The council heard the case, Ickowitz-Freeman v. ASUC Senate & SB 160, at Anna Head Alumnae Hall Wednesday morning. Petitioners Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former Daily Cal columnist, and Joey Freeman, former external affairs vice president, allege that the bill’s passage was unconstitutional because it legislated investments, did not pass through the ASUC’s investment committee and did not obtain the two-thirds majority required to approve investment legislation.

CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack argued for the defense, saying that SB 160 makes no changes to the budget and therefore does not fall under the investment committee’s purview. He also said that SB 160 leaves the ASUC’s revenue sources  unaltered. If this is true, the bill’s passage would be constitutional.

On Friday, the Judicial Council approved a settlement agreement to the case that would remove language from the bill, making the passage constitutional. On Saturday, however, the Judicial Council backtracked on that decision, deciding instead that the settlement was invalid.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran agrees with the petitioners that the bill’s passage was unconstitutional and decided not to represent the ASUC Senate in this particular case despite the attorney general’s traditional role of doing so.

“The settlement would have produced a constitutional SB 160,” Tran said. “I determined personally that there are parts of SB 160, as is, that are unconstitutional because the ASUC intended that anything finance-related would require a two-thirds vote in order for the ASUC to divest.”

SB 160 was originally passed on April 18 by a vote of 11 in favor and nine against after 10 hours of debate that continued through the night and into the following day.

Pack — in place of Tran — argued for the constitutionality of the bill’s passage.

However, despite the procedural nature of the case, both sides felt their personal beliefs on divestment were being brought into the debate, raising questions about whether individual values will influence the justices.

“A significant part of the defense’s arguments were personal attacks on the plaintiffs rather than arguments against legal claims that the plaintiffs were making,” Ickowitz said. “Personally, I felt that they harped on one of the violations I was asserting but briefly addressed the others.”

Pack said, however, that this is not about Israel or Palestine but about upholding the integrity of decisions made by the ASUC.

“I hope that the Judicial Council upholds the legislative decision of the senate to support SB 160 rather than affirming arguments that aim to use judicial council to achieve a legislative goal,” he said.

The Judicial Council declined to comment on this story.

Click here for a video of Ickowitz’s statement.

Contact Matt Trejo at mtrejo@dailycal.org.

The post Judicial Council considers divestment bill’s constitutionality appeared first on The Daily Californian.

SB 160 divests ASUC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council originally issued the gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday evening, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. The gag order came after the ASUC rescinded its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against SB 160 that removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds.

“While the judicial procedures allow for a gag order to be placed any time, I believe that their reason was not sufficient to overstep the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” said Noah Ickowitz, a petitioner in the case, SQUELCH! party chair and a former Daily Cal columnist.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Associate Justice Scott Lara thanked all parties involved for their patience during the gag order and stated that currently, “the confusion about trial procedure and the judicial process between the parties has largely been cleared up.”

Members of the ASUC Judicial Council could not be reached for comment as of 4:30 p.m.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of a settlement between the petitioners and the bill’s author, Student Action Senator George Kadifa. The settlement would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. Petitioners alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote. Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the council’s authority.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on their validity. The trial for Ickowitz-Freeman v. ASUC Senate & SB 160 is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

UPDATE at 6:12 pm: The trial will be held at Anna Head Hall and is open to members of the public.

Staff writer Jeremy Gordon contributed to this report. 

Contact Shirin Ghaffary at newsdesk@dailycal.org

The post Gag order lifted on divestment settlement case appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Judicial Council backtracked on its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against controversial divestment bill SB 160 on Saturday.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of the settlement, which would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. They alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote.

The settlement removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds from companies associated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council’s latest decision means the parts of the bill that were removed will be restored.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on the validity of the charges. The trial is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Judicial Council Chief Justice Suneeta Israni said the settlement was reversed because the negotiators did not have the authority to modify a previously passed bill. According to the email, the original decision to accept the settlement was based on the impression that 11 senators officially voted to pass the post-settlement version of the bill.  In reality, that figure came only from a straw poll taken by ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, the chief negotiator in the settlement, to gauge support for reaching the settlement.

The Judicial Council issued a gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. Last Monday, the Council also issued a gag order on the case surrounding alleged election law violations by External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai. According to a high-ranking official within the ASUC, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of disciplinary action, gag orders have traditionally only been used to protect witnesses and defendants from possibly injurious information before a decision has been made.

