Oh, right

So, some folks may (or may not) be wondering what should be done about the student group naming policy. I've already suggested that whining is not going to work, and neither will providing solutions that don't actually solve anything.

The administration isn't doing this to be a dick. It's really easy for us, as students, to impotently whine about how things aren't the way they should be, and insist that the solution is for everyone to pretend that things are that way. But the administration just doesn't care. The instinct to act like a bunch of spoiled brats trying to extort another favor from mommy and daddy doesn't work, because the administration isn't a person. It's an institution. Even if every administrator agrees that it's a bad policy, it just doesn't matter, because it's always someone else's job to make the call. Eventually it reaches someone who has the job of determining how to minimize costs to the university, and the answer is always "avoid risks."

So you can't convincingly argue that the possibility of folks mistaking the actions of a student group for those of the university is small, and thus the issue isn't a big deal. If we were appealing to a benevolent dictator, or an electorate, maybe such an approach would make sense, but we're appealing to an institution. No matter how good of a case you make, the balance for that guy minimizing costs merely changes from "risk or no risk" to "slightly less risk or no risk," and the answer remains the same.

Also remember that student groups don't have a basic "right of recognition." At the end of the day, the student groups are asking for recognition from the university, so the university can put whatever restrictions it wants on that recognition, no matter how stupid they may be. ("We own cursive and the word 'California,' bitches!")

That last sentence is partially incorrect, though. The university, as a government entity, can't just do whatever it wants. It's restricted by the rules that restrict governments. It can't, for instance, deny recognition of a group based on race.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Arguing that somehow the administration is uninformed and doesn't know anything, and only needs to be informed, is beyond pointless. That's not the problem. None of those complaints are news to them. The university is a government-run institution that has a role, restrictions, and priorities set for it. In arguing against this, you're really trying to change those priorities, and so if you're taking this up with the local administration, you're demanding change from those who don't have the power to change.

The "solution," then, is going to involve taking this up with the folks who do have that power. This puts us at the statewide level, and means we should be dealing with the Regents (and, potentially, the state legislature) on this and similar issues. It's for issues like this that we need (but don't have) a statewide student organization that is actually effective at demanding real change on behalf of the student body of the state. The UCSA is busy being the Democratic Party's bitch and pushing pointless ideological battles, and no one is going to organize a statewide movement around an issue as trivial as this. But an organization should exist to deal with these kinds of trivial issues all the time, instead of constantly fighting a futile battle over affirmative action, which, despite appearances, is neither a student problem, nor even an issue which students agree on.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 7/30/2007 07:13:00 PM #
Comments (10)

. . .

Comments:

this is the best critique of student organizing that i have heard so far, especially with regards to misguided strategies. i think you are entirely correct. the daily cal editorial was very weak indeed, and the failure of many of these student initiatives is that they do not target the right people. instead, they go for superficial acts of reconciliation or talking it out--maybe somebody will have a meeting with the dean of students about this, even though this is clearly out of his hands (it's the office of marketing and blah blah--it's kind of disturbing a university has a marketing office anyway), and then they'll forget about the issue.

# posted by  Anonymous : 8:23 PM, July 30, 2007

 

The UCSA is too busy trying to get the UC Regents to restore affirmative action to deal with issues like naming rights. They had a rally to do just that in Santa Barbara this month. Again ... wrong target.

I only hope that Danny Montes isn't going to drink the UCSA Kool-Aid like everyone before him has, but I doubt it, as he's already been elected UCSA Secretary/Finance Officer. Which is too bad for him -- his progressive values would be better served by spending time on an organization that actually works. Hell, he'd be better served by going fishing. In a mountain stream.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:26 AM, July 31, 2007

 

affirmative action is a student concern, too.

