BREAKING - RATTO V. VAKIL OVERTURNED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL - SAES TO TAKE OFFICE
The Judicial Council has released their eighteen-page decision (two off of my prediction of twenty), and it is available online here. They vote 4-2 to overturn the previous decision, not based on any argument made in the Appeal Brief, but on the grounds that the previous decision violated double jeopardy rights. This argument was present for the first time at the hearing by appellants.
Here’s the meat:
Therefore, when considering the spirit of the law, we believe that the Direct Judgment of Ratto v. Vakil should not have issued a default judgment, as such a remedy would only have been appropriate if Ratto v. Vakil was an appeal case filed within the seven day period after the ASUC v. SAES decision was released. Moreover, it would be unjustified for the Council to arbitrarily issue censures for the crime of perjury, as Title IV of the ASUC By-Laws does not authorize the issuance of censures for contempt outside the window of a campaign violation case (which is why an appeal would be an exception).
I thought that was an interesting quote, since the Judicial Council chooses to cite no grounds as to why this assumption as to the spirit of the law should be true, nor do they differentiate from their refusal to apply the “spirit of the law” in previous cases.
…the fact that the appellants made an abrupt attempt to withdraw from this appeals process after claiming a lack of Council jurisdiction, and the fact that they tried to submit evidence that had been directly tampered with, which leads us to question the originality and veracity of other evidence submitted by the appellants, points to an effort by the Student Action Executive candidates to subvert the judicial process. We believe this to be a very serious offense, but given the circumstances these candidates cannot be punished. However, Mr. Vakil is still held in contempt of Council, and as a result of his deceitful actions during ASUC v. SAES, he can never again appear before the Council per JRP 4.15.3.2. We condemn Vakil’s actions and, as the evidence shows to be the case, the Student Action Executive candidates’ knowing acceptance of Vakil’s dishonesty. We maintain that had the evidence brought forth in Ratto v. Vakil about party chalking tactics been presented in ASUC v. SAES, it is likely that the Judicial Council would have arrived at a more severe judgment. Regardless, we hereby re-instate Oren Gabriel, Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu into the 2006 ASUC Elections. The Council will soon meet to consider certification of these election results and to administer the executive oaths of office.
From the dissent:
When the Council is asked to consider the concerns surrounding double jeopardy, the appellants cite Article XI, Section 3 of the ASUC Constitution: “No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” They use this to show that they were being held liable twice for the same offense because of the default judgment issued in place of the original decision for ASUC v. SAES. However, we maintain that this is not the case - the Constitution mentions “the same offense,” and we believe that in the first case the defendants were on trial for an elections chalking violation, and in the second case they were on trial for perjury. Clearly, this constitutes two separate violations, even if the remedies implemented in the second case affected the prior case. Although we note the appellants claim that double jeopardy has been incurred because of the two different resolutions to a single case, the existence of two separate violations of elections rules and perjury is clearly maintained.
scary close prediction on the timing there. i like your equation.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
I’m satisfied. There were a lot of valid grounds. It’s an example of how shitty the bylaws are that I think this decision could’ve gone either way and still would have made plenty of sense.
I’m just glad things were handled in a transparent manner using the actual ASUC mechanisms instead of through a county lawsuit or some other backstage chicanery the students would have no input on.
Now once he assumes office, let’s see if Vishal Gupta tries to get the Daily Cal kicked out of Eshleman for running that AWFUL photo of him.
http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=20917
Comment by Simon — July 29, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
haha, he can do more than that, like kick the Judicial Council out of its shared office with CalTV, since the EVP controls space allocation. who knows if they will be vindictive — i think they should be thankful… flaws in their own By-Laws gave the Council the ability to let them off the hook, and the Council did it.
sound judgment by the way, and yeah coulda gone either way. is this proof enough that the Council follows ASUC law rather than some silly conspiracy-theory agenda for usurping of all power in the ASUC? hmmm…
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Ben, in the GA case, the spirit of the law contradicted the letter of the law, look at this quote: “The Judicial Council does not believe it is our duty to interpret and ascertain a greater meaning that is contrary to what is directly written.”
In the Ratto case, the Council was interpreting these vaguely-defined perjury/contempt/default judgment concepts in ASUC law. I don’t think their spirit of the law argument directly contradicts anything in the letter of the law… but yeah an argument could be made for the other side.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
“”We’ll take the fucking street again.”" Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 107 (1973).
Comment by Anonymity — July 29, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
No justice, no peace. We’ll turn this f*cking university upside down until the illegal power grab is terminated. F*ck SA. This is a call for revolution. I predict massive civil disobedience forces these SA clowns to leave office. No justice, no peace!!
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
I say we call upon the University to not fund the ASUC and deliver the 55 dollars back to each student. We will not let a government that wasn’t correctly elected spend our money!
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
There’s really no way to push the “wasn’t correctly elected” meme anymore. We can still push the “SA is a bunch of lying assholes with no respect for the process” meme, though.
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Is there a way to get the ASUC Fee refunded? I know that at my undergrad instiution, you could get the corresponding fee refunded if you went to some office and requested it in person. Can anyone tell me how to get the ASUC fee refunded, if that is even possible?
No justice, no peace.
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
t1me to get rid of da asuc. dis should be da rallyin call for all da students.
“get rdy to be smashT if u are asuc”
Comment by smashT — July 29, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
#9, I believe you can only do this if you have a philosophical objection to a particular allocation of funds. This usually amounts to mere cents when considering the percentage of the concerned allocation out of the entire ASUC budget.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Anonydude, check article V of Title II of the bylaws at asuc.org
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
I’m not an ASUC con law scholar. What does it say?
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Neither am I. Just read it and figure it out yourself, if you can. I don’t know any more than you do. I guess it means that if the ASUC funds a student group or a student group activity that is ideological/religious/political, you can get a refund of your share of that money.
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Can we do a class action type thing? So every student gets money back?
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
APPLE tried to do something of the sort over NO on 54, I think. I don’t remember what happened with it.
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
How about an ideological/religious/political conflict with scumbags being in office allocating my money? Maybe then I could get my entire mandatory fee back. Would that fly?
Comment by anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
the one thing everybody can be happy about is that this whole mess is over
Comment by hey dude — July 29, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
d@ solution chums is 2 abolish da asuk so every1 gets dey money bak. join da movement fight da power.
-smashT
Comment by smashT — July 29, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Abolish the ASUC! Let’s start this up again, and I think we’ll have more backing this time.
Comment by DTI — July 29, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
^
true dis. time for da asuc to b smashT na meen?
Comment by smashT — July 29, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
Sadly, because this was the summer and because the Daily Cal’s coverage was really cruddy, pretty much no one even knows this happened.
