Editorial: USAC needs to learn from Dahle’s mistake

The recent release of Undergraduate Students Association Council
President David Dahle’s controversial internal memo has
rightfully led to increased skepticism regarding USAC politics and
Dahle’s political methods. With the end of this academic year
approaching, however, Dahle is yesterday’s story. The proper
thing to do now is ensure that candidates for next year’s
offices learn from Dahle’s mistakes. In the next few weeks,
the mind-set with which students approach USAC elections must
change.

Dahle’s memo outlines “manipulation”
techniques and includes sweeping lists of “friends” and
“enemies.” This memo was meant to be Dahle’s
parting gift to future Students United for Reform and Equality
slate candidates and was offered as a document future candidates
could reference while planning their campaigns.

The content of his memo stands in contrast to the inclusive
platform Dahle initially presented when running for USAC president
last year. At that time, Dahle promised his slate would break
Student Empowerment!’s historical control of the council and
provide a more equal form of representation. It seems Dahle has
decided he cannot control council politics without
“manipulation.”

This document is troubling not only because of its specific
content, but because it serves as evidence of the agonistic,
negative thinking that characterizes much of USAC politics. Both
S.U.R.E. and Student Empowerment! have taken turns accusing each
other of favoring specific groups through funding increases and
manipulative political maneuvering.

But in his submission Monday, “Politics necessary part of
USAC presidency,” Dahle claims the system of distributing
money this year is fairer than before. But whether something is
fair is a subjective judgment. Who is to say that a system
guaranteeing more funding for Dahle’s “friends”
wasn’t implemented with a private bias, but with a public
guise of providing a fairer process? In his memo, Dahle said he
“chose Robbie (Clark) as the SE! rep over Chris Diaz …
because she is easier to control.” This doesn’t
necessarily wreak of fairness; he admits weaker candidates
representing his “enemies” were appointed in order to
minimize opposition to his system.

Dahle boasts that under his presidency, more groups have been
funded than ever before. But simply funding more groups
doesn’t equate to sound monetary distribution. There is no
reason the Chess Club should be receiving financial support from
students, for example.

This whole fiasco calls slate politics into question. But
arguing for the elimination of slates is naive. Slates technically
don’t exist now in they’re not recognized by the
university. But students will inevitably team up to help each other
get elected, hence their existence.

In doing this, though, they need to keep a productive mind-set
and, most of all, keep USAC elections in perspective.

Running for USAC is not like running for national office. War
and the nation’s economy are not on the line. Why resort to
divisive politics aimed at strategically destroying others at this
level of politics when so much opportunity to debate actual ideas
is available with minimal significant repercussions? Dahle’s
memo is immature; but whoever follows it is devoid of
respectability.

Candidates should remember that their primary job is to
represent UCLA students and help further campus unity and
activities. If USAC cannot be taken seriously by students because
of trivial political conflict, there is no reason to expect adults
in Sacramento or Murphy Hall to take USAC seriously either.