Last week, I attended a council meeting to
support my roommate, sorority sister and best friend, Rachel Beyda, as she went
through the last step of being confirmed by the council as an appointed justice
to the Judicial Board of the Undergraduate Students Association Council. I
greatly admire Rachel’s academic success and the passion and determination she
has demonstrated toward her goal of becoming a lawyer. I have seen her accrue
immense leadership skills and experience in the legal field, both at UCLA, as
the current law clerk for the Judicial Board and beyond. Therefore, as I
ascended the stairs to Kerckhoff 417, I incorrectly assumed the confirmation of
Rachel’s appointment would be quick and simple.
Rachel had been unanimously approved by the
Appointments Review Committee consisting of three council members before she
flawlessly introduced herself to the council. However, the first question
directed at her by General Representative 3 Fabienne Roth was an attack on
Rachel’s ability to be a justice based on her involvement in the Jewish
community. At President Avinoam Baral’s insistence, the question was phrased
slightly more considerately by Transfer Student Representative Negeen
Sadeghi-Movahed, but this first question set the tone. Rachel finished the
interview, making two important points: first, anyone qualified for the
position would be a critical thinker who is knowledgeable about campus issues
and therefore, has his or her own opinions and second, she has no significant
political affiliations. Furthermore, she demonstrated an understanding of what
actually having a conflict of interest means and acknowledged that a
justice should remove herself from the decision-making process under those
circumstances. Rachel was asked to leave the room for council discussion. What
followed was a disgusting 40 minutes of what can only be described as
unequivocal anti-Semitism during which some of our council members resorted to
some of the oldest accusations against Jews, including divided loyalties and
dishonesty.
All council members swiftly agreed Rachel was amply
qualified for the position, but half of the council had strong reservations
stemming from Rachel’s Jewish identity. “My issue is, I’m going to be upfront
about it, I think she’s pretty great. She’s smart, she like knows her stuff,
she’s like probably going to be a really great lawyer. But I’m like not going
to pretend this isn’t about conflict of interest. … It’s not her fault … but
she’s part of a community that’s very invested in USAC. … Even if she’s the
right person for the job,” claimed Roth. Sadeghi-Movahed added, “For some
reason, I’m not 100 percent comfortable. I don’t know why. I’ll go through her
application again. I’ve been going through it constantly, but I definitely can
see that she’s qualified for sure.” Throughout this discussion, Rachel
anxiously paced outside, where, she later informed me, she could hear “conflict
of interest” being yelled and concluded that it could only be about her being
Jewish. Undoubtedly, the Israeli-Palestinan conflict is one of the most
contentious issues on our campus. However, Israel was not mentioned during the
discussion of Rachel’s appointment, only her affiliation with Jewish
organizations, making the extensive deliberation a definitive act of
discrimination.
The initial telling vote of 4-4-1 was dismissed when
Cultural Affairs Commissioner Irmary Garcia said she was “not ready” for the
vote. A faculty member in attendance eventually stepped in to point out the
problems with the council’s reasons for denying Rachel the position. And in the
end, the council unanimously approved her appointment. However, Rachel’s
justified appointment to the Judicial Board is not enough to right the wrongs.
I commend Sadeghi-Movahed for her necessary public apology on Facebook. I ask
the four council members who initially questioned Rachel’s appointment on the
basis of her Judaism to issue both public and personal apologies to the UCLA
Jewish community and Rachel. Until they all admit wrongdoing and ask for
forgiveness, it is difficult to trust their morality as decision-makers.
Furthermore, I expect administrative condemnation of their words and actions as
exactly what they were: undeniable anti-Semitism. I expect more of elected
leaders and hope no one else will face being denied a deserved opportunity on
the basis of identity. A recording of the meeting can be seen on the USAC Live!
Youtube channel, and I encourage all students to watch some of it and become
aware of who your representatives are. In a few months, we will hold elections
for new USAC representatives. In light of this incident, I hope students take
the time to learn about the issues and vote for representatives they believe
will serve the student body with integrity.
Frenklak is a third-year physiological sciences
student, president of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Pi and member of Hillel at UCLA.
No comments:
Post a Comment