I’ve talked to several friends and if I mentioned the ASUC debacle it was almost always the first they’d heard of it. If the ASUC is gonna change it’ll probably have to come from within, which is unfortunately not very likely.
Comment by Simon — July 29, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
I do predict a lot of changes in the asuc next year. If there is anything that this year has shown is that the way that referendas and elections are defined under ASUC laws need some changes.
There is a lot of grey area in the bylaws that lead to situations such as these.
Comment by anonymous — July 29, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
The major parties prefer the grey, because it lets them do what they want without being bound by rules. Don’t expect much.
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
#22
I agree, the majority of the student population had no idea that the debacle occurred.
The most important thing that happens this year with regards to the ASUC is that they make the bylaws and election rules crystal clear, so controversies like these in the future do not get out of hand
Comment by hey dude — July 29, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
hey dude-
no m@n u gotz it all wrong d00d. da important ting iz for us da students to git together and smashT da asuc. s0me simple by-law reformz dont change d@ fact dat dey iz still stealin our money and distributin it 2 pork projects and well connected insiders. da fiasco dat is da asuc needs to end.
“educatin da masses smashTin da ignorant”
Comment by smashT — July 29, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
if u feel that way, u should try to become an insider, and learn some grammar
Comment by hey dude — July 29, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
sometimes we need times in the ASUC this bad to finally make people realize that the ASUC is a bunch of thieves who take people’s money and spend it the way they want. Abolish the ASUC
Comment by DTI — July 29, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
sa’s new slogan:
Kicking your Ass in Appeal: DONE!
Comment by jack bauer — July 29, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
beetle- you’re right, and it’s needs to stop
Comment by Calaholic — July 29, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
Does this mean I can stop being ecc now?
Comment by jessica! — July 29, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
Why do spoiled rich kids with lots of faceless friends always get what they want?
Oh…
right.
Comment by k_radSurFeRboi86 — July 29, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
i don’t think the elections have been certified yet jessica, sorry… go grab a drink, it’ll be over soon!!
Comment by Calaholic — July 29, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
Also, I’m running my own executive slate next year in a new party called Student Action Lies and Cheats. Its pecuniary backing will originate from the refunded ASUC fees.
Who else is running with me?
Comment by k_radSurFeRboi86 — July 29, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
lol!
Comment by recent cal grad — July 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
ha ha. you all are the biggest sore losers ever. after a month of complaining that SA’s lack of respect for the j-council was not fair, now you guys are the ones moaning! What ever happened to respecting the rulings of the internal processes of the ASUC??? Your hypocrisy is staggering. congrats on LOSING you anti-SA weirdos.
Comment by jack bauer — July 30, 2006 @ 1:43 am
There seems to be more meat to the decision apart from double jeopardy. Some of the language sounds like there were procedural errors in the direct judgment rather than rights violations.
The dissent, curiously, does not address the procedural underpinnings in the majority opinion.
Comment by Paul — July 30, 2006 @ 6:27 am
asuc elections are like fairy tales… theres always a long, drawn out struggle, though the ending is always predetermined.
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 7:00 am
thank goodness the people the voters elected can now take office–after wasting tons of summer time
Comment by anony — July 30, 2006 @ 8:03 am
Thank god the SA execs who are still found guilty of the crime cannot be punished due to a technicality.
Be careful how you compare the actions of SA and the comments here. I think people have every right to be upset when someone is found guilty but gets off because of flaws in the By-Laws. Most of us aren’t complaining about the J-Council’s ruling, we are complaining about the outcome thanks to the ASUC’s rules.
Comment by recent cal grad — July 30, 2006 @ 9:20 am
read the god damn decision and see for yourself. it’s not exactly favorable towards SA.
Comment by recent cal grad — July 30, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Marbury v. Madison was not “favorable” to Jefferson and Madison but they still won. I’m not sure how anyone can really support these losers. At the very least doesn’t their pompous attitude make you dislike them?
Comment by DTI — July 30, 2006 @ 9:55 am
k_radSurFeRboi86 - if we don’t abolish the ASUC I’m running with you. We could call it “Anybody But Student Action” (ABSA).
Of course, if CalSERVE continues to do dumb things, which was true since they ran Kris Primm.
Comment by DTI — July 30, 2006 @ 9:57 am
yeah, i agree the abolishing stuff is stupid. that’s why i said “most of us aren’t complaining…” but yeah that doesn’t apply to all
I think the most important examples are the respondents in this appeal — they have all reacted pretty well.
Comment by recent cal grad — July 30, 2006 @ 9:59 am
Recent Cal grad either ran with student action or was one of their testicleless supporters like I was.
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Oh, and Dear Jack “Eddie” Bauer,
No one’s displaying disrespect for the Judicial Council’s decision — an example of such disrespect would be someone trying to get a grown-up to come in and change the outcome. Like Alameda. Or Berkeley City Council. Or Oprah.
No, what we’re complaining about is the fact that, due to the way the rules have been written and the organization (un)structured, the kids with lack of respect for other kids and the Process Itself have emerged victorious. Please refer to my above post about forming the Student Action Lies and Cheats (or would it be more catchy with an ampersand?) party. This is the way people ought to go about changing things; not by trying to get someone bigger to intervene, but by becoming a part of the system itself and changing it from within.
And we’re not Anti-SA. We’re Pro-PlayingByTheRules. Just so happens SA was at the other end of the spectrum this particular year.
And last year.
And the one before.
Comment by k_radSurFeRboi86 — July 30, 2006 @ 10:50 am
bauer,
as far as i know, people are. i haven’t heard of any new lawsuits or appeals, have you??
having respect for someone/something means letting their ruling or decision stand even if you don’t agree with it. that’s more respect than SA ever had or showed for the judicial council.
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Paul, there was more to the decision than double jeopardy, in that every other SA argument was dismissed as wrong. It found that the default judgment was procedurally sound, but violated double jeopardy. The dissent only addressed double jeopardy presumably because it agreed with the remainder of the decision.
Comment by Beetle — July 30, 2006 @ 11:32 am
the ruling was really crappy because Sonya is ridiculous. She couldn’t allow herself to accept an SA argument, so she had to go with this other crap.
Comment by anonyf23df23d23 — July 30, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Yeah I guess it was more of a “Dissent in Part”, but those usually join with the overall outcome. Their opinion disagreed with the outcome solely due to double jeopardy, so that’s probably why it was a “Dissenting Opinion.”
Comment by bobby gregg — July 30, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Hi Manny or Manny lookalike. Great to hear from you again! How’s life?
Comment by anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
#49: Perhaps because the “SA argument[s]” were all wrong? And perhaps they ended up accepting a different argument because they are a bench court that can incorporate their own expertise into making the most just decisions?
