By Justin Levi
Recently, UCLA experienced what could mark the beginning of a watershed year in its campus politics – the election of Elizabeth Houston as president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council. Even those who staunchly opposed her must acknowledge her stunning victory.
But why was this election so important? Clearly, it is not merely the fact that Houston subscribes to different principles than those that have governed USAC for the past five years, especially considering the eight-seat majority still enjoyed by Praxis on the council. Something more fundamental is at work.
It is no secret that the most prevalent theme in campus politics over the past several years has been race – who are the oppressed, who are the oppressors, who deserves more representation, etc. While many outspoken figures from various viewpoints have loudly presented their arguments, no basic understandings or agreements have resulted. UCLA remains, to this day, extremely polarized. It is absolutely essential that those on opposite ends of the political spectrum be able to see each others’ points of view.
Enter Elizabeth Houston. During her campaign, she ran on a platform of equal representation, and more importantly, equitable funding, so that no student group would be left out of the political debate. This is a huge step in the right direction, as it promises to spawn a true dialogue regarding the racial atmosphere at this school. This dialogue cannot exist if certain groups are given extraordinarily disproportionate advantages with regard to voicing their political views.
Last year, of 22 student groups that received funding, four of those groups received 44 percent of the total money available. As anyone can see, actions like these will only lead to silence, a gag order. If you’ve studied American history, you will remember the gag rule in Congress regarding slavery prior to the Civil War. This history should teach us that silence simply impedes progress and should be avoided at all costs.
Furthermore, a meaningful dialogue will also free USAC to perform the duties for which it was intended – the creation and maintenance of student services. By giving the council a virtual monopoly on the meaningful political debate on this campus, this issue has become its own monopoly, preventing USAC from becoming a truly representative entity that serves the student body as a whole. The members of the council have been so concerned with the advocacy of a certain political ideology that they have lost perspective on the issues they should be most concerned about.
For the past five years, we have experienced a polarization of political thought at UCLA – the likes of which have not been seen since the days of the Vietnam War protests. And we have one thing to blame for that – silence. The path to true racial harmony lies not in silence and segregation, but in dialogue and cooperation. We will only make obsolete the racial tensions that have divided this campus and this country if we are willing to face the realities that accompany those tensions. If we ask the tough questions and provide honest answers, it will be a step in the right direction.
It is apparent that Houston has a firm understanding of this reality. That is why we should embrace her term as USAC president, or at the very least, refuse to blindly shun it before it has even begun. With an especially open-minded group of Praxis representatives, we may finally be approaching a solution to the racial problems that plague our school. Good luck, Elizabeth, and may next year be as bright and positive as your campaign platform has promised.