Graham Haught/Staff

We came to Berkeley counting on the university’s vibrant history of activism and civil rights to guide our education inside and outside of the classroom. But contrary to its reputation for social justice, we believe UC Berkeley has had a long and documented history of silencing survivors of sexual violence and underdisciplining offenders. Last week, we joined a total of nine survivors in filing a federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against UC Berkeley, hoping that our university will be held accountable for mishandling our cases and for its policies and practices that perpetuate violence and rape culture at Cal.

We’ll start by ending our own silence: We are both survivors of sexual assault and battery. We expected justice against those who attacked us. We were denied it by university officials and a legal system who betrayed our trust in them.

Fifteen months since we first became engaged in conversation around sexual violence on campus, we remain disillusioned by the sheer number of survivors who have told us of how the university mishandled their cases and denied them justice. Their treatment was not isolated to their own experiences, and often it violated federal law. Our university dissuaded survivors from reporting, failed to update them on their cases, discouraged involvement by law enforcement and neglected to provide them medical and residential accommodations. And these responses are from just a fraction of the cases we know about. Our stories range from the residence halls to student organizations to the Greek system and from our medical service center to the disciplinary procedures themselves.

It is unacceptable that administrators do not currently believe our stories and warn us of the sanctions of false reporting while refusing to investigate our claims, that our medical center does not provide rape kits even when the case is reported to campus police and that assailants found in violation of the code of conduct and even guilty in criminal court are rarely held accountable for their actions by our university. But instead we were told by an administrative official that though the university’s system may have failed us, we could seek justice on a larger scale.

We love UC Berkeley, and we know that our school can do better than to sweep rape and sexual assault under the rug. This is why we filed a complaint with the Department of Education. Berkeley needs to lead the nation by creating new procedures, by making students feel safe from harassment and assault and by finally following the law.

Many students across the country are demanding that their schools begin to take sexual violence more seriously. We have been lucky enough to connect with the IX Network, a national coalition of college activists fighting sexual assault and holding their university administrations accountable. We move forward in solidarity with survivors at Yale, UNC Chapel Hill, Amherst, Swarthmore, Occidental, USC and elsewhere — knowing that national change is far overdue.

This is also not the first time that UC Berkeley has faced federal charges for mishandling sexual assault cases. In 1979, a UC Berkeley coalition known as Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment filed its own federal complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare regarding a professor who preyed upon his own students. We’re grateful for what WOASH accomplished then, but we would have hoped that 30 years would have made more of a difference in UC Berkeley’s sexual violence procedures. Sexual violence at Cal is still alive and well. We don’t expect it to end completely, but we expect our university to take action to reduce its prevalence.

When you are assaulted, your campus and community should be there to support you. You shouldn’t have to worry about who you can trust when you are the most vulnerable, and you shouldn’t have to face neglect and betrayal when you are brave enough to tell your story. We have hope that UC Berkeley can become the supportive network that survivors of sexual violence need. Until then, we’ll be here — refusing to continue the silence and pressuring our campus administrators for change.

Sofie Karasek is a third year at UC Berkeley. Anais LaVoie is a recent UC Berkeley graduate.

The post Help us give support to sexual violence victims appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The complaint, filed Wednesday, alleges that the university discouraged sexual assault survivors from reporting incidents to local authorities, failing to notify the campus community of immediate threats to their health and safety and persistently underreporting sexual battery, sexual assault and rape.  If found to be in violation of the allegations, the campus could be fined $35,000 for every offense.

UC Berkeley students filed complaints under the Clery Act in coordination with students from Swarthmore College, Dartmouth College and the University of Southern California at a press conference with women’s rights attorney Gloria Allred, who is representing students at USC and Occidental College.

UC Berkeley students Sofie Karasek and Anais LaVoie, among the students filing the charges, have agreed to speak on behalf of their fellow complainants.

“For over a year, we have asked campus staff and administrators to take our bodies, our voices and our rights seriously,” LaVoie said in a press release. “We can no longer wait for action, because we’ve learned throughout this process that it isn’t coming.”

Campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore said the campus has not yet reviewed the complaint and, as a result, is unable to comment directly on the issue.

“UC Berkeley takes sexual assault very seriously, and we are constantly working to strengthen our efforts to prevent such acts from occurring and to thoroughly report and investigate such matters when they arise,” Gilmore said. “We also seek to ensure that students receive the counseling and the support services they need when coping with such a difficult ordeal.”

According to the 2012-13 UC Berkeley Campus Annual Security Report, a total of 21 forcible sexual assault incidents as defined by the Clery Act were reported in 2011 — compared to only 4 in 2010. However, Timofey Semenov, student advocate-elect, says that this rate may be inaccurate because reported incidents may have happened in earlier years.

Enacted in 1990, the Clery Act requires colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to disclose information about crimes that happen on or near campuses.

Once complaints are filed, the U.S. Department of Education assigns an investigation team to the campus in question to examine and review the school’s programs. According to Alison Kiss, executive director of the Clery Center for Security on Campus, these investigations can take years to be completed.

In April, Yale University was fined $165,000 by the Department of Education for violations of the Clery Act after a seven-year investigation.

Karasek hopes that filing the charges will encourage the campus to reform many of its policies, including ones spelled out in the ASUC bill SB 130, which was passed in April and expresses no confidence in UC Berkeley sexual assault policies.

Karasek says she was sexually assaulted her freshman year by a student leader who also assaulted four of her peers. After reporting the incident to the campus, she was not notified until seven months later that there had even been an investigation.

According to Karasek, she received two three-line emails from the administration regarding the incident — one explaining that the case had been solved through the “early resolution” process and the second saying that her assailant had been found to be in violation of the code of conduct without specifying whether disciplinary action had been taken.

Her assailant graduated from the university two weeks later, making him exempt from any further disciplinary action.

“Contrary to its amazing reputation for social justice, Berkeley has a history of silencing survivors,” Karasek said. “This is unacceptable, and the time for change is now.”

Andrea Guzman is a news editor. Contact her at aguzman@dailycal.org and on Twitter @guzmanandrea5.

The post Students file charges against campus alleging mishandling of sexual assaults appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Judicial Council has found External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai not guilty of alleged bylaw violations due to a lack of sufficient evidence in an opinion released Tuesday.

CalSERVE Elections Coordinator Anais LaVoie filed five charges against Mecklai in April for distribution of campaign literature in residence halls, solicitation in the dining commons and explicit disobedience of residence hall staff directives.

LaVoie accused Mecklai of cheating, citing that the “margin of victory in her election can plausibly be enumerated as the number of votes gained through illegal campaigning.”

Four of the five petitions against Mecklai were dismissed by the council due to insufficient evidence and witness testimonies. The council then reviewed Mecklai in a hearing on May 2 for one charge of solicitation in the dining commons of a resident hall and evaluated an oral and written testimony from resident assistant Jasmine Verret.

According to the opinion, the written testimony from Verret cited Mecklai “not campaigning but definitely soliciting” multiple tables of students in Cafe 3.

However, while the written testimony suggested multiple incidents of solicitation, Verret’s oral testimony only referenced one specific incident, and the council therefore ruled that the witness’s collective testimony did not meet “the standard of clear and convincing evidence.”

The council chose to evaluate case evidence individually rather than holistically because four of the charges were dismissed before the hearing. Although the evidence presented appeared to “establish a pattern of intent,” the council ultimately ruled that the evidence against Mecklai was insufficient in charging her and found her not guilty on all five charges.

If the council had taken a holistic approach, the opinion states that there would have been “sufficient evidence and testimony to charge (Mecklai) with at least, but not limited to one censure.”

“While I’m disappointed that we lost the case by such a close ruling of 5 to 3, I’m confident that the act of pursuing elections violations this year will clean up elections in the future,” LaVoie said in an email.

Mecklai said she felt relieved by the results of the trial.

“I’m glad it’s over, and I’m trying to keep my head up,” Mecklai said. “I’ve always said that I’m not a partisan person, and I want to maintain that and not let this affect that going forward.”