However, the Judicial Council’s Rules of Procedure do not clarify or limit the circumstances under which the Council can issue such an order.

Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the Council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the Council’s authority.

In an email sent to Israni before the gag order took effect, SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz expressed his displeasure with the Judicial Council’s handling of the case as well as the decision to rescind the settlement.

“I need to express my deep sadness in both your procedure and transparency,” Ickowitz told Israni in the email. “The whirlwind of having so many verdicts in the span of 24 hours has taken a toll on me and I believe has tarnished my vision of a system I used to appreciate.”

Neither Israni nor Associate Justice Stephanie Chamberlain could be reached for comment for this story.

Like with the case surrounding the health and wellness referendum, the Judicial Council planned to decide the SB 160 case by summary judgement, in which the council can make a decision without the participation of involved parties and without hearing oral argument. According to the Rules of Procedure, the council may issue a summary judgement “in the extreme event the Council does not believe a hearing will provide any substance to the controversy brought to its attention.”

The council eventually reversed its intention to issue a summary judgement, reverting to the original plan to hold a trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council rescinds decision on divestment bill settlement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The settlement calls for the removal of clauses in SB 160 that dealt with ASUC investments and appropriations. It effectively thwarts the ASUC’s effort to divest its own funds from companies involved in Israel’s alleged “human rights abuses” against Palestinians, leaving a purely symbolic piece of legislation that requests similar divestment by the UC Regents.

The charges that brought about the settlement claimed that the bill was not approved by the proper committees and should have been passed by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority.

“I think SB 160 has lost a lot of weight through this settlement,” said Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian. “The bill that passed is now a completely different bill once these clauses are stricken. It loses almost all its authority. I hope the public understands that this is no longer ASUC divestment.”

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said in a public statement that the passage of SB 160 would in no way affect the investment policies of the university.

The settlement, which is pending approval by the Judicial Council, was reached between Attorney General Hinh Tran — representing the ASUC — and Ickowitz and former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. Tran, who was tasked with defending the ASUC in the matter, conceded the legitimacy of the constitutionally grounded charges against SB 160 but added that in his opinion, the charges did not have enough merit to warrant nullifying the bill.

“It’s a sign on cooperation and compromise on a very difficult bill,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored the bill, disagreed that the settlement watered down the bill in any way, emphasizing that the purpose of the bill has been largely symbolic since its inception.

“The settlement changes very, very little about the bill,” Kadifa said. “A part of the reason (we were willing to compromise) was that the ASUC wasn’t invested in any of these companies. That wasn’t the main focus. All language calling for the UC Regents to divest is still in the bill.”

While the settlement represented a compromise between the parties involved, it was not necessarily a consensus of the affected communities.

Despite being on the opposite side of the divestment debate, Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati agreed that the settlement did not really change the essence of the original bill.

“Although this is definitely a change in the right direction, these changes are largely inconsequential, as the bill still contains the same sentiments that ignore much of the Israeli narrative,” she said.

Both Tran and Ickowitz said they believe that the settlement reflects an important ability to compromise on an issue that has been divisive. They echoed a sentiment similar to that of ASUC President Connor Landgraf when he announced that he would not veto the bill in an effort to expedite the campus’s healing process.

“Not going through a hearing definitely helps campus climate,” Ickowitz said. “We really don’t need a trial right now, and the settlement avoided a big public spectacle. I’m sure there are people in both communities left unsatisfied, but in this case, I’m sure it was the right decision.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Settlement of charges against divestment bill SB 160 to remove major clauses appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman and former SQUELCH! senator Noah Ickowitz, a former columnist for The Daily Californian, have jointly filed charges alleging that the ASUC Senate violated the ASUC Constitution in its passage of SB 160.

Ickowitz and Freeman filed the petition early Friday afternoon, and it is currently pending review. The charges, if accepted, would lead to a trial addressing the alleged violations of SB 160.

“I strongly believe the ASUC should follow the correct procedures in passing these bills,” Ickowitz said. “Because SB 160 has such an intense conversation around it, to not follow the procedures does a disservice to the campus.”

The root of the charges lies with the language of the bill, which Ickowitz said “presupposes that the bill has the authority to restrict spending and funding without having gone through appropriate channels.”