Comment by bobby gregg — July 30, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Al Gore is a piece of cr*p
Comment by chet (the virgin CEO) — July 30, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
Bobby -
You say that the justices can incorporate any reasoning they want into the decision, but that is contradicted by the JRPs (in the description of the charge sheet) specifically because it gives unequal protection to the plaintiff/appellant over the defendant/respondant.
The court is supposed to arbitrate with the information and arguments procedurally presented to them, not to insert anecdotal evidence or theories that have not been properly argued by any side. The court is not even bound to precedence - how can you claim that the justices have any tangible experience to contribute to this decision? Or that they have had any tangible experience with double jeopardy in the past?
Comment by Ben N. — July 30, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Anonymous,
This is the real Manny here. I predict that the focus for the executives will now be on catching up on the summer months that they missed.
I am just glad that this mess is all over with. It does leave a bitter taste in your mouth to think that the mess should never have happened in the first place.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
you act like you had no part in creating this mess, when you in fact only made it worse. but i guess it’s easy for you to walk away with only a bitter taste in your mouth since the only effect all of this had on you was your eo getting killed while the rest of us now have to clean up the mess you helped create
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Manny
You my friend are the most power hungry person I have ever met and should be ashamed about the harm that you have brought upon the ASUC and the student body.
I love the UC Berkeley campus and I love the ASUC. Please look outside of your bubble and learn how your actions affect the whole association. You take actions quickly when your power is challenged but are lazy when a matter affects the whole association
Comment by Beetle — July 30, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
and the mess would not have happened, if you hadn’t issued two illegal executive orders as part of an outrageous political power grab. i bet nixon thinks watergate should never have happened in the first place too. no justice, no peace.
Comment by chet (the virgin CEO) — July 30, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Ben, I wasn’t at the hearing so I don’t know exactly how they introduced the new arguments and under what grounds they were accepted. It is debateable either way, but if I was presiding I probably would have allowed the argumentation and given you time after their argument in chief to prepare rebuttal (if they raised it during THEIR rebuttal time, I would have suppressed it instantly). Introducing new argumentation isn’t quite the same as introducing new charges, which is the real purpose of the charge sheet — upholding the rights of the accused, in particular knowing the nature of the charges against you. I suppose you could call the double jeopardy argument a charge against the J-Council decision in Ratto v. Vakil, but decisions are not people so extending the same protections doesn’t make too much sense.
And I am not talking about precedent, I am talking about the Council members’ intimate knowledge of ASUC law. I would hope that Justices know more about this than the average ASUC-goer. While Chair I certainly told them to read the Constitution, JRP, and By-Laws… over and over again.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 30, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
calaholic, dont be a sore loser. You claim SA was upset, but it seems you just cant get over the fact that you personally lost your bid as well as friend.
Comment by hey dude — July 30, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Bobby -
The point of the charge sheet and the brief is to provide the Judicial Council and all parties involved with the arguments that are going to be presented. Arguing new points at the hearing is not valid, and it encourages deceptive behavior in front of the Council by masking arguments.
From the JRPs regarding what a charge sheet should contain:
3. All specific violations the plaintiff complains about.
4. All relevant supporting evidence, or detailed descriptions of such evidences.
5. Statements as to the constitutional, statutory, and/or regulatory provisions allegedly violated.
And, from the JRPs regarding what a brief should contain:
1. A brief shall include a summary of the party’s arguments, and all relevant evidence.
And, from the JRPs regarding objectionable information:
4. An allegation is not supported by the evidence presented.
9. A party has not had sufficient time to examine submitted evidence, or evidence submitted at a hearing.
We brought up these grounds, but they were turned down, and the SAES were allowed to argue double jeopardy without giving us a fair opportunity to defend against them.
Additionally, if the Judicial Council is using its own concepts of concepts like Double Jeopardy without basing it on any relevant information provided by the appellants or the respondants, then it shouldn’t have had the hearing at all. Its members have already made up their minds, and 8-hour hearings are more pointless than they already are.
Comment by Ben N. — July 30, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
what are you talking about??
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
can you be more clear bc i would love to know what you mean
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
ok, i’m drunk which is why my posting is retarded. i don’t even know manny, i think that’s who you’re talking about, which is why i’m kinda confudes
and i’m confused about
i do??
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Let me know what I had to gain from this mess?
And yeah, I dont think EO’s are the best idea but when the J-council acts slowly on an urgent matter, then something needs to be done.
I also dont think that the EO made this issue take longer because the EO’s were issued precisely because the J-council was going to take this long.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
we need 2 channal all dis energy into smashTin da asuc once and fer all M@n. der should only b 1 campaign bein run by us dis year. abolish da asuc, smashT da asuc.
“na meen?”
Comment by smashT — July 30, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
the only reason i can think of that explains why you keep changing your mind is that you really don’t realize nor have any idea of what you helped in doing.
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
smash t-
the ASUC doesn’t need to be abolished. all of our energy should be channeled into revamping it and making it a reflection of what the students of cal want, not what individual people want.
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Yeah we try every year to do just that, Calaholic. And every year it gets worse. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
well then what you’re doing isn’t effective
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Is electing more student action senators and executive going to help?
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Calaholic,
so how exactly do you get a reflection of what the students want? I’m not 100% sure myself, but I think what the students VOTE for is the best indication available to us.
Also, with a historically divided senate (republicans, calserve, bread-and-butter SA-ers, DAAP, and Squelch, etc) it’s more like a bohemian version of the island of lost toys than a functioning and coherent branch of government. ergo, it’s rather difficult to find common ground to proceed upon.
and I’m very interested in your opinion: what do you think the role of the ASUC should be?
Comment by jack bauer — July 30, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Jack: where was Bears United?
Comment by Berkeley Graduate — July 30, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
you’re right voting is a good way to tell what people want. but you also have to remember that most people on the cal campus who do vote, vote not because they care about what happens, but rather because it’s their friend running for office. those who don’t vote, which is the overwhelming majority, do so because they believe that their vote doesn’t matter and that no matter what, some corrupt group of people will take office and ignore the student body. so, in this case, i don’t think that voting accurately reflects anything.
honestly, i think it’s kind of stupid to have a party system in student government because it is, well, student government and all that allows for is a more psychotic version of a high school popularity contest. all a party system does in our case is complicate things for a group of people who are still trying to understand politics and power all while trying to manage outside jobs and school. to be part of a truly effective student government with a party system, it would require people who are willing to take it on as a full time job.
in order to get an accurate reflection of what the students at cal want, i think the ASUC needs to stop seeming like an exclusive club. this will allow people who aren’t friends with people who are already in the ASUC to get involved or atleast give them a forum to voice their opinions in that isn’t as caustic or unwelcoming as it is now.
the answers to everything are not limited to the bounds of eschelman or to the people that have been charged with duties in the asuc. i think that everyone in the ASUC needs to get, out all around campus, asking people about what they want the ASUC to do for them. it will take a long time and a lot of hard work, but eventually, some clear answers will appear. at the very least, having people visibly out there shows students that you’re working.
basically, i think the ASUC needs to be the opposite of what it currently is and it’s much more complicated than i have effort to put into writing about tonight. but it’s not that hard, everyone just needs to take a deep breath, step back and realize that in the end we’re all after the same goal, and that’s making cal a better place for students. if that goal can’t be seen or reached then things need to be seriously examined.
i know that doesn’t answer everything, but hopefully it answered enough
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Calaholic, et al
What you are arguing for, in essence, is the predominance of opinion surveys over votes. In theory, I agree that it would be great to get a feel for what CAL students want from the ASUC. In reality, I think it would just be a mess.
