Wednesday, September 18

Editorial: USAC should let students vote on divestment issue


The original headline accompanying this article contained information that was unclear and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.

Come Tuesday evening, the undergraduate student government faces the challenge of voting on a resolution with the potential to greatly divide the student body and alienate campus communities regardless of the outcome.

The resolution, which calls for UCLA’s divestment from five companies that violate Palestinian human rights through their ties with the Israeli military, is the second to come before council since last April. Like its predecessor, it has been surrounded by controversy, including full-blown social media campaigns and a tense, harmful dialogue on both sides.

While the moral core of the resolution is on point – the University of California should not invest in companies complicit in human rights abuse – the Undergraduate Students Association Council cannot in good faith pass judgment on such far-reaching issues and claim to speak for all students.

Instead of trying to come to a consensus about divestment at their meeting, the council should table the Resolution to Divest from Companies that Violate Palestinian Human Rights and help its authors put the question of divestment to the student body at large in the form of an advisory vote – a poll of student opinion – on the spring election ballot.

Whether the resolution is approved or struck down by the undergraduate population, an advisory vote would allow both camps to make their case to the public and for a more representative final decision.

A vote by USAC to approve the resolution would fail to represent the concerns of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities, while a vote to block the resolution would be seen as dismissive of the question of ethical investments and the pro-Palestine cause.

In the end, both these results would fail to represent the holistic view of the student body, the stated intent of USAC resolutions.

The board believes that the issues presented in the resolution are important for students and the campus community at large to consider. UC investments in companies that support the military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and provide for the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the region are deeply problematic and contribute to a status quo that threatens the ongoing peace process.

However, it is vital that these issues are considered in a venue where representative decisions may emerge.

Specifically, the resolution calls for UCLA’s divestment from five companies – none of which are Israeli – that provide the Israeli military with equipment that is in turn used to occupy the West Bank and promote the Israeli settler movement, according to Students for Justice in Palestine, the authors of the resolution.

Unlike previous resolutions in this vein at UCLA, and unlike many that have been brought forward at other UC campuses, the language does not focus on the state of Israel or the Israel-Palestine conflict on a broad scale. Instead, it narrows in almost exclusively on individual companies and the UC’s responsibility to invest ethically.

But the resolution’s potential impact on campus climate is cause for serious concern.

The leaders of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities on campus feel threatened by the resolution’s perceived tie to the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which they say aims to delegitimize Israel as a nation.

While the resolution does contain a clause denying that connection, the remarkably similar context of this document to ones pushed at other UC campuses that have condemned Israel in less ambiguous terms makes it hard to separate the two.

The only way to approach divestment without forcing the councilmembers to choose between alienating one community or the other is to put the question on the spring election ballot in the form of an advisory referendum.

Clarification: USAC should table the divestment resolution Tuesday and subsequently help draft an advisory referendum for students to vote on the issue.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Share on Reddit

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.

  • Guest

    Food For Thought:

    I’m wondering why Avi Oved’s edited resolution was never considered to be put on the ballot?

    Also, would putting this resolution on the ballot make it a slate issue?

    Lastly, putting the resolution on the ballot will not solve the issue that Divestment is an extension of the greater BDS movement

    • ok

      he had an edited resolution? wasn’t he just complaining about how they didn’t reach out to him in the first place before even drafting it? Stories don’t add up.

  • Hello

    Rather than focussing solely on condemnation; this would be a great point to bring back language supporting peace and dialogue and add it to this resolution. Showing support for both my Palestinian people as well as Israel-Palestine will make a stronger case.

    As much as I hate to say this, I also believe that language condemning the Soviet Union, Iran, and others for providing rockets to the occupied Palestinian territories should be added. My family in Palestine has talked about shooting rockets with the intent of hitting civilians in “Israel” and wiping them off the face of the earth. I sat silently in disbelief that people who showed me only love could hardness so much hatred. I want our people to exist in peace, and this is NOT the way.

  • Tammy Rubin

    1. This resolution should not pass, but a referendum is not the right alternative if you actually support progress. In fact, a referendum is the easy way out. Doing a referendum will make life easier for USAC, but at the cost of creating an even more polarizing debate and campus climate. This will literally define the 2013-2014 school year as the year of discussing Israel-Palestine, essentially discounting every other important issue that our campus faces. If you actually want to do something that is progressive, constructive, and promotes the rights of all sides, reject divestment and push all of our communities to compromise and come up with a solution together. That would be the harder way forward, but it would be the right thing to do if you actually want to affect positive change on this campus and beyond.

    2. There is almost no way for a referendum on this issue to be worded in a way that is fair and acceptable to both sides. If you ask students “should we divest from these companies for violating Palestinian human rights?” you are silencing our arguments entirely, and pushing the student body to vote a certain way. We say the accusations in this resolution are false and misleading, and that this resolution is part of a bigoted global propaganda campaign against Israel. If you’re not ready to include that perspective in the referendum question itself, you would not be conducting a referendum. You would be conducting a push poll. (this is what a push poll is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll)

    • lulabelle

      Shill…

  • Guest

    This is hypocritical. USAC was fully able to vote on the anti-divestment resolution in Fall Quarter, for USAC to vote on the Prison Industrial Complex divestment resolution, and for voting for the fossil fuels divestment resolution as well. Suddenly when something the student body has been wanting to put forth for ages is brought to the table, just because it is about Palestine, now USAC isn’t able to vote on it? I call bull. Avi is doing this just to avoid and delay this further. It is so hypocritical to be progressive about anything but Palestine.