Focus of slates should be action, not political gaming

By Chris Diaz

As a current Undergraduate Student Association Council member
that ran under the Student Empowerment! slate in the previous
election, I encourage the student body to look past the rhetoric
being articulated by Justin Levi as well as his Students United for
Reform and Equality slate mates. While running last year, the main
tactic of S.U.R.E. was to defame candidates, student organizations
and individual students who were associated with or supported
Student Empowerment!. USAC should not be about political gaming,
but about acting to address the needs of students. As illustrated
by the recent memo leaked out of S.U.R.E. headquarters, it seems
that they still haven’t learned the role or meaning of
student government.

As a member of Student Empowerment!, I recognize some of the
problems with our own efforts and our approach toward council.
Reflecting on this year, it’s clear that there needs to be a
change in the manner in which student government functions to
effectively address student needs. Ultimately, there is a need to
hold all of us accountable as fellow students, S.U.R.E., Student
Empowerment! and United Independents alike. But, if anything, such
accountability should not be based on affiliation, but actual work
put into council. We should hold people accountable to not just
their words but also their actions. Once we all enter council, it
shouldn’t be about your slate loyalties, but rather what you
have been able to accomplish for the student body.

While S.U.R.E. members continue to assert that they were the
ones to secure online voting or the programming referendum, it is
apparent that they are merely gearing up for elections. Remember,
according to S.U.R.E. President David Dahle’s “Keys for
Success,” manipulation of people and the media is at the top
of the list. Under this philosophy, S.U.R.E. would like students to
believe these successes are attributable to their slate alone.

This, however, is not the case. The programming referendum, for
example, was not accomplished as a result of S.U.R.E., but was
rather the fruition of efforts on behalf of the independent
commissions. S.U.R.E. would like students to believe that they have
been part of that particular success, but, in reality, the
initiative for the referendum as well as the strength came from the
Campus Events, Student Welfare and the Community Service
Commissions. Additionally, online voting was accomplished with an
overwhelming majority on council with little opposition. The
opposition itself was not even against online voting, but against
the lack of a concrete proposal brought to the table.

If one were to really look at S.U.R.E.’s track record,
they would see how they have not effectively addressed the issues
that students have been facing. The Diversity Requirement Campaign,
for example, was something that S.U.R.E. had committed to
supporting during the elections process of last year. The S.U.R.E.
survey from fall quarter also illustrated that a large proportion,
47 percent of those taking the survey, had agreed with the
Diversity Requirement on our campus and only 16 percent concretely
opposed it. Nonetheless, not one S.U.R.E. council member has
provided any form of assistance, nor offered it, to those students
working on this specific campaign.

Furthermore, according to their own survey, 53 percent of
students disapproved of the current administration’s handling
of Iraq. It was also made clear that 52 percent of students felt
war was only appropriate if “there (was) broad international
consensus to go to war.” The recent light of events, however,
shows that such broad international consensus is not clear.

Once again, what did S.U.R.E. do to address this issue as
members of council? Not only did they not take a stance on a
resolution regarding the war, but thus far they have failed to
provide any discussion forums or make any clear public statements
either for or against it.

The S.U.R.E. survey was meant to gauge student opinion to help
focus the direction of council. Ironically, student organizations
and other offices on council were already working on most of the
issues addressed in the survey with no assistance from S.U.R.E. For
many council members not affiliated with S.U.R.E., these surveys
merely reinforced their own efforts and indicated who was willing
to put in actual work rather than pay empty lip service.

Some enjoy playing political games and getting caught up in
slate-power politics, but others will continue to work on the
issues regardless of such games. The articles from the past several
weeks illustrate who’s really caught up in the political
games, and where their interests really lie. People will be able to
talk about the issues in the upcoming elections, but all talk
grounded in no action will get future councils nowhere.

Chris Diaz is the USAC Academic Affairs commissioner.