” News, Jan. 16) the
university granted Conciencia Libre the right to erect its display
in Westwood Plaza.
Conciencia Libre brought their exhibit into the Kerckhoff grass.
Conciencia Libre “said” (in written agreement) that
they would use the allotted area and then did something else.
Facilities Commissioner Steve Davey stated “Conciencia
Libre essentially lied to the university.” Replying, Urrea
says that the commissioner’s allegation of lying is
“simply not true.”
I guess it all depends on what your definition of
“is” is. Well, maybe “lie” rather than
“is,” but you get the point.
Mark Jimenez of Conciencia Libre stated that the decision to
violate the agreement “was made with the consensus of 30
members.” In criminal law, a violation of rules would be
known as a crime. In contract law, the willing violation of the
terms of an agreement is a breach of contract. Either way, the
university, either as a legitimate governing authority or
aggravated party, has the right to seek redress for the actions of
the Conciencia Libre members.
Just because 30 people agreed to unilaterally change the terms
of the agreement and break their word, does that make their actions
right? I have another definition for this course of action.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, “an agreement
between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal
purpose through illegal action” is a conspiracy.
I’m not saying that these people should be incarcerated,
but, by their representative’s own words, these 30 people
(“two or more persons”) came to the consensus
(“an agreement”) to raise their display (“a legal
purpose”) in an area not allowed (“through illegal
action”).
It is too bad that the displays were not staying upright.
Unfortunately, natural phenomena (such as gusts of wind) are things
with which we do have to deal.
Urrea, in response to Commissioner Davey’s allegations of
falsehood, said the group’s “intentions were to follow
the university regulations.” To dust off an old aphorism, the
road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The results determine
what the “intentions” really mean.
Conciencia Libre justifies its improper activities because of
“ridiculous demands” by the university. If these
demands were so ridiculous, why didn’t Conciencia Libre take
the moral high road by picking up their equipment, refusing to
follow such “ridiculous demands” and run a protest of
some sort? Raise a banner decrying the meddling. Hold a speech. Run
an ad in The Bruin. Do something that doesn’t break the
rules.
Unfortunately, Conciencia Libre chose to break the rules. The
damage to the lawn was caused by the actions of the group, through
willful defiance of university policy. That is something you could
take to a jury and come back with a conviction.
Offered in the original article was that a possible punishment
(for not paying the fine) is that a hold might be imposed on the
records of Conciencia Libre members. According to that article,
Academic Affairs Commissioner Roseanne Gutierrez was paraphrased
that “a student’s education should not be impeded over
such a matter.” One thing that we Americans take pride in is
that we have the rule of law. Clearly, Conciencia Libre broke the
rules.
A popular phrase is, “if you can’t do the time,
don’t do the crime.” If they didn’t want holds
for the non-payment, they shouldn’t have torn up the lawn in
the first place, and they should now pay the fine.
USAC President Elizabeth Houston is correct in her view that we
have rules so that we can have order. If the university allows
Conciencia Libre to get away with breaking the rules, what will
prohibit others from doing the same, or even worse?
The wrongdoers must be punished. Placing a hold on their records
is not cruel and unusual punishment. Try not paying your tuition
and see what happens. If the only way to clear the hold is to pay
the fine, then, by all means, pay the fine. Think of the hold as an
extra incentive to act in a timely manner.
Looking at the rest of Urrea’s letter, it just appears to
be an argument to cloak the main point of the issue ““ that
Conciencia Libre violated the rules. The attacks on the president
are uncalled for and unprofessional. Houston is doing the right
thing here. The rules must be followed.
Verbal agreements aren’t worth the paper upon which
they’re written. Sadly, it would seem that written agreements
made by Conciencia Libre are worth about the same.