The charges begin with the fact that the bill was not passed with a two-thirds senate majority, which the ASUC Constitution states is required for deliberations regarding ASUC financial appropriations or revenue reductions.

They also argue that the bill “restricted” the ASUC’s investment practices, a responsibility that lies with the Investment Committee and requires consent from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee. The bill, with its “commanding” language, oversteps these bodies and “overextends the powers of the ASUC Senate without due process,” Ickowitz said.

In the charges, Ickowitz and Freeman suggest that SB 160 be sent back to the senate for a two-thirds vote to either follow or suspend the bylaws requiring review by these committees.

Before filing, Ickowitz and Freeman notified Student Action Senator George Kadifa and independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, author and sponsor of SB 160, respectively, of their intent to petition the bill.

“I’m disappointed that the students who brought the charges didn’t bring these up earlier,” Kadifa said. “I’m a little curious, now that the bill has passed, why they’re bringing this up now. If the petition is accepted, we would rewrite the bill to ensure there are no violations.”

The petition has joined other suits that the ASUC Judicial Council must review in the coming weeks, including charges against Safeena Mecklai, a Student Action senator and external affairs vice president-elect.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran said Ickowitz and Freeman raised some “interesting points,” noting that both of them have a “strong understanding of ASUC policies.” Tran said that should the petition be accepted and litigation begin, a trial would hopefully be scheduled before the end of the semester — if not, it might be held during the summer session.

Ickowitz said he felt that there was a “high likelihood the charges will be accepted,” emphasizing that the arguments were made on legal rather than ideological grounds. However, he did note that ideology was part of the impetus for filing.

Ickowitz pointed to the charges filed by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order to place the health and wellness referendum on the ballot as an example of people filing “that which is relevant to them.”

Notably, the senators did not charge the Class Pass referendum, even though it allegedly violated the same bylaws as the health and wellness referendum.

“When people sue over legislation, it’s not at all out of the ordinary that legislation is relevant to them,” Ickowitz said. “It’s also coupled with relevance to me and my community.”

View the petition evidence below:

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the petition as a charge sheet.

The post Charges allege senate violated constitution in passing divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.

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.

“Most Likely to be President” was the superlative awarded to 7-year-old Jason Bellet when he launched his political career.

Since then, Bellet, the SQUELCH! candidate for ASUC president, has run three successful campaigns, winning student body president of his middle school and vice president of Beverly Hills High School.

Described by friends as “superman,” a  “klutz” and “somewhere between a Jewish mother and president of the United States,” Bellet has found ways to inject creativity and humor into his serious bid for the ASUC presidency.

“You don’t have to be boring to be serious,” said Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist.

Running with the historically satirical SQUELCH! party, Bellet has focused his campaign on leveraging his position as a third-party candidate to bridge community and party divides.

“I have an opportunity to help translate SQUELCH!’s history of satirical criticism into action,” Bellet said.

Bellet has said that as a third-party candidate, he wants to move past the divisiveness of the current ASUC to challenge the current two-party system — a position complicated by his initial efforts to be slated with Student Action.

“Last semester, he approached us and asked if we’d be willing to consider him,” said Student Action party chair Joey Lam. “He wanted to be independent at first and not associated with SQUELCH! — that changed. He did pursue the slating with Student Action and said that he believed in a lot of what Student Action believed in.”

Bellet, however, maintains that SQUELCH!’s guiding principles aligned more closely with his own ideology.

“I’ve never regretted my decision to run with SQUELCH!,” Bellet said.

His proposals include establishing a Council of Presidents to foster connections between communities, streamlining the ASUC’s grant-allocation process and building a strong relationship between the ASUC and incoming chancellor Nicholas Dirks.

In developing his platforms, Bellet reached out to many different communities on campus, attending the town halls of the Queer community and Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian communities.

“Before the semester started, I hosted a Shit-On-My-Platforms party,” Bellet said. “I got a lot of constructive feedback and worked hard until everyone was satisfied.”

Still, current ASUC President Connor Landgraf, who ran with Student Action, criticized Bellet’s platforms, citing a lack of specificity and practicality of his plans.

“They are worthy goals and list changes people really want to see, but they lack details of any specific, tangible changes that Jason will make to address the issues he’s raised,” Landgraf said, adding that bringing communities together was probably a more appropriate role for the executive vice president.