LaVoie v Mecklai Official Judicial Council Direct Judgment (PDF)

LaVoie v Mecklai Official Judicial Council Direct Judgment (Text)

Contact Jacob Brown at jbrown@dailycal.org. Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org

The post ASUC Judicial Council finds Mecklai not guilty of bylaw violations appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The gag and restraining orders were lifted on Saturday. Previously, Mecklai, along with CalSERVE Elections Coordinator Anais LaVoie — who filed the charges — and all other witnesses named in the petition, could not publicly comment on the investigation or its proceedings. On Saturday, the Judicial Council voted to remove the restrictions.

According to the Judicial Council’s rules of procedure, “a Gag Order may be issued by any Justice at any time a Justice believes the situation merits such an order. Once a Gag Order has been issued, the parties involved with the matter may not discuss the matter publicly, or with individuals not directly involved in the matter.”

In April, LaVoie filed charges against Mecklai alleging she violated ASUC Constitution bylaws during the recent ASUC elections. The charges include explicit disobedience of residence hall staff directives, distribution of campaign literature in the residence halls, solicitation in the dining commons and solicitation in the residence halls, according to the hearing brief.

LaVoie asked that the Judicial Council assign Mecklai 15 campaign censures, which would disqualify her from holding office as ASUC external affairs vice president.

Contact Jacob Brown at jbrown@dailycal.org

The post Gag order lifted on Mecklai case for alleged bylaw violations appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Tony Zhou/Staff

Change was the buzzword in this year’s ASUC election. Not only did CalSERVE successfully elect its first presidential candidate in four years, but traditionally satirical party SQUELCH! claimed its stake in the campus political scene as a viable third-party contender.

CalSERVE won a majority of the executive slate positions, ending Student Action’s dominant streak of the last few years. Student Action also lost its 11-seat majority within the senate, relinquishing one seat to CalSERVE and the other to SQUELCH!. Notably, the Cooperative Movement party lost its single senatorial seat for the first time in four years.

“I thought that in this election year, more than others, there was the most number of curveballs,” said SQUELCH! party chair and former columnist for The Daily Californian Noah Ickowitz. “It’s the craziest election in the last four years.”

The emergence of SQUELCH! as a serious party is perhaps the largest “curveball” of this election season; its decision to run a nonsatirical slate made it a “driving force” in the campus political arena, according to CalSERVE Communications Coordinator Matthew Enger.

Student Action Party Signatory Joey Lam also emphasized SQUELCH!’s new presence and effect on the election.

“It’s definitely disappointing that we couldn’t repeat the success that we’ve had in previous years,” Lam said. “SQUELCH! having such a strong presence and serious slate definitely had an impact on us this year.”

According to Lam, some of SQUELCH!’s candidates and some from Student Action had mutual friends, which might have split votes during the election.

“I would say that Student Action wasn’t used to be challenged, especially from two strong parties,” Enger said. ”SQUELCH! running a serious slate could seriously encroach on the communities that Student Action usually represents.” He noted that presidential candidates Jason Bellet of SQUELCH! and Rafi Lurie of Student Action were drawing on many of the same communities.

SQUELCH!’s success this year — electing two of its seven senatorial candidates and having its presidential candidate come in second — may not be short-lived, either. Ickowitz said that SQUELCH! intends to continue running as a serious third party, pointing to Bellet’s success as indicative of its ability to elect a candidate to an executive seat.

Parties also had to deal with new spending caps, which meant in some cases redesigning their campaigns. CalSERVE redesigned its spending budget to reduce costs and maximize visibility, Enger said, declining to give specifics on the exact changes.

CalSERVE Elections Coordinator Anais LaVoie attributed CalSERVE’s success to the broadening of its coalition by slating a larger number of candidates from a variety of communities. Along with apportioning funds to amplify its online presence, CalSERVE began running workshops to train candidates in campaigning, recruiting volunteers and maximizing social-media presence, Enger said.