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:42 PM, July 31, 2007

 

I disagree. It's a statewide concern. Obviously, students are thus concerned, since they live in the state, but there already exist groups to push those concerns. I think the goal of groups such as the UCSA should be to focus on those concerns which are unique to students, such as dealings between students and the administration. The affirmative action fight is a bad choice because:

1) A huge number of students actively take the opposing side on the issue, and potentially outnumber the supporters. At the very least, to suggest that "students want affirmative action" is a perversion of the voice of most students. (I mention this to distinguish it from things such as student group naming, or fee increases, which are to a certain extent uniquely student concerns and the things that we have student associations for. UCSA chasing out UC Davis's undergraduate government because they wouldn't march in step with the affirmative action supporters was a vivid illustration of this failure)

2) It's a statewide fight that cannot be done at the "student activism" level.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 4:27 PM, July 31, 2007

 

obviously student institutions like these will not be the ones to bring back affirmative action, because they lack the authority to do so (and we should ask why). but that does not mean that student institutions should be utilized, to whatever extent possible, reasonable, and useful, to address issues that are outside of their authority. this is something that is quite typical of certain elements of our political structure, even though we have an odd tendency to compartmentalize our lives. there is a certain purpose to statements and resolutions that have no binding power: even congress makes these non-binding resolutions, as do members of the UN. it's important to know what you're doing when you do these things though. you are not acting directly to stop anything, but you are doing something that may be of some eventual value, if not simply organizing value!

to me, though, the most important thing that these things illustrate is our lack of power, not our assertion of it.

# posted by  Anonymous : 11:11 AM, August 01, 2007

 

should read: "but that should not mean that student institutions should not be utilized..."

# posted by  Anonymous : 11:12 AM, August 01, 2007

 

The problem is that if our "student association" is politically invested in issues such as this, it can't serve the purpose which only it can serve. We need a group to represent student interests to the Regents. We don't have one, because the group in that position is a political advocacy group, not a student advocacy group.

In this case, it has a disorganizing value, because their obsession with politics chases off students who want to advocate specifically for students. Davis is gone, and the UCSA is weaker.

Addressing things outside of their authority shouldn't come at the expense of their ability to address things in their authority. The only reason I care that the UCSA is political is because it makes them useless when we need them to fight for students. The fact that we are powerless on affirmative action doesn't mean we have to be powerless on everything else.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:00 PM, August 01, 2007

 

The problem with affirmative action is that some students will win and some will lose under it. If you're white or asian, you lose under AA admission policies, pure and simple, as it becomes harder for you to become a "student" at a UC school. It's not like fee increases, which affect all students more or less equally, and which can be debated and subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:07 PM, August 05, 2007

 

beetle: okay, i agree with you that we should not mobilize those resources for issues we do not have authority over, if it comes at the expense of issues we do have authority over. but it is not like we have authority over the regents, in the first place. all we can do in the meantime is cause noise. students don't have an authentic voice in the UC system. we need to create that infrastructure.

anonymous: you are wrong. fee increases do not affect all students more or less equally. students with a wealthier background are less impacted than students with an impoverished one. in some cases, students are not affected at all--the parents are. in any case, an important factor is left out of your consideration: potential students. what of those young people who don't even entertain the idea of going to a four year university because of their economic disposition? you can't say that the, more or less, middle to upper middle class in the UC speaks for them.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:55 PM, August 05, 2007

 

I think students do have an authentic voice in the UC system, it just doesn't extend as far as some folks want it to. We don't have a voice in the BP deal or affirmative action because those aren't really our issues. No one listens to us because they don't have any reason to.

But there are issues where they do have a reason to listen to us. With the resources available systemwide, the student body should be able to, for example, field a team of lawyers to shove stupid policies down the throats of the university, instead of the current "some student gets represented by a lawyer from some external interest group to get its goals achieved" approach. They wouldn't have a say about BP, but issues such as the Boalt lawsuit could potentially have been resolved beforehand at less cost to all involved if the university had any reason to believe that students would end up fighting.

If you set your goal to have student governance of the university, which you seem to do, then sure, there's nothing that can be done. Students don't govern the university, and they never will. The structure of the university itself prevents it, with transient students and statewide funding. But there's far more to the student voice than just that.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:13 PM, August 05, 2007

 

Post a Comment