Just think about the opinion surveys that the campus sends out every semester, and then bombards you aggressively for months with emails. The only reason any of us ever fill it out is to win an iPOD. Do you think these surveys accurately reflect the student body? Of course not. Do you think the campus has any idea what students want? Of course not.
Your ideas, though, are constructive. I simply think the main problem is that “making Cal a better place for students” does not equate the same with everyone. I mean, lets just take a simple hypothetical to illustrate this:
Suppose you are in control of $500,000. You can either spend it to set up music concerts on lower sproul OR to install gender-neutral bathrooms on campus.
Which one makes Cal a better place for students? I think it depends on who you ask.
Comment by jack bauer — August 1, 2006 @ 9:17 am
but that’s what i’m saying, the emails obviously don’t work and no one knows what students actually want because no one is physically out there asking. in an age where email and phone calls make communication easier, it also helps us lose touch with things. an email isn’t as personal as a real person is. and yeah it might seem like it will result in an overwhelming mess, but it’s a start, and i guarantee some issues will surface that a broad spectrum of students would like to see addressed.
as for spending money to set up music concerts on lower sproul or to install gender-neutral bathrooms on campus the only way to know which one makes Cal a better place for students is to ask the students. i don’t think that students voting on a certain person is asking them what they think would make cal a better place. let’s face-it, as it stands, each person and party just does what they want. this is why i think having political parties in student government is pointless. there should be 20 people elected who are dedicated and willing to work together to accomplish projects that a majority of cal students, regardless of which group they belong to, want. as of right now, the senators, simply put, serve “special interests” not the entire student body (even SA is guilty of that) and that’s not what the ASUC is meant for, it is meant to serve everyone!
Comment by Calaholic — August 1, 2006 @ 10:58 am
just as an example just momentarily forget about reality):
more dead days- the entire senate should work together to accomplish this since it is something that a broad spectrum of students take issue with
as for worrying about specific groups getting what they need, that’s what club/group advocates are for.
Comment by Calaholic — August 1, 2006 @ 11:04 am
The alternative that Calaholic suggests is infeasible: physically asking 20000+ students what they want is impossible, especially if it has anything to do with the ASUC (how many of you stop and talk to the sign holders during campaigning?).
Even with the realistic goal of just getting a few people here and there to stop and discuss what their preference for the ASUC would be, you’d still be introducing a sort of bias into this type of “survey”: you’d only be getting the opinions of a certain type of student that both walked along the path you were stationed at, and was willing to give up time to talk with an ASUC affilitate. You’d end up getting the opinions of your friends and those that are interested in you, not unlike the system we already have.
As for his comments on voting and political parties, it certainly is a popularity contest in the eyes of the voters, but that won’t change even if we could somehow dismantle the political parties and only allow independents to run (another infeasible idea). The fact is, those that we elect to office feel that, deep down, they were elected because they were the most dedicated and willing to work together to accomplish great things, even if some of us might tend to disagree. It makes no difference whether that involves party politics or not. Every candidate has some sort of leadership experience and community-centered ideas to act on, but only those that have the time and resources to publicize their image will have a chance in hell to gather enough of the vote to win. That’s life.
IMO, the best thing the ASUC could do right now is promote a form of “grassroots democracy” on campus, where students and student groups have more of a say in student government rather than just begging for funds, to eliminate the shady image of backdoor dealing in ASUC politics (which will be particularly useful this year, as I’m guessing the incidents of this summer left a bitter taste with a lot of people). The ASUC needs to open its doors more to student action (not the party) and opinion. I’d personally like to see an updated ASUC website with an updated survey every week or so that gives a list of action items where students can vote on which item should have the most priority. Anything that encourages more involvement from the common student in bettering the campus community would be an improvement.
We don’t need to waste our time fighting the parties for this to happen. SA is in a position where they should be a worried of the consequences of this summer, particularly for next year’s elections. We should push for them to act on these ideas and show that they are worthy of being elected and not just for the sake of their popularity.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 1, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
“The ASUC needs to open its doors more to student action (not the party) and opinion. I’d personally like to see an updated ASUC website with an updated survey every week or so that gives a list of action items where students can vote on which item should have the most priority. Anything that encourages more involvement from the common student in bettering the campus community would be an improvement.”
I really like this idea. The ASUC website is an underused and underestimated resource… if it was updated weekly (as the By-Laws say it should be but this never happens) more “outsider” students would be likely to keep up with ASUC matters and actually care.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 1, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
What consequences do you think this summer will have on Student Action? Even among the few people who actually know about it, will they care in a year?
Comment by Beetle — August 1, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
chris,
i said the same things you said 50 trillion posts ago and i agree with you completely.
as for the whole talking to students thing, im not saying talk to every single student. but what i am saying is that there needs to be an effort to get out there and talk to people and it wouldn’t involve just one person on one path. it would involve not asking them what they want, but rather asking them 5-10 yes or no questions (they can be asked out loud or the person can fill it out themselves) about a specific theme and each week is a different themed survery. sounds complicated, unpractical and pointless right?? and yes, it would have to involve a lot of people and time but it is possible bc it has been done before at other universities of our size and it has been very successful…
Comment by Calaholic — August 1, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
beetle, what are you talking about? What happened with Student Action?
Comment by hey dude — August 1, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
2 much talkin not enuff walkin. time to smashT da asuc once and fer all. get rdy for da movement dat is gonna shake da foundations of eshelman.
“asuc gonna be crushT”
Comment by smashT — August 1, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Calaholic, sorry I misread you. I definitely agree with that last assessment and think it’d be a wise way for SA to spend some of its time. I also think it’d be best to focus on this and not about fighting the party structure, as it would let others misconstrue our sentiment as blind partisan rage against SA.
Beetle, not too many know of it, I know, but it doesn’t take much to get the truth out. And if the other parties are smart, they will be hitting on this 24/7 come election time next year. In the summer, no one is around to read the Daily Cal (and for that matter, to write for it), but a few well-written articles/letters in that paper will get a lot of people’s attention and reconsider voting by just popularity.