In comparison, Lam said that Student Action’s campaign did not differ dramatically from that of last year. Similar to CalSERVE, Student Action ran a retreat for its candidates to train them as potential senators. Lam said that Student Action aimed to spend its budget as transparently as possible, noting no specific changes from previous years.

LaVoie, however, said she felt that Student Action’s slate was not as strong as in past years.

“When it came down to it, they were complacent, having swept two years in a row,” LaVoie said. “I don’t think they were very ambitious about picking their candidates.”

While Student Action did run a smaller senatorial slate than it did last year, Lam said he believed this year’s slate was just as qualified as any other.

“We slated every single one of our candidates because we always have great belief in them and think they’re going to make great changes,” Lam said. “We pick our students to represent as wide of a community as possible. We did the same this year.”

All party leaders look forward to the next year with high hopes. In particular, Ickowitz said he hopes that the changed makeup of the senate, in which no party has a majority, will force collaboration among senators.

“When parties have to learn to cooperate with each other, it does more than create an atmosphere of collaboration,” Ickowitz said. “The larger diversity in the senate creates an atmosphere of collaboration in the wider Berkeley campus.”

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

The post Campaign tactics changes may have affected election outcome appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Student Action/Courtesy

The ASUC attorney general has filed two petitions alleging bylaw violations against Student Action’s executive slate candidates and CalSERVE senate candidate Taylor Fugere for sending unsolicited emails during the campaign.

According to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, the candidates violated Section 12.5 of the election bylaws, which prohibits candidates from sending unsolicited emails.

In order to prevent harassment, the ASUC bylaws require candidates to have a pre-exisiting relationship with the recipient before sending campaign materials.

For a candidate to be disqualified, he or she would need to receive five censures, according to Tran. Each violation of Section 12.5, if found to be true, would result in one censure.

Tran said that he had received several complaints and, after conducting an investigation, concluded that the complaints had merited filing charges before the Judicial Council.

“Moving forward, my office, the Elections Council and the Election Finance Committee continue to evaluate all election-related documentation and complaints to determine if any candidates were in violation of the Election bylaws,” Tran said in an email.

The petition form filed against the Student Action executive slate refers to an incident reported by a student named Jason Yang. In an email sent from Yang to Tran enclosed in the petition, Yang alleges that he received unsolicited spam emails from a staff member of the campaign of Student Action’s candidate for academic affairs vice president, Ryan Kang.

According to Student Action party chair Joey Lam, the email was mistakenly sent due to a miscommunication.

“Our executive slate met a number of people with similar names, and Yang’s contact information was therefore unfortunately misattributed with these people,” Lam said. “We have reached out to Yang and have personally apologized to him for the inconvenience caused by the email.”

The petition against Fugere was filed after receiving a similar complaint from Dara Adib, a staff member of the Open Computing Facility, a student volunteer organization dedicated to free computing.

In the email to Tran, Adib says that the student organization’s email listserv received unsolicited campaign emails.

Although Fugere did acknowledge sending the emails as a mistake, she said she believes she qualifies for an exemption, as expressed in an email addressed to Tran enclosed in the petition. While attempting to contact Fugere’s personal contacts, a volunteer working on behalf of Fugere allegedly accidentally selected the wrong list, said Fugere in the email.

“The email was sent on behalf of my campaign as a mistake, however the sender of the email did in fact have a previous relationship with the contacts that were emailed,” Fugere said in an email to Tran enclosed in the petition.

The Judicial Council will meet at a time yet to be determined to consider whether to accept the charge sheets.

Andrea Guzman covers academics and administration. Contact her at aguzman@dailycal.org and on Twitter @guzmanandrea5.

The post ASUC attorney general files petitions alleging bylaw violations appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Historically, CalSERVE and Student Action have gathered evidence of each other’s alleged campaign violations and mutually agreed to not file charges against one another out of fear of mutually assured disqualification. This year, however, party officials have no plans for settling their differences in the case that allegations of violations arise.

