Center is Open, But Case is Not Closed

Under a banner reading "Reclaiming our Space," members of the Third World Liberation Front congregated in front of Sproul Hall yesterday to reaffirm their commitment to the 35-year-old movement calling for a multicultural space for all ethnicities and backgrounds.

Five years after a protest by the group prompted then-Chancellor Robert Berdahl to promise the creation of the center, criticism that it is not reflective of its original vision has reignited the group's effort to create a diverse space.

Group members claimed that the ASUC Senate and the university administration are dragging their feet in approving a Memorandum of Understanding that would have allowed the center to open its doors five years after the idea was first proposed.

"Maybe if the university took a stronger role, things would be different," said sophomore Juana Miranda, a member of the group.

The effort to bring a multicultural center to the campus began in 1969, when the Third World Liberation Front was created to lobby for an ethnic studies department. In 1999, the group reconvened in a hunger strike to protest cuts made to the program. The university agreed to implement several of the group's demands, including the opening of a multicultural center.

"This center is born from issues that were never talked about in an ivory tower university," said junior Camille Pannu, a group member. "This is a history that is much older than any of us would ever know, something that's much bigger than just a multicultural center."

Now, nearly six years later, the center has finally opened its doors after a four-month delay, which group members say stems from a power struggle between each organization involved. With the university funding the operation, the ASUC providing the space and the Front pushing for approval, each group is only looking out for its own interests, protesters said yesterday.

"There's a power play between the ASUC and the university, and none of the power of our education is coming down to the people," said senior Inna Parizher, who spoke at the event.

Group members claimed that the ASUC and the university's apparent partnership in the process left the Front excluded from the planning.

"A lot of people think the ASUC created the Multicultural Center, but TWLF is the catalyst," said member Peter Gee. "There's been an unfair vertical relationship where we haven't been at the table and the ASUC has been appropriating the issue."

But both ASUC officials and university administrators said they have not dominated the planning process.

"The challenge is to reconcile everyone's need to have a hand in this. This has to be a consensus project," said ASUC President Misha Leybovich. "Walking into the Multicultural Center has to be an educational, not a political statement."

Last semester, the ASUC drafted a Memorandum of Understanding, a document outlining guidelines for the center, in an attempt to move forward.

While the center has officially opened, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has yet to sign off on the memorandum.

University officials said infighting among senate party lines, as well as charges that the document does not reflect all parties involved, have made the university reluctant to approve it.

At a meeting last semester, the ASUC Senate voted to allow two Front members to sit on the advisory board governing the center's activities.

But group members said the committee, now dominated by ASUC senators, is biased against their goals.

"It's a form of censorship, a disservice to the people," Miranda said. "The ASUC does not trust students to make sound decisions."

The Senate also voted to decide in June-when the center's lease will expire-whether to extend the lease any further, a decision some said was a tactic to sweep the issue under the rug.

"Certain senators had no inclination for the center to be there as a permanent fixture," said CalSERVE Senator Brent Kastenbaum. "Because particular people on the ASUC had different agendas, they voted in a block. Debate was stifled; no compromises, no negotiations. Because of that, students are being turned away."

ASUC officials deny monopolizing debate on the center.

"They can be critical of how we tweak the balance, but there's no motivation to exclude anyone from anything," Leybovich said. "We just need to work out details-we're all learning as we go."

Dean of Students Karen Kenney said the administration has taken a step back from the debate until the ASUC creates a memorandum that all parties are comfortable with.

"We're hopeful that the students will work it out themselves, because one of the sticking points is that students had not come to terms with the MOU, some felt that it didn't reflect everyone's views," Kenney said.

In a surprise visit to the ASUC Senate last night, Birgeneau addressed for the first time publicly the allegations that the university is sluggishly moving forward with the agreement.

"I hope that we can proceed with the multicultural center, and I'm unhappy that it has evolved in such a complicated way," Birgeneau said. "We will work in the long run towards a permanent Multicultural Center."

Until he approves the agreement, it is unclear how the center, where students often congregate to sleep and study, will fulfill its original intention.

"There's nothing multicultural about Heller except the color of the furniture," Pannu said.

The center is meant to be a convergence point for those of different backgrounds, administrators and group members said.

"We need to create a dialogue between all folks of color, to really come together in numbers," said senior Katina Castillo, a speaker at yesterday's protest.

Despite the delay, ASUC officials said the idea of a multicultural center is tailor-made for Berkeley.

"Currently, the center lacks direction, and it's difficult putting something like this together," Leybovich said. "But if it's going to be done, it's going to be done at Berkeley."

Tags: