USAC elections show demand for change

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

It’s the end of an era. Student Empowerment’s!
domination of the Undergraduate Students Association Council is
over. But before Students United for Reform and Equality celebrate
David Dahle’s presidential victory, they must recognize what
this election says about what students need and want from their
government.

In Dahle’s SURE slate platform, he wrote that this
year’s Student Empowerment! dominated council members
“only represent themselves or their groups.” And with
the balance of next year’s council hinging on the outcome of
the internal vice president runoff between Student Empowerment!
candidate T.J. Cordero and SURE candidate Justin Levi, Dahle and
Co. have yet to show whether their slate’s commitment to a
broader definition of representation is rhetoric or reality.

The reason Student Empowerment! lost the presidency ““ and
why SURE was able to elect general representatives Adam Harmetz and
Michelle Styczynski in addition to their uncontested offices in
financial supports and facilities ““ was because students
spoke out against exclusiveness and favoritism with their vote. If
SURE simply turns the tables by representing only the largely On
Campus Housing and Greek-based constituency that turned out for
them at the polls, the idea behind representing the entire student
body is defeated.

This is especially important because Student
Empowerment’s! overarching ideals of access to education and
giving a voice to underrepresented students have always been
admirable. In fact, these ideals are among the most important this
university faces. However, Student Empowerment! chose to make them
the only issues this university faced, while at the same time
burning bridges with any administrators and others willing to
assist student efforts through their combative and adversarial
tactics. That is where they failed students.

Dahle promised students that this kind of neglect and
uncooperative spirit would not happen if they elected candidates
from his slate. He promised student input, and he promised a USAC
whose activities are visible on campus. Even if the difference
between his ascension to power was 37 votes ““ Dahle received
50.4 percent of the vote and Student Empowerment! candidate Bryant
Tan received 49.6 ““ his victory represents a voter cycle
which repeats itself every few years. Two years ago, Elizabeth
Houston, running independent beat Praxis’ Katynja McCory in a
runoff by 127 votes. What students were saying then and what they
are saying now is the same ““ they refuse to elect a president
who they feel won’t be representative of their needs.

This year, the cycle has broken off its typical course with
Empowerment! losing more than its president. For the first time in
years, the change students have asked for will have to stand on its
own feet. If the two major slates are willing to work with each
other, there is potential for real progress.

But if next year’s council adheres as strictly to party lines
and pork-barreling agendas as this year’s, stagnation will
likely typify its actions. Representatives on both sides will have
to advocate issues concerning a larger percentage of the student
body than their campaign issues appealed to. If this change in
power is to live up to its promises, compromise and cooperation
should be the first items on the USAC agenda next year.