Josh Lawson best choice to correct corruption done by Students First!

This Undergraduate Students Association Council election will
offer two starkly contrasting slates. One slate wants to continue
quietly manipulating student group funding, while another will
reform an institution infiltrated by corruption. I decided to speak
out in support of presidential candidate Josh Lawson and his slate
because, unlike other candidates, his campaign is geared toward
fixing a broken system.

Since the summer, I regularly attended USAC meetings as a staff
member in the Student Welfare Commission ““ an independent
office. I am not speaking on behalf of the office, but my
involvement with USAC prompts me to voice my displeasure with what
I’ve seen. Throughout the year, the methods of Students
First! demonstrated that different opinions won’t be
tolerated. It soon became clear Lawson would be sidelined and
targeted because he stood by his campaign promise to make USAC
accessible to more than just the groups feeding the Students First!
political machine.

Lawson received the smallest office budget allocation of any
general representative, even though he was general representative
No. 1. Though he committed himself to being an agent of change on a
fairly unresponsive council, he was rebuffed every time because of
politics. Time and again, he asked the SF! president to consider
appointments on committees dealing with the issues he was working
on, like bylaw changes, only to be bypassed in favor of slate
partisans. This ensured his issues would not be fully
considered.

What impressed me most about Lawson was how he reacted to being
marginalized. Though financially limited and politically
constrained, he pushed forward without paying attention to the
petty games played by SF!. His positive outlook and the fact that
he tried to do the most for the student body with the little he was
given shows his commitment to advancing the cause of the student
who doesn’t reap many of USAC’s rewards.

The central issue of this campaign revolves around the Equal
Access Amendment. SF! opposes it because it threatens the
group’s stranglehold on the money supply. Lawson supports it
because many student organizations benefit the campus and to
restrict their access to student funds is nothing short of blatant
discrimination.

When the new University of California Office of the President
draft came in about student group funding, Lawson made another
push, only to be rebuffed again. Although USAC has violated two
Supreme Court rulings on student group funding in the last five
years, the SF! dominated council has continued to stall on the
issue.

In other areas, SF! officers have been unproductive. With few
exceptions, SF! commissions did not follow their mission statements
but rode the coattails of the officers fighting against the Racial
Privacy Initiative, using it as an excuse for ignoring their
constitutionally mandated goals. The SF! general representative
offices did little aside from “planning” diversity
conferences. Certain executive offices put on expensive but
sparsely attended events. Check the public record. Then ask
yourself what constitutes being “qualified”. Is it
having a title like “chief of staff” on a commission
that has lost its relevance by being politicized in order to ensure
there are enough votes for a council majority? Or is it a candidate
who wants to implement programs related to his commission and
relevant to campus life?

SF! had its chance to lead this campus in a new direction, and
it failed. Certain students have been put first but where does that
leave everyone else? If anyone can consider these successors
“qualified,” so be it. But unless they’re voted
out the system, subpar performance, funding inequality and fiscal
frivolity will not only be upheld but will continue to go on
unchecked.

Don’t be fooled. This election is far from a popularity
contest. The fate of student groups not affiliated with SF! and the
direction of USAC are in question. Remember, every vote counts when
you are faced with a political machine that limits student access
to resources. Look no further than all the changes to the election
code to see the direction SF! wants to take council. While Lawson
was the public face that endured attacks this year, it could just
as easily have been anyone else who believes in true access and
fairness. This is the tragedy of our student government. While the
faces change each year, the discrimination and corruption practiced
by SF! does not.

Marian is the internal affairs chairman of the Student
Welfare Commission.