“My office is pleased that they have decided to renounce the practice of illegally canceling each other’s charges,” ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran said in an email. “My office views that practice as an unethical subversion of both the spirit and letter of Title IV: Election By-Laws, which are designed to guarantee free and fair elections.”

CalSERVE elections chair Anais LaVoie said that CalSERVE has informed its candidates that in the event that they intentionally violate ASUC bylaws, they will be on their own in defending themselves. She said she believes this action will make candidates more accountable to the bylaws.

“I’m personally very against trading charges,” LaVoie said. “I don’t think it’s ethical for us to sit down and say, ‘We both cheated — let’s not report it.’”

Joey Lam, Student Action party chair, said that while Student Action did not necessarily plan to continue the practice of trading charges, he could not speak to what his party might do were charges of violations to arise.

“As of right now, with no campaign violations in my eyes … there is no reason to pursue what has happened in the past,” he said. “As party chair, I have no intention of trying to get something out of a violation.”

Previous elections have been fraught with allegations that candidates were breaking the rules. Following the 2010 ASUC elections, then-president-elect Noah Stern faced potential disqualification when the Judicial Council issued him three censures — two shy of the five required to disqualify a candidate — for violations including sending mass emails and voting on behalf of another student.

Last year, campaign finance documents suggested that candidates may have exceeded spending limits dictated by the ASUC bylaws.

“I think that in the past, people have gotten away with cheating,” LaVoie said. “Either CalSERVE was too scared or too nontransparent, and now that’s not happening.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon and Mia Shaw at newdesk@dailycal.org..

The post CalSERVE, Student Action to cease ‘charge-trading’ practice for election violations appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill, SB 130, states that policies implemented by campus bodies such as the Center for Student Conduct and the Title IX compliance officer strip sexual assault victims’ rights in the reporting process. The bill was passed with 12 votes in support, five against and one abstention. Two senators were absent from the vote.

SB 130 was authored by Aryle Butler and CalSERVE elections coordinator Anais LaVoie, along with CalSERVE Senators Klein Lieu, Megan Majd, and DeeJay Pepito. Pepito is running for ASUC president in the upcoming elections.

Two sexual assault victims spoke at the meeting about experiences with ineffective university policies in dealing with cases of assault.

Butler, who said she was a victim of sexual assault, spoke about inadequate campus responses to complaints of sexual harassment made by victims who have chosen to remain anonymous.

 Present at the meeting was Title IX officer Denise Oldham with the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination and student conduct specialist Erin Niebylski in the Center for Student Conduct. Both offices are specifically named in the bill as campus entities with ineffective policies.

“Our concern is that misinformation about how these cases are handled might deter students from coming forward with complaints or, at the very least, cause confusion about how these cases are handled,” Oldham said in an email after the meeting.

Lieu rebuffed implications that there were mistakes in the bill and said that the authors of the bill had it reviewed by the ASUC lawyer for any inaccuracies.

“Literally, there are over 10 documents you have to go (through) to understand sexual assault on this campus,” Lieu said at the meeting. “I think that’s egregious. I hope with this bill we can start streamlining this and start having (the policies) make sense for students.”

The bill takes issue with a number of specific UC Berkeley policies, including the campus definition of sexual assault, which the bill claims requires victims to prove they were not consenting rather than providing affirmative proof of consent.

Additionally, the bill states that there are more resources and knowledge available for those accused of assault than for victims, as is evident on the website for the Center for Student Conduct, which “provides a flowchart for the accused to understand disciplinary processes, but does not provide information allowing survivors to understand what happens when a report is made or follow-up on their reports once submitted,” according to the bill.

More seriously, the bill claims that if the Center for Student Conduct determines there is not sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation of an assault accusation, there is no recourse or appeals process for a victim to appeal this decision.

Student Action Senator Rosemary Hua was one of several senators concerned about the language of the bill, particularly the clause stating that the ASUC holds “no confidence in the University’s current sexual assault policies and disciplinary procedures.”

“We should tell them what they’re doing wrong, but there is a fine balance — we also need to work with them,” Hua said during the meeting. Hua announced at the meeting that she herself has been a victim of sexual assault.