Eileen Fracchia, Bellet’s mother, said she also had concerns about whether Bellet would be too busy taking on the responsibilities of ASUC president as well as graduating from the Haas School of Business this year. Bellet, however, has a strategy in mind.

“This isn’t like Accounting 102B — this is managing a multimillion-dollar operation,” he said. “I’d be happy with all C’s if I kick ass as president.

Friends express their confidence in Bellet’s leadership abilities, explaining that while Bellet is practical and seriously committed to his work, he also has a good sense of perspective that allows him to not take himself too seriously.

This quality seems to allow Bellet to land on his feet when he is confronted with unfortunate situations.

Before a rehearsal of ASUC’s Perspectives Showcase, Bellet treated his assistant director, Lauren Schrimmer, to an ice cream sandwich. Having been distracted by a homeless man’s puppy on Telegraph Avenue, Bellet dropped his own sandwich.

“He thought it was hilarious,” Schrimmer said. “He actually directed the whole rehearsal covered in chocolate ice cream.”

Finding himself one-on-one in the office of the director of the TV show “Glee” for an audition, Bellet forgot all the words to his prepared song but proceeded anyway, making up the words as he went along and earning himself a callback.

According to longtime best friend Alex Banayan, Bellet once fell off his chair after mistaking a raisin for a spider.

Bellet’s positive attitude has carried him through the campaign relatively unscathed, and while seated for an interview, he is fresh-faced, sitting up straight and speaking eloquently about his aspirations.

While Bellet expressed his powerful desire to win the election, he also believes that important progress has been made already through the campus’ serious consideration of a third-party candidate and is proud of what he and SQUELCH! have accomplished so far.

Sitting back with his characteristic infectious grin, Bellet concludes, “It’s been quite the year — at this point, there is no win or lose for me.”

Contact Natasha Osborne at nosborne@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this story stated that Connor Landgraf said Jason Bellet’s platforms were more appropriate for an external affairs vice president. In fact, he stated they were more appropriate for an executive vice president.

The print version of this story incorrectly switched Jason Bellet and DeeJay Pepito’s platforms. In fact, Bellet’s platforms are improving student access to administrators and campus resources; streamlining grant allocation to improve funding for student groups; and bringing together various campus communities.

The post SQUELCH! presidential candidate Jason Bellet emphasizes bridging party divides appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The state of the 10 UC campuses without Prop. 30 would have been grim. Tuition would have likely increased by an estimated 20 percent, sending shock waves through the UC system. $375 million would be cut over the next two fiscal years. Faculty would be laid off. Classes would be slashed. Inevitably, the UC system would fall to all-time lows in world rankings, and the value of a UC Berkeley degree would sink.

But let it not be forgotten — this could still happen tomorrow.

As a central body on campus, the ASUC has power in numbers, funding and an organizational structure to make sure the reality of a world without Prop. 30 doesn’t come to be even after its passing. The proposition’s success allowed the university to avoid automatic triggers of financial destruction, but now that the proposition has passed, there’s no safeguard to prevent these same cuts and tuition hikes two or three semesters from now.

As of this moment, the ASUC has done exactly what state legislators wanted. Sacramento desired that the tax pass to secure its budget, and the ASUC helped it pass. So how do we explain to those governing the Golden State that although we listened this time, they can’t just use education as a pawn to pass a tax? How do we urge them to cut from prisons and not from the university?

The external affairs vice president’s office should go out on Sproul now in order to generate an effective lobby for education. It should make sure that every time lawmakers want to pass a tax via ballot measure, they do not leverage the state’s higher education.

Lobbying takes time and organization, and, frankly, the miniscule number of people trying to re-establish Occupy Cal will not a make the difference on this front. Some of those involved in the movement may make noise by breaking into buildings and perching on Wheeler Hall, but the Occupy Cal movement has lost political credibility and clout with the average student.

The ASUC must assume the baton. Last spring, our student government had a turnout rate close to that of Americans in the 2012 general election. No other organization on campus rivals the ASUC as a representative body of UC Berkeley students.

This should be the mission of External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi for the rest of the year. It’s been a while since the mainstream Berkeley community felt empowered in the fight for education — dare I say it, since 2009. Rallying the troops in an election year is easy, but it tends to put us in a defensive position. This is the time to become proactive so that next time, a Prop. 30 scenario doesn’t even exist in the first place. We need a concert like Rock the Vote not just before an election, but also before regents’ meetings. Our state must realize that investing in education is investing in the economy of California.