And #82 made me giggle.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 1, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Chris, i dont believe that the election are as much of a popularity contest as you would seem. Igor almost won his election. Had the voters been ignorant to his qualifications and the election a popularity contest, I doubt he would have gotten so many votes. Only at Berkeley does Igor do so well in an election
Comment by marcus — August 1, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
i think the whole point is that yes, igor did well, but he didn’t do well enough. so, at the end, it doesn’t matter how close he came, he still didn’t win because someone was more popular than he! (no offense to igor)
Comment by Calaholic — August 1, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
you cant generalize that jason won cuz hes more popular than igor
Comment by marcus — August 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
I would speculate that more people actually know Igor, since he knows a shitload of people… but the slate carries people.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 1, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
I’ve gotten to know how student govérnments function at various other schools. Almost without fail, it’s the most qualified people who get the office, no ifs or buts. Even the places that have a dominant party typically see to it that the most qualified representatives are slated for office.
How does this effect our discussion? 85, I’d argue that Igor would’ve won this election had the votes been stacked on a true combination of popularity and qualifications. But even the most well-known person isn’t known by 50-70% of the school with 33,000 students who can potentially vote. So qualifications and popularity are jettisoned for chalk and slate cards. The reason it’s much more difficult to run with a minor party or, worse yet, as an independent is that you just don’t have an army of 16 candidates for senate and 3 candidates for exec also pushing for.
But the party system is so entrenched that I doubt any major changes will happen in the near future. And our school will continue to be represented by not-necessarily-the-most-qualified-OR-popular people.
Comment by disappointed by party system — August 1, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Why not? How well do you know both candidates and their positions? Their leadership capabilities? That most student voters at Cal knew what each candidate stood for and made a choice from this information is unlikely at best. As already mentioned, I’d assert that Igor came close mostly because of knowing so many people, but against a popular party like SA, he was the underdog.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 1, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Well obviously SA is doin something right if they are so popular
Comment by marcus — August 1, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Yes, they’re good at networking. Now explain how that makes them more qualified for the job than someone else with similar leadership potential.
And what exactly do Cal students have to compare them with? Your argument that SA is oft elected because they are doing something right in office implies that voters feel other parties are doing something wrong. What is it that students do not like about these other parties?
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 1, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
SmashT,
I’d simply like to point out, in legible English, that you’re wasting your time. Edward Crane, better known as the founder of the Cato Institute, ran for ASUC Senate in the 60’s on a policy of abolishing the ASUC. He failed miserably; he didn’t even make it INTO the ASUC. The ASUC is like Hate Man: you can say you hate him all you want, but you really don’t. And you can’t get rid of him.
And #89,
“most qualified” is relative. I’m assuming you think that a candidate with a long list of asuc accomplishments = well qualified. I happen to think that clear and effective speaking ability is also a measure of qualification, especially for EAVP. This, in my opinion, leads us to view different candidates as the most qualified.
and last but not least, chris symr,
in my humble opinion, people dislike the following parties for the following reasons
calserve - they hate you if you’re any of the following 1)white 2)asian 3)male 4)not poor 5)not super left-wing 6)against affirmative action 7)jewish
in the Greek system 9)not an oppressed member of society.
daap - see above
squelch - people like squelch, but squelch doesn’t pick very popular candidates; they pick mostly quirky oddballs. I’m a fan of the party, but not all their candidates, for instance.
bears-united: it would have been a great 3rd party and a real rival to SA, but Zach “asylum” Lieberman sent it to the gallows.
Comment by jack bauer — August 1, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Jack,
If so, how is Jason an effective speaker?
Comment by anonymous — August 1, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Yes, I guess any party that runs on hating the entire student body wouldn’t really be cut out for the ASUC…. It’s this kind of dialogue– vicious party mud-slinging with no real purpose other than to insult– that steeps our campus in such voter apathy. Where exactly have they advocated against all of those groups you listed?
And again, how are SA members more qualified to run than members from other parties? At what point do a majority of voters actually make the decision to vote for the SA slate over anything else? Is it solely because of these negative stereotypes they hear from others?
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 1, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
CalSERVE doesn’t hate Greek Community members–trust a gal whose job it was to know.
Ben, reminder: you’re supposed to chastise me when I check this thing over my vacation.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — August 1, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
Well actually I heard one of the calserve execs say “what’s wrong you can’t get more drunk frat boys to vote for you” to an SA exec. Not that that wasn’t a correct statement. The Greeks live up to their awful reputation. And many people on here *cough* further the stereotype.
Comment by Berkeley Graduate — August 1, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
Eh, I don’t know what’s happened in years past–parties evolve, the Greek Community does too, and members aren’t always representative of the whole. I know that, when I was Vice President of Public Relations for Panhellenic, CalSERVE was equally willing to work with me for the betterment of the Greek Community. They didn’t act like we were one of their communities (because we weren’t), but they were anything but anti-Greek. In fact, many of them are Greek community members. I saw the benign attitude toward the Greek community continue from my ASUC position, and knowing the incoming senators that I do from CalSERVE, I can’t imagine it changing.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — August 1, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
I hope that your issue with Igor’s qualificiations, or lack thereof, is with more than his voice. Given that the EAVP is the representative to the local, state and federal levels of government, dealing with the city government, the Berkeley community, ideally meeting with the mayor on a regular basis, the representative to UCSA and the head lobbyist for the student government to state and federal legislators, don’t you think it’s important that he also know enough to be able to discuss issues and represent your interests on more than an aesthetic level? While much of the ASUC is arguably trivial, this is a serious position.
It would have been a monumental achievement for Igor to win, given that he wasn’t running against just Jason, but also Oren, Vishal and Joyce. That he came so close despite the other races not being that close is, I think, a tribute to the distinct difference between the candidates, whatever you might take that difference to be.
Comment by Anonymous — August 2, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
I was forced to hand out student action slate cards. i.e. i had to support all the executives even if I didn;t want all 4.
Comment by RepBast1984 — August 2, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Let me try to clarify some of my points.
First, my opinion of CalServe was meant to be taken a bit facetiously. I didn’t specify that, so that’s my fault. Truth be told, though, that IS partially the student body’s reputation of CalServe that I have witnessed during my time at Cal. I came to Berkeley as a proud liberal, and I was disappointed when I got the impression that CalServe was not interested in serving the interests of a white liberal male.
#99,
My problem is not with Igor’s voice, it was simply a social impression of his schmoozing skills. Jason simply seems like he is better at the political art of schmoozing, which I think is very important. During the campaign, I saw both of them campaigning. Jason was the one who came up to me and seemed much more confident and outgoing. Also, I know Igor is very well qualified based on his experience. It was simply the example of different measures of “qualified” I could think of at the time.
Comment by jack bauer — August 2, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
I guess my next question is, in your opinion, what are the interests of a “white liberal male”, and why do you say that CalServe cannot serve the interests of such a group as well as they do other groups on campus? I’m curious to know, as I never knew we white liberal males were one big constituency. Definitely news to me.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 2, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Chris Smyr:
Duh at berkeley most liberal people in the sense of the word are white. And half of those white people are males. the Asians tend to be the socially conservative ones and minorities I see as conservtaive Democrats.
Comment by Anonymity — August 2, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Duh at Berkeley:
I… don’t even know where to start with that one.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 2, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Well if blacks are a constituency then whites must be as well.
Comment by Anonymous — August 3, 2006 @ 3:10 am
You’re not getting it. Is there some sort of set of values that this imaginary bloc of white liberal males all share in common? Are we fighting for more representation in universities? What about in government: are there not enough white liberal males in congress? How about promoting education of white liberal male culture?
How exactly does student government, in your humble opinion, appeal to the white liberal male voter?
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 3, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Well for starters whites are only 30% of cal and Asians are 45%. Compare that to the California population: 40% white, 12% Asian.
Comment by Anonymous — August 3, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
You’re stalling.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 3, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
I believe that the “white liberal male” or “white progressive male” archtype is certainly valid, though of course this archetype is no more representative of the white progressive male population than any other archetype.
That said, I would say that in my experience CalSERVE works like most progressive coalitional organizations. Anyone who has been involved in left-wing organizing knows that there is a great deal of fractionalization within liberal politics, partially as a result of the mixed blessing of identity politics. Creating solidarity and unity is perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the left at this time.
CalSERVE strives to be a space where a diverse group of progressive individuals, including students of color, white students, people of all genders and sexualities, etc., can truly feel represented. This is a continual challenge. However, I believe that if you are a white male who truly wants to be involved in progressive organizing on campus, you should get involved with the party rather than condemn it for “excluding” you.
Also, just because student of color issues are important to CalSERVE doesn’t mean whites, Greeks, men, etc. are unwelcome. CalSERVE does require that people recognize their privilege, whether that means gender, race, sexuality, class or otherwise…but being asked to recognize privilege is very different from being kicked out of the organization.
Comment by knows what they're talking about — August 3, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
what does it mean to recognize your privilege?
Comment by Anonymous — August 3, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
“recognize your privilege” means to ceaselessly apologize for crap that happened hundreds of years ago that you are in no way responsible for. and to make excuses for crime committed by racial minorities. and to attack the white/jewish/asian power axis.
Comment by chet (CEO) — August 3, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
Knows something:
I posed my questions to the anon-bots because I really want to know what exactly it means, in their opinion, to have “white liberal male” values, and how exactly student government can best support those values and support them. They haven’t answered yet. I argue they will not answer because, frankly, there is no such set of standards. We are privileged in that we are the most represented in society, in the workplace, and in the government, and that there are no overarching problems of “white underrepresentation” that any sane person would argue, nor is the “protection of white culture” really a proponent many white liberal males feel is all that important, because that culture permeates our society.
Actually sharing a set of values with a characteristic group in the context of this argument, i.e. “white liberal male” values, means identifying with a particular trait that all of the group shares, or coming together to fight against some injustice done against this group. There are none, and so it cannot be assumed we all have a common cause in mind.
And in that vein, I totally agree with you on everything else: pushing for progressive issues is NOT a set of values that favors one particular color and not the next. We as an entire student body have a lot to gain from supporting these causes, as you’ve alluded to.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 3, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Such a way with words, Chet. *gag*
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 3, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Chris, some white (and Asian, here) folks think being personally and individually blamed for such things is an injustice. And that it manifests itself. And that CalSERVE promotes this blame. You might check out some of the comments on this or the follow-up.
Comment by Beetle — August 3, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Chris,
I had thought about voting CalServe last year. A quick look at the candidates’ platforms dissuaded me. So I decided to check out this years picks. “We are somebody…and we won’t be stopped by nobody.” First of all, just look at the grammar. Of course you’re not going to be “stopped by nobody.” What on earth is this – semantics for idiots? This is my guess (tell me if you know insider info and I am wrong), but that slogan in itself seems to stem from an underdog mentality (the oppressed rising against the presumably white oppressor, if you will). The photo on their website, www.calserve.org, showed one male and one Caucasian female. [aside: I’m not saying only a white male can represent me. That’s ridiculous. I do think though, that the candidates a party fields historically does signify a bit what constituency they aim to represent]. A look at ALL of the candidates platforms stressed racial diversity, or something to that effect.
And in response to your question, no, white liberal males are not one big constituency. That doesn’t mean that there’s nothing you can do to represent SOME of their interests. I can’t talk for all white liberal males, but in my opinion, making everything about racial diversity and representing the ‘underrepresented’ is simple code word for admitting more blacks and latinos into Berkeley regardless of their academic qualifications. Having scored high into the 1500s and high 700s on my SAT I and II’s, I have a problem with that, as do many other white and asian students on campus. Some alternative liberal values that CalServe could perhaps incorporate are: higher wages for janitors on campus, advocating lowering student fees, protecting students rights from the university (ie facebook policing) and even other things like limiting the impact corporations have on the research done on campus (ie genetic corn studies done by our bio deparments).
Comment by jack bauer — August 3, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
(This is quickly descending into one of ‘those comments’…. I’m curious to know what Donald’s thoughts are on this matter; are you reading, Donald?)
Beetle: stop with the strawmen. No one is blaming you personally or individually.
Jack:
That reminded me lucidly of a scene from Zoolander: “What is this? A center for ANTS?!”
As for substance: I have no idea what you are trying to say with your first paragraph. Are you being oppressed because there weren’t any white liberal males in their website picture?
I agree, don’t ever talk for all white liberal males.
You have this assumption in your head that is very troublsome: that supporting racial diversity is equated with admitting whoeverthefuckwewant, which is not true. ‘Underrepresented’ is not a ‘code word’ or something else equally inane: it’s an adjective describing how bad enrollment is of certain groups in higher education, in government, and in upper positions in the workplace. Supporting efforts to assist in outreach, better education, and promoting racially diverse communities in these milieus is a progressive value that benefits everyone.
And, as I’ve already stated (many, many times): Are we fighting for more representation in universities? What about in government: are there not enough white liberal males in congress? How about promoting education of white liberal male culture? ‘Our’ interests are moot: we don’t need to fight injustice directed at us, because there are no injustices against us. We are privileged in that we own most of society, so we need to own up to that privilege and help others who are in need.
Are all white liberal males equally pretentious? Ugh.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 3, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
1) white students are underrepresented so so much for privilege in the California University system. An oppressed group is doing better than white students.
