• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

In record-breaking fashion, on only the second day of the quarter, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board managed to mislead the entire span of its readership in such an egregious manner that it deserves to be cited for journalistic misconduct. The total ignorance of the facts in the editorial titled “USAC correct in refusing nominees,” Sept. 27 shows how much a misinformed newspaper editorial board can misrepresent a seemingly uncomplicated situation.

At the Sept. 24 USAC meeting, the council voted against approving four Student Judicial Board applicants – one female, and three males – who coincidentally all happened to be white, although all were qualified. Members of the council thought the lack of gender and ethnic diversity would not adequately represent the student population.

I did not disagree with this contention. But the appointment process is done in three steps. Students submit committee applications in the spring. The president decides which student is most qualified for a particular committee and then forwards the application to the Appointment Review Committee, who then interviews the applicant in person. The committee then makes a recommendation to USAC and the full council votes to approve or not approve the applicant.

Nowhere on any of the USAC committee applications is there a place for students to specify ethnicity, so when I look for qualified applicants it is sometimes impossible to identify people’s ethnic backgrounds, based on their names alone. Yet, the editorial board wrote, “Dahle was wrong in not considering people of different ethnicities or backgrounds. It shows he needs to work on keeping these concerns a priority.”

The assumption that I do not keep ethnic diversity as a top priority in committee appointments based on this one incident is not only an illogical generalization, it is also entirely inaccurate. Anyone who takes the time to research the various committee memberships approved by this council will see that the percentage of minorities greatly outnumbers non-minorities. It seems the editorial board uses selective memory when it has an agenda to push.

Secondly, the editorial board also failed to grasp the fact that the J-Board decides constitutional issues based on impartiality. J-Board members should not represent any political slate, student group affiliated with USAC, or be a member of any USAC office. None of the applicants I nominated for a J-Board position were associated with any slate. For this committee, objectivity is the most salient qualification, not ethnic background. Yet, the editorial board stated, “The various USAC boards should be as evenly split between the SURE and Student Empowerment! slates as the council is.” This statement is not only ridiculous, but it displays a disturbing lack of knowledge about government institutions. If the J-Board was appointed based on partisan affiliation, it would just be a second USAC, rendering its judicial authority useless.

Also, the editorial board conveniently failed to mention that the majority of committee applicants I have nominated for committee positions have overwhelmingly been students affiliated with SE! organizations or offices. There are many important funding committees composed almost entirely of SE! affiliated students, all of whom I nominated. In contrast, SURE affiliated students make up a very small percentage of overall committee membership.

When, if ever, do you think a winning president has gone out of his or her way to over-represent the other slate in committee memberships? I have even reached out in an unprecedented fashion and appointed my election opponents and students overtly critical of myself because I knew they were qualified for the positions. In all objective measurements, I have been the most bipartisan USAC president compared to those in recent years.

The truth is I do value diversity in all its forms and try my hardest to facilitate diverse committee compositions. I do not care if the Daily Bruin Editorial Board fails to recognize and report this fact. What I do have a problem with is an ignorant editorial board making a circumspect analysis of a situation it knows very little about, and misrepresenting my position.

There is nothing wrong with being critical, but criticism should be based on the whole truth, not a partial examination of the facts. I warned last year’s Daily Bruin Editorial Board during my endorsement hearing that I would not hesitate to challenge any information I perceived as misrepresentative concerning USAC or myself. I stand behind my words.

Just as the rest of USAC and I have much to learn, the Daily Bruin must also realize it has an ethical and journalistic responsibility to research the facts surrounding a situation before making a suspect judgment which thousands of people will read.