The ASUC Senate must join in as well. Endorsing or opposing a proposition through a senate bill is easy but frankly does not do much. Senators should pass bills on budget cuts, and they should lament the fact that Sacramento leveraged education to pass Prop. 30. However, even that piece of paper is close to meaningless and barely constitutes progress. Similarly, any letter that the executives send to Sacramento will do little more than give material for a politician to make a paper airplane.

The senators have much more power through their leadership roles in various communities than they do through any external legislation via the senate. Senators will spend around 30 minutes during meetings to discuss whether or not they should pass a bill that maybe 50 people will read. But senators should really be using this time to hold private conversations and meetings to garner true support for higher education, as well as travel to Sacramento in order to bring students together in this fight. This is as good a time as any to fund some fliers.

The ASUC has enormous strength. This strength was seen in the success of the ASUC Vote Coalition, the achievement of Measure R, the opposition to Measure S and the passage of Prop. 30. But these campaigns had successful student support because of the people that the ASUC mobilized — not because of the legislation it passed.

The political position of the ASUC Senate impresses few. Thousands of students rallying on campus and in Sacramento impresses everyone. The ASUC needs to use its actual strengths in order to stave off budget cuts rather than use the faux strength of a student government’s reputation.

Contact Noah Ickowitz at nickowitz@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter: @noahickowitz.

The post Staring down the barrel of Proposition 30 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

If the senate passed a bill every time a community was negatively affected by racial insensitivity, it would never get to the root of the problem. The ASUC would become the tolerance police, and countless hours would be spent reviewing the actions of individual organizations, a process that could be subjective and laborious. This reactionary attitude must be replaced with a more long-term solution.

While the fraternity had no negative intention in putting up the figure — which it intended to be a hanging zombie — black students poured into the senate meeting last Wednesday night to express their outrage at what reminded them of a lynching. At the senate meeting, Black Student Union Co-Chair of External Affairs Marcel Jones said that “lynching was a symbol of terror” and that “any visual representation of this affects the very core, the very soul and the very being of black students on the campus.”

The entire Greek system should not be blamed for the ignorance of a single fraternity. Not only did this action offend students whose ancestors were plagued by lynching but also those who still face it today. UC Berkeley student Zelina Gaytan representing Casa Magdalena Mora — a Hispanic-oriented theme program — broke out in tears and said that she saw a lynching two years ago in Tijuana and that “lynching was not dead, and oppression wasn’t dead.” The pain of these students cannot simply be shrugged off.

An estimated 3 percent of our campus is black, and the problem of racial discrimination must be faced so that we can in good conscience tell prospective black students that UC Berkeley is safe for them.

Unfortunately, black students on campus regularly face discrimination. A student at the meeting described a time when students called her and a friend “black dirty ratchets” on the way to the Foothill Residence Hall. Yet another student mentioned an instance when she and her sister had alcohol thrown on them while they were walking in Berkeley. Without a black senator on the ASUC Senate, it is commendable that the body took such a stance against racial discrimination. Multiple senators in the Greek system — including TDX member Mihir Deo — put their loyalties aside and voted in favor of the bill.

Before the meeting, TDX President Hamed Hosseini issued a public response on the fraternity website apologizing for the fraternity’s actions and also acknowledged the concerns of campus communities. Though this apology is welcomed, Hosseini should have sent an executive to speak at the meeting or had his statement read instead of allowing the pledge who made the decoration to speak on his own. By not taking initiative, Hosseini offended the pledge, the Greek system and the black students at UC Berkeley. Presidents are the face of fraternities in times of trouble, and pushing the burden onto a pledge demeans Hosseini’s position as president.

TDX pledge Noel Duarte came to the senate meeting and publicly apologized for making the decoration. Duarte should be commended for taking responsibility for his actions. However, just as he explained in his apology, Duarte’s words will not quell the pain of black students. While the pain will not go away anytime soon, the blame on Duarte as an individual and TDX as a house should not be permanent. Duarte said that as a gay, Hispanic student, TDX had expressed acceptance of his identity. Just because TDX is accepting of its members does not mean it is immune to its transgressions. However, it does paint the picture of a well-intentioned fraternity that simply made an uneducated albeit hurtful mistake.