In a later email, Hua said senators should sit down with campus officials and start amending policies instead of condemning them. She added that she believed the bill should be sent back to committee to rework its language.

Supporters maintained that the bill was not an attack on campus bodies but instead a way to bring the ASUC into the discussion of assault on campus.

Rafi Lurie, a Student Action senator and a candidate for ASUC president in this spring’s election, said he felt that the bill should have been tabled for a week to address Hua’s concerns.

“I feel that because, as a survivor, she feels that way, out of respect to her and people on campus who feel like her, it would have been better to rework the language and then pass it so that all parties that the bill aims to address would feel comfortable with it,” Lurie said in an email.

Other Student Action senators echoed the concerns of Lurie and Hua, including Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who said in an email that this was not a CalSERVE against Student Action issue.

“The prime reason I voted against the bill was that this bill was not clearly vetted,” Deo said. “The student advocate wasn’t even consulted about the bill, and it creates a new wing in her office. She also stated that there was miscommunication on both sides.”

CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack spoke passionately in favor of the bill during the meeting, saying that it was the ASUC’s job to protect students.

“Though the ASUC’s legal counsel confirmed that the bill accurately reflects university policies, several senators disregarded this advice and supported the notion that there was a ‘misunderstanding,’ in spite of the fact that nobody who criticized the bill could identify or articulate the alleged misunderstanding,” Pack said in an email.

Student Action Senators Chen-Chen Huo, Lurie, Hua, Deo and Ryan Kang voted against the bill. Student Action Senator Nils Gilberston abstained, and Student Action Senators Emily Chen and Tom Seung Kyun Lee were absent from the vote. All other senators voted in support.

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate votes no confidence in campus’s handling of sexual assault appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Dean Ignacio /File

As the rain poured on an empty campus Monday morning, UC Berkeley senior Anais LaVoie was setting up on Sproul Plaza at 5:30 a.m. to prepare for the first day of ASUC election campaigning.

Her goal: to convince as many students as possible to pledge to vote for CalSERVE.

LaVoie, a CalSERVE elections coordinator, is one of the numerous campaign members this year working countless hours behind the scenes to garner votes for ASUC candidates.

Campaign managers and committee members are faced with numerous arduous tasks leading up to elections, ranging from passing out fliers and managing staff to preparing breakfast for candidates.

As party chairs for Student Action, UC Berkeley seniors Sukhpreet Sembhi and Joey Lam help manage the party’s candidates’ campaigns. Sembhi and Lam describe their positions as full-time jobs with no vacation time.

During the days leading up to the election, both are awake at 6 a.m. to prepare for the day’s campaigning, and they remain on Sproul until 5 p.m.

“It is great to be around highly motivated individuals that are dedicated to speaking for students’ voice and issues,” Sembhi said.

Similarly, LaVoie said she works an average of 20 hours a week for CalSERVE, working longer hours in the weeks leading up to the election. A typical campaign day for LaVoie begins at 5:30 a.m. on Sproul Plaza, where she sets up the tent and headquarters for CalSERVE. At 6:45 a.m., candidates begin to arrive, and she and other members give pep talks and motivation.

She describes herself as a “wellness coach.”

LaVoie continues working until 11 p.m., when she and other campaign members come together for two hours to complete school work before starting the process again the next day.

“What keeps me going is the feeling that I get in tabulations after the results come in,” LaVoie said.

In the days leading up to the election, Katharine Caputo, a UC Berkeley junior and campaign manager for SQUELCH! presidential candidate Jason Bellet, said she will be working 40 hours a week for the campaign.

Although committed to the campaign, Caputo says she would be unwilling to put in the effort for anyone other than Bellet.

“I’m really doing this for Jason,” Caputo said. “He would be an amazing leader that is dedicated to the community.”

While campaign managers are committed to their candidate’s slate, the workload may prove to be overwhelming for others.

 UC Berkeley senior Ethan Mark served as a campaign manager for former Student Action senator Michael Bloch three years ago. Initially eager to be part of the campaign, he soon realized the extensive workload that came with the job.

“At first, it was just a couple hours a week, and it was a pretty fun job just introducing friends,” Mark said. “However, it became exponentially difficult. I had to wake up at 7 a.m. to flier and was asked to pull an all-nighter. It was a lot of work and much more difficult than I expected.”

To UC Berkeley junior Devonte Jackson, however, the campaign efforts prove rewarding.

Jackson serves as the campaign manager for CalSERVE’s academic affairs vice president candidate, Valerie Jameson. His tasks range from managing a team of 20 to helping prepare breakfast at 6 a.m. for the executive candidates.

“This is a great experience in communication and organization, and it gives you the tools and connections to be a part of something bigger,” Jackson said.

Andrea Guzman covers academics and administration. Contact her at aguzman@dailycal.org and on Twitter @guzmanandrea5.

The post ASUC campaign managers work long hours, hope for victory appeared first on The Daily Californian.

CalSERVE/Courtesy

CalSERVE announced one of its largest ASUC Senate slates in recent history, with 16 candidates vying for 20 senate seats.

The party has traditionally represented underrepresented groups, including the Chicano and LGBTQ communities.

Recently, the party has begun to represent other groups, such as transfer and re-entry students and student parents. The party is also looking to emphasize environmental and women’s issues.

“The progressive movement at Cal is much broader than what CalSERVE traditionally represents — we’d like to represent more of that movement,” said CalSERVE Elections Coordinator Anais LaVoie. “We are the only progressive movement on this campus.”

According to CalSERVE chair and Party Signatory Salih Muhammed, the party is running more senators to represent an even wider selection of communities.

“This election is not a matter of votes … it’s a choice for a new and fresh and alternative vision that includes participatory democracy where every student is represented,” Muhammed said.

This year’s candidates are Beatriz Barron, Brett Bruhanski, Briana Mullen, Caitlin Quinn, Destiny Iwuoma, Doug Taylor, Jenny Lu, Justin Kong, Laura Li, Monica Ruiz, Sean Tan, Sevly Snguon, Stefan Elgstrand, Taylor Fugere, Wendy Pacheco and Vy Hoang.

LaVoie said the nominees were chosen to represent CalSERVE because they share the party’s broader values of creating a diverse campus, promoting a tuition-free university and providing more resources for victims of hate crimes and sexual assault.

“We only pick candidates that all of our communities say ‘yes, they can run,’” LaVoie said. “(But) we don’t all have to agree on every issue. There is diversity.”

Bruhanski said he chose to run for senate with CalSERVE because of its history of supporting less visible communities, particularly transfer students.

“As a transfer student from Long Beach City College, coming to Cal was a very marginalizing experience,” Bruhanski said in an email. “Our school could do so much more to bolster the needs of its transfer, re-entry, student parent, and student veteran populations.”

The party’s candidates’ platforms range from increasing mental health awareness to initiating a bicycle-lending program.

One of Bruhanski’s biggest platforms is raising awareness of student-worker rights by launching a “know your rights” campaign.

“Having students that do not know when they are entitled to a break, how long that break is allowed to be, or how to file a grievance is a serious ethical problem that needs to be addressed,” Bruhanski said.

In addition to having a wide variety of platforms, the party’s candidates represent a large sample of the student body, with nominees ranging in age from 19 to 32.

“I am a unique Senate candidate, as I believe that I am the only student that identifies as a Re-Entry Transfer, in their 30’s, married, and a commuter,” Taylor, one of CalSERVE’s nominees, said in an email. “Each of these attributes makes me a rare candidate; in combination, it makes me something of a unicorn.”

CalSERVE ran 11 senate candidates last election season and secured six seats. The party has not held a senate majority since the late 1980s.

“Its important to remember that CalSERVE doesn’t see elections as a primary goal,” LaVoie said. “First and foremost, we want to make sure that our values are represented.”

ASUC elections will be held in early April.

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post CalSERVE announces candidates for ASUC Senate appeared first on The Daily Californian.