2) recognizing privilege means that you must also recognize superiority. And that, my friends, is racist. It’s the whole point that minorities have no power and that since only whites can be racist, only whites can also be anti-racist. This goes against everythign the civil rights movement fought for (equality under the law and society) by saying we must fight fire with fire and somehow after everythign burns down, we’ll all be equal.
I choose to fight for equality of all races by makign things equal udner the law. Yes, it takes a long time for society to catch up but remember how slowly schools were integrated. But it happened. racist policies like AA fragment races and break apart coalitions fighting for equality.
Comment by Anonymous — August 4, 2006 @ 3:56 am
Jack: I agree. Saying we’re going to let in some students of color over other students of color is just prima facia racist. But somehow people think it’s ok to be racist against Asians. Ask some militant blacks like Ice Cube why they justify burning Korean stores down in the LA riots.
Comment by Anonymous — August 4, 2006 @ 3:59 am
I just want you to know that I have achieved my phenomenal financial success (I’m a CEO, you know) through my own talents and hard work. No one handed me anything because I’m white. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I have achieved through my own efforts. And I refuse to apologize for being white. I will not accept reponsibility for stuff that happened hundreds of years before I was born. I am my own person, and your refusal to treat me as such is condescending and demeaning. I owe you nothing.
Comment by chet (CEO) — August 4, 2006 @ 10:18 am
“recognizing privilege means that you must also recognize superiority”
er, thats very wrong. you can only recognize one or the other. and this goes right to the heart of the matter, since this is a question about how people see the world.
if you think white people “deserve” to make more $ than black people, that men “deserve” to make more money than women, etc, then you are claiming superiority. when you come to your senses and understand that such distinctions, when they are statistically significant, are structural characteristics of your society, rather than indicative of individual “merit” shining through on a level playing field, then thats when you recognize “privelege”. so the two are mutually exclusive ways of seeing differences.
for those of you who are not racist (i.e. aware enough to recognize that there are these structural differences in society) but bristle at being held “responsible” for them, get over yourselves. you live in a society, whether you like it or not you have to deal with the other people in it and the bullshit messes that those that went before us have created.
racial inequaltiy is like global warming, a problem created for you that you have to fix, or be fucked. its like global warming.
just imagine, maybe in 100 years, anonymous, its your retarded grandchildren having a debate on calstuff about global warming. chris smyrs grandson is talking about calserves policies which demand that everyone recognize their responsibility for keeping emmissions low. but your grandkids are like, dude, maaaaaaaybe its my grandfathers fault or something, but dont blame _me_ for global warming, i didnt create this problem, its not my fault, so why are you getting in my face about it. and meanwhile, all the cal students including your wiener grandkids are running around, their skin literally melting off them with the cancer and the dying. but at least yer grandkids dont have to feel guilty about it. good strategy. nice thinking.
Comment by mano — August 4, 2006 @ 10:38 am
no, we do not need more white male liberals in congress. but we do need more white male conservatives. not to mention black, hispanic, and jewish conservatives, male and female.
I do not think that white people deserve to be paid more $ than black people because their skin is white. The real question is whether you believe that black people deserve to be paid as much $ as whites, even for doing lesser jobs or if the quality of their work is lower, because their skin is black???
Comment by chet (CEO) — August 4, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Blacks and whites with the same skill value shoudl be paid the same. So should Asians, Jews, Latinos and Native Americans. mano, I am not white I am Asian so your whole thing about me believing that whites shoudl be paid mroe is kind of silly.
Oh yes there are structural differences in society. One of those, for example is legacy privilege that helps wealthy white people at a school like oh, say, BROWN UNIVERSITY.
Another instrument that creates disadvantage and advantage is the largely anti-Asian affirmative action. Thank God berkeley has neither. So yes, recognizing advantages in society that people have is completely important to see change back to equal rights.
If racism is like global warnign how might we change it, mano? My solution is to go back to equal rights and move society towards one where everyone is treatedx like equals.
Recognizing privilege does mean recoginizing superiority of power. But to say minorities have no power is racist because, well, we do.
Comment by Anonymous — August 4, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Chris (S), there’s no strawman. You are ignorant of how CalSERVE is viewed by these people, and I tried to explain it. Whether it’s true or not has nothing to do with perception. (By the way, mano thinks it’s true, and I’d wager there are those in CalSERVE who feel the same way, so maybe you should be the one careful about speaking for others)
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
CalSERVE doesn’t blame people for having privilege. Blaming people just makes them angry, defensive or guilty, which pretty much ruins their potential as activists for your cause. Recognizing privlege and working to end societal inequality and injustice is very different than whining about how it’s not your fault that you’re white.
Also, Jack Bauer, what makes you think that those aren’t CalSERVE issues? Living wages, student’s rights and affordable education are some of the major issues CalSERVE has worked on/ran on this year. You can’t argue that EAVPs Liz Hall or Anu Joshi ignored the issue of student fees. Senators Lakshmi Sridaran, Max Besbris and Taylor Allbright have all worked on labor and student’s rights issues. Check the facts before you argue that those issues aren’t important to CalSERVE.
Comment by knows what they're talking about — August 4, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
what do i think is true, beetle? yer responsibility for slavery?
you know, responsibility is a funny thing. theres your pride and your personal conscience, which is all well and good, and then theres the real world, which doesnt give a damn about your feelings, where problems that arent your “fault” will still fuck you over same as everyone else. whether liberal or conservative, your indignant, overconfident self-righteousness is no insurance against getting fucked over.
now, you are right that calserve has an image problem among the generic apathetic suburban-american college student demographic.
but shit, calserve has its hands full staying relevant even to the communities it targets as its base. at least it has a real political focus (at least in paper) and isnt full of lying moron fuckfaces which is more than you can say for SA.
anyway, my basic point, made earlier, was that you can take responsibility in two directions. for things that have already happened and for the future. guess which direction is more important?
PS: i think all of the wieners whining about how an “underqualified” URM might take your place at Cal are already admitted, no? If you are admitted, what the fuck are they worried about everybody elses admissions for? For all their white brothers and sisters who didnt get admitted? Cmon.
Comment by mano — August 4, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
“militant blacks like Ice Cube”
another retarded tube-fed little bigot. FYI: “militant” is an adjective that belongs in front of an ideology. “black” is not an ideology, at least not to anyone who isnt a racist.
Comment by mano — August 4, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
People like lying moron fuckfaces. That’s what you get when you have representative democracy.
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
i dunno beetle. most people ive met that vote, in whatever election, dont actively _like_ politicians, even the ones they are voting for. don’t mistake electing someone for liking them.
Comment by mano — August 4, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Knows what they’re talking about,
I completely agree with your assertion that “Blaming people just makes them angry, defensive or guilty, which pretty much ruins their potential as activists for your cause.”