In order to combat future instances of racial intolerance, the bill recommends the creation of a “mandatory racial sensitivity curriculum” for campus Greek organizations. This addresses the broader issue at hand of discouraging racial discrimination rather than punishing it ex post facto. This curriculum should be mandatory not just for members of the Greek system but for all UC Berkeley students.

At the meeting, freshman Mikela Topey advised that a program similar to AlcoholEDU be prescribed for all incoming freshmen in order to teach tolerance and raise awareness of the hardships campus communities face. ASUC-sponsored dialogues like Bears Breaking Bread and educational programs could prevent another hanging zombie.

The ASUC has the power to make students think twice before they take actions that negatively affect other communities. Although the body should not strip student groups of their right to free speech, it can at least help them to understand the potential consequences of their actions.

Contact Noah Ickowitz at nickowitz@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter: @noahickowitz.

The post The hanging zombie appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The Class Pass grants unlimited ridership to Berkeley students for a per-semester fee, currently around $78, that also includes limited funding for Bear Transit shuttles and a mandatory return to financial aid. Our current contract with AC Transit will expire following the summer 2013 session, and an ASUC referendum in the spring is required to extend its life on our campus.

As AC Transit’s biggest collegiate customer, we can get a better deal. Landgraf and External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi met with the chief financial officer of AC Transit earlier this semester to engage in a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of AC Transit’s proposal. The fact that the CFO attended a meeting with ASUC representatives underscores the weight of our contract with AC Transit. In addition to meeting with the organization, Landgraf will be sending out a survey to students in order to gauge ridership statistics and to determine the value of the Class Pass. Landgraf and Abbasi’s initiative on this issue is promising.

Students who commute, have internships in the city or simply enjoy going down to Shattuck to sip a beer all find value in the Class Pass. Compared to the price of an unlimited bus pass for a standard AC Transit rider, this deal is comparatively decent. According to AC Transit spokesperson Clarence Johnson, there is “statistical proof that (the Class Pass) is a great benefit for students and that AC Transit is receiving below market value for UC student fares.” However, to weigh the value of our deal on the Class Pass against a standard 31-day pass is like comparing Costco to Andronico’s — bulk deals get consumers different and better prices.

The same Class Pass service is provided by the AC Transit to other schools in the Bay Area in the form of an EasyPass. The organization promotes this bulk deal by using a price matrix in which groups get cheaper EasyPass prices for different school sizes, although the matrix lumps schools with more than 10,000 students into the same price bracket. Herein lies the problem. The Peralta Community College District, AC Transit’s second largest collegiate customer, is less than half the size of UC Berkeley yet receives the same price per student for the pass.

At least three avenues exist to improve our contract with AC Transit. First, AC Transit can lower our per-student Class Pass price to match the volume of business we give it. This option would be more subjective, since the concept of a “good” price changes from person to person.

If AC Transit refuses to lower the price for the Class Pass, then Berkeley students should be given the choice to waive the fee like they can for UC SHIP insurance. As long as we still guarantee the purchase of at least 10,000 passes to meet the standardized price bracket AC Transit uses, there should be no problem in allowing students who don’t want the pass to waive the fee. The likelihood of having more than 20,000 students waive the fee would be highly improbable, since an estimated 33,000 students have already obtained the Class Pass, according to Johnson.

As a third option, AC Transit could improve and increase the number of bus lines in the Berkeley area due to the magnitude of our business. With overcrowded buses running during the day and infrequent buses running late at night, an increase in bus lines would be beneficial but probably the most expensive option for the organization.

AC Transit’s budget may be large, but we guarantee it more than $1 million a year. The organization says on its website that most of its operating revenue comes from sources other than bus fares. Since AC Transit applies for national and state grants to gain more funding, students indirectly provide the organization with more money than bus fares alone. For instance, we actually aid AC Transit in its application to the Federal Operating Assistance grant because it takes “population density and bus revenue miles operated” into consideration when awarding the grant. This makes the value of what we give AC Transit far greater than the annual student fee it charges us.

Ultimately, the renewal of the Class Pass will be decided upon by voters through an ASUC referendum, but Landgraf and the ASUC Senate must give students the best possible deal to vote on rather than just a “good” deal handed down through the years. AC Transit must think it’s at Stanford if it believes Berkeley students don’t understand what is going on with their student fees.

Contact Noah Ickowitz at nickowitz@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter: @noahickowitz.

The post The AC Transit bully appeared first on The Daily Californian.