USAC needs to expand its goals, tolerance

Meselson, an alumnus of the class of 2001, is a member of the
professional staff at the Office of Residential Life.

By Scott Meselson

While I respect the goals of the Undergraduate Students
Association Council, I take great offense at many of the attitudes
that proponents of USAC’s agenda take toward those who do not
support their goals. Even more so, I object to the moral
superiority that such an attitude necessarily utilizes.

Most recently, I found myself to be quite upset by the comments
made by Christopher Neal (“Decisions
of campus groups are justified,” Daily Bruin, Nov. 28).
Indeed, the student groups that most strongly influence USAC can be
proud of a variety of significant accomplishments. The example
given in Neal’s article of the Third World Coalition is just
one. Others that seem noteworthy include the student movement to
implement the use of fair trade coffee at on-campus coffee houses,
and of course the successful push to repeal SP-1 and SP-2. I have
tremendous respect for USAC and its involvement in these issues and
laud its achievements. And even though I may take issue with their
methods, their accomplishments have definitely been positive
steps.

The problem, however, lies in the set of assumptions that
underlies USAC’s agenda. One such assumption is that USAC and
its component student groups reflect the UCLA student body as a
whole. Indeed, Neal points out that this is one of USAC’s
strengths, especially compared with the non-representative
government of the U.S. However, there is an assumption that USAC is
better simply because it is made up of different types of people,
while forgetting that a diversity of opinion is just as important
to the success of any group.

Even though our national government may be quite partisan at
times, it is the interaction between opposing viewpoints that helps
bring progress to our country. On the contrary, USAC is quite
intolerant of those who dare to express opinions contrary to their
accepted dogma. Neal calls opponents of USAC “conservative
and less-informed,” and even though I think that this is an
incredibly offensive assumption (for I consider myself both quite
liberal and very well informed, yet still in opposition to USAC)
because it indicates a great amount of intolerance. Those students
who do not accept the opinions handed down by the council are
criticized and attacked as if they represent a deadly threat to
USAC’s own existence, or even worse, they are simply written
off as fools.

USAC certainly does a good job at ensuring fair representation
to a variety of students who may not have had the opportunity in
the past, but it must also remember that it must represent all
students at UCLA, even if they are conservative and less-informed.
Right now, it seems as if USAC only offers a real voice to the
those students who voted for their candidates, in an election where
only 25 percent of the students at UCLA actually voted. Taking into
account those students who voted for the predominant slate, this
means USAC caters to approximately less than 15 percent of the
student body.

While issues of housing and parking are finally getting much
needed attention, the focus still pales in comparison to other
issues like affirmative action, which has taken center stage for a
long time. The percentage of the student body directly affected by
on-campus housing alone is in the range of 25 percent, and by
adding in parking and Westwood housing, well over half of the
student body surely has an interest in these topics; such a thought
surely makes USAC’s non-focus seem highly suspect. USAC needs
to bring its goals more into line with those whom it is supposed to
represent.

The last issue I have with USAC is one that Neal illustrates
very clearly. It seems to be the case that you are either with USAC
or you are bad. Neal contrasts the students of USAC and its student
groups to those of the student body in general by pointing out that
members of the latter are most concerned with getting their diploma
and getting out of college and into the real world, while the
former is concerned with making the real world a better place.

USAC, and Neal in particular, assume that anyone who does not
side with the concerns of USAC is sacrificing the quality of their
education and in doing so, they become somehow inferior to those
who do otherwise. This is a dangerous assumption to make, since it
sets USAC on a pedestal of moral superiority.

Admittedly, the goal of enlightenment that Neal describes is
valid, but his method of getting there through social action is no
more valid than my getting there through the study of philosophers
like Aristotle and Mill. To assume that USAC’s idea of a good
education is more valid than that of anyone else is a broad and
ethically shaky argument to make.

As a recent graduate, I am thankful that I can put the
self-centered politics of USAC behind me, but I urge USAC to
reevaluate its goals and its methods. UCLA is a big place, and in
order to be successful in its goals ““ both local and
world-wide ““ USAC will need the support of a much larger
portion of the student body than it currently has. It can only win
the support of UCLA students by being more responsive to their
opinions and views, and by not assuming them to be undeserving of
their attention because of any supposed political belief or lack of
knowledge.