This is precisely why I was turned off by CalServe, because I did get the impression they were blaming me! Now before everyone gets up in arms and tells me to do more research and check my facts, keep in mind this was my IMPRESSION. I am willing to concede that this may simply be a problem of CalServe’s terrible ability to convey a sense of inclusiveness – and not their lack of desire to do so. That being said, I did try to check my facts to see if my bad first impression was simply a misperception. What made me think that “those aren’t CalServe’s issues” was a cursory look at the candidates platforms. Of the 18 platforms presented, 13 of them gave a reference to race! (count them and tell me if you disagree). If the issues mentioned earlier really are CalServe’s issues, then they should publicize them more.
Jack Bauer’s calendar goes from March 31st to April 2nd. No one fools Jack Bauer.
Comment by jack bauer — August 4, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
why is it that some of calserve’s issues have nothing to do with cal or makng cal better??
Comment by Calaholic — August 4, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
I somewhat regret getting started on this.
Anon #117:
Ok, so HOW are they underrepresented? At what university in California is there NOT a significant white presence?
Chet:
Exactly: with a little hard work, determination, and maybe a smidge of luck, you can succeed. That is called privilege. You are privileged in that your racial group is the most represented in society, in the workplace, and in the government, and that there are no overarching problems of “white underrepresentation” that have affected you on the way to the top, nor should the “protection of white culture” really be a concern for you, because your culture permeates our society. You need not struggle with these things as you rise to the top; they are not obstacles for you and your fellow white man. Climb the ladder, oh sagacious CEO, with your cleanly pressed suit and tie.
But is it really that difficult to understand that your background, your culture, your color, your sex, your language, your past, who YOU are, traits you can never change, have an effect on the difficulties you must face as you live your life? If you believe in equality of opportunity but liberty of outcome, fine, believe it! NO ONE is asking you not to, so please stop with this nonsense of, “Well, I EARNED my keep!” We’re all simply shitting ourselves in ecstasy to hear how successful you’ve been on your own. But if you fail to recognize that equality of opportunity extends to people more or less based on traits that make them who they are, you’re lying to yourself and to the society that has helped you become who you are.
Beetle:
There was not one comment preceding mine that had blamed you or anyone in this thread “specifically” or “individually” for the injustices of society. From just a few comments one can become very well-versed in how these commenters actually view CalServe (or any political arm of the ASUC, for that matter), but your initial assertion failed to address my points and instead defended against the nonexistent claim that individuals were to blame. I agree with what the others have said in response: “Recognizing privilege and working to end societal inequality and injustice is very different than whining about how it’s not your fault that you’re white.”
Calaholic:
I suppose one could counter with: “Why isn’t SA doing anything, period?” My comments might then fit in better here at CalStuff™. There is no strict dichotomy saying student government can only focus on either Cal students or local politics. In nearly all cases, the issues are important in both arenas.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 4, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
At the time, we were talking about CalSERVE’s image problem. People have impressions of things outside of Calstuff comment boards, amazingly enough. Whether you, personally, had anything to do with it, I don’t really care. By the same token, your attempts to defend CalSERVE here don’t really affect anything about that image, so you didn’t have any “points” for me to bother “addressing.” I, personally, don’t really give a crap if CalSERVE has something to say about me or not, and wasn’t trying to argue about responsibility and privilege and injustice and whatnot.
If CalSERVE is a political movement, one has to wonder why it even bothers with the ASUC, which is fairly useless for accomplishing political goals. Student Action’s ‘goals’ and actions are more or less in agreement, in that they seem to want to feel good about themselves for handing out money to student groups or themselves for resume-boosting activities, and that’s what they do.
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
“If CalSERVE is a political movement, one has to wonder why it even bothers with the ASUC, which is fairly useless for accomplishing political goals.”
calSERVE came out of a movement, during which the ASUC was seen as a tool which was handy for the larger cause divestment from apartheid south africa (which ironically, is a country that shares the initials of student action). back then, calSERVE took over the ASUC, *just because they could*. hence the not-so-sweet acronym.
“Student Action’s ‘goals’ and actions are more or less in agreement, in that they seem to want to feel good about themselves for handing out money to student groups or themselves for resume-boosting activities, and that’s what they do.”
calSERVE’s goals these days are not really “movementy” anymore, which is too bad, b/c theres a lot of cool CS folks and if they had a valid reason to be together then they could kick so much ass, whether they had won the election or not. unfortunately, there is no overarching issue that people in CS are working on. so in the big picture, CS is not too different from how you describe SA, just different constituency and the fact that, as mentioned before, at least CS has semi-coherent politics - on paper…
Comment by mano — August 5, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Ok mano, militant racists like Ice Cube.
Defeatist attitudes will nto help URM’s get better representation. And one really should ask the question why groups like Asians, Arabs and now Latinos are gettign a better education and advancing but blacks aren’t when the three previous mentioned groups are also victims of racism in this country.
Comment by Anonymous — August 5, 2006 @ 1:39 am
1) racism
2) work ethic
3) innate ability
I would say it’s debateable for some of each category but it’s mainly #2.
Comment by Anonymous — August 5, 2006 @ 1:41 am
Cal-Serve r a gwoup of whiny spoilT kidz who gots notin bettar 2 do dan cry about shiT daT happened hundweds of yrs ago.
why r n0ne of u far left retards complainin bout aznn priviledge na meen? oh cuz dat contradicts ur whole “white people are dominent and r out to screw every minority/ minorities cant make it on dere own w/o some gov. handout or ez-mode admissions plan” thesis.
fact chek: azn’s are the dominant gwoup at Cal. whites are “underepresented” and so is every oter group. no1 should c@re d@t dis is da case. itz all about whats inside da brain and not what color/ethnicity u iz. f@ct is all u far left types are just as racist as da KKK b/c ur all fukin obsessed with skin color and collective group mentality. btw in c@se u havent realized it yet… u have just been smashT.
-smashT
Comment by smashT — August 6, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Beetle, we were explicity talking about “white liberal male” privilege, not just a petty image problem, so to bring up an ignorant belief in response to my assertion that there are no injustices made against white liberal males is ridiculous. There has never been an injustice directed against white culture because not you nor anyone else has ever been “personally and individually” blamed for the injustices plaguing society, not here nor by the policies of any student political party. You’re welcome to update me on the image problem of CalServe, but don’t feed the fire of ignorant anon-bots by wrongly claiming they are being blamed for something they didn’t do.
And I wager I *do* still have some points that no one will address on this comment thread. Instead of getting a response, I will instead get a stubborn silence, while certain individuals begrudge me the last word. That irks me to no end, but that’s alright. We’ll eventually come back to a topic like this at a later thread, I’ll go through the same efforts to expand my point, much to the ridiculement behind anonymity, and we’ll finish with the same kind of anticlimactic ending. Lovely.
Comment by Chris Smyr — August 7, 2006 @ 1:03 am