. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

As some of you may know from the big ugly pieces of paper everywhere, the Asian American Association (AAA) is holding an ASUC forum. But tragedy strikes! Only Student Action and CalSERVE are allowed to speak!

Eric Marshall and Travis Garcia are throwing a big fit about it. I'm pretty indifferent. The AAA wants to hear what candidates are going to do. In order for them to do anything, candidates have to win office. So it isn't really necessary to invite losers to speak.

While I can understand how folks would like to be treated equally, they aren't equal, and the AAA isn't the ASUC, so isn't obligated to treat them equally.

Travis (and not Eric) has threatened the funding of the AAA over this, on the grounds that it claims to be "ASUC Sponsored," but I don't really see the legal argument there.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/04/2007 08:30:00 AM #
Comments (8)
. . .
I would like to clarify that I never asserted the AAA was under any ASUC obligation to allow all candidates to speak. It was my hope, given the broad appeal of the excluded candidates, that they would do so for their members and the other students who will attend.

In the end it is the choice of the AAA, and I will respect that.

Eric Marshall
ASUC Presidential Candidate
If there is ASUC money involved there needs to be equal access. If I wanted this kind of bs, I would have went to a private school. How bout we live up to the values of this University for freakin once!!!
chillax dood. the aaa forum won't make or break you.
as fun as suing AAA before the Judicial Council would be, it would probably kill your asian constituent vote during the election.
Travis, the nondiscrimination/equal access concept is a well-defined constitutionnal principle in the ASUC.

I understand your moral concern, but what you say is not a legal argument. Do you have any legal basis for threatening their funding?
Travis, do you think candidates from, say, the Peace and Freedom Party and U.S. Constitution Party should have been invited to share the debate stage with Bush and Kerry in 2004? Why or why not?

I personally think you raise a good point -- but where do you draw the line? When does it become a meaningless free-for-all and not a meaningful debate/forum?
I cannot speak for Travis, but I believe the problem with the debate is that it is excluding candidates who are running very substantive campaigns. We do not have narrow or extreme platforms like the parties you mentioned. I believe my ideas resonate with the greater campus community, and I have spelled out in detail my vision for the office. I encourage you to check it out at EricForPresident.org.

While it is hard to stand by while less substantive candidates debate, taking legal action through the ASUC represents an unprecedented usurpation of the AAA leadership, one that threatens the future ability of student groups to oppose the ASUC in the service of their members. Furthermore, such action may result in cancellation of the entire event, which certainly wouldn't be fair to the students who planned to attend.

I think by being transparent with the press and sincere to the AAA leadership, we are allowing them the opportunity to make the right decision; legal wrangling delegitimizes the elections process and contributes to the idea that candidates are more concerned about themselves than students.

In the end, the group gets to draw the line. It is regrettable that the invited candidates do not have enough confidence in their ideas to take a stand for student choice and true democracy. But that's politics, baby.

Eric Marshall
ASUC Presidential Candidate
Eric, thanks for answering, your distinction makes sense.

I just checked out your website -- I think you have fantastic ideas, and you should try to get whoever is elected to adopt them.
Post a Comment

. . .