Plan B Forum

The Associated Students of University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted Tuesday to remove all flags, including American flags, from an inclusive space on campus because of their offensive nature.

The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being “symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.”

"[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracY." Tweet This

“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads.

The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent “American exceptionalism and superiority,” as well as oppression.

“[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the bill continues, arguing that “symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.”

The anti-flag hanging bill adds that free speech, such as flags in inclusive spaces, can be interpreted as hate speech.

“[F]reedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible[,] can be interpreted as hate speech,” the bill reads.

“Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.”

“Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.”

“Let it be further be resolved that if a decorative item is in the Associate student lobby space and issues arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.”

The flag banning legislation passed with six yea votes, four nay, and two abstentions.

The legislation resolved that any decoration that a student finds offensive will be removed from the Associate Student main lobby if the request is made.

ASUCI is the undergraduate governing body of UC-Irvine. According to its website, it's student-led by those who are elected into their positions.

Campus Reform has contacted ASUCI and the UC system for comment

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Where's the Ohio National Guard when they're really needed?

rubato wrote:They're college students. And they are struggling with questions of identity and belonging. Significant questions. Only an asshole would say they should be shot dead for that. Shame on you.

yrs,
rubato

You really are as thick as clotted cream, that's been left out by some clot, and now the clots are so clotted, you couldn't unclot them with an electric de-clotter,

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

rubato wrote:They're college students. And they are struggling with questions of identity and belonging. Significant questions. Only an asshole would say they should be shot dead for that. Shame on you.

yrs,
rubato

Seriously? You are sometimes quite dense

Gob wrote:

The Associated Students of University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted Tuesday to remove all flags, including American flags, from an inclusive space on campus because of their offensive nature.

The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being “symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.”

"[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracY." Tweet This

“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads.

The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent “American exceptionalism and superiority,” as well as oppression.

“[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the bill continues, arguing that “symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.”

The anti-flag hanging bill adds that free speech, such as flags in inclusive spaces, can be interpreted as hate speech.

“[F]reedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible[,] can be interpreted as hate speech,” the bill reads.

“Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.”

“Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.”

“Let it be further be resolved that if a decorative item is in the Associate student lobby space and issues arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.”

The flag banning legislation passed with six yea votes, four nay, and two abstentions.

The legislation resolved that any decoration that a student finds offensive will be removed from the Associate Student main lobby if the request is made.

ASUCI is the undergraduate governing body of UC-Irvine. According to its website, it's student-led by those who are elected into their positions.

Campus Reform has contacted ASUCI and the UC system for comment

“Given that you are a woman and very active in the female community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

“Given that you are black and very active in the black community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

“Given that you are gay and very active in the gay community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

It seems obvious that any of these questions would be repudiated on almost any college campus, or in any polite company. Yet somehow, a few UCLA students thought the following was an appropriate question for a nominee for the student Judicial Board: “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

Ultimately, Rachel Beyda, a sophomore, was confirmed to the role. But the line of questioning has sparked a conversation about anti-Semitism at UCLA and on college campuses more broadly. (The story's path—from the student-run Daily Bruin to Jewish outlets, then on to conservative blogs and finally, on Friday, The New York Times, is an interesting case study in how a story becomes a national headline.)
Related Story

Members were apparently concerned that Beyda, who is also a member of campus Hillel and a Jewish sorority, would be able to rule impartially on issues before the board. Of course, there are many possible identities that could be involved in issues before the board, but Judaism was particularly close to members' minds because Beyda's nomination came not long after a bruising campus debate about "BDS," or Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, a push to get universities to isolate Israel. UCLA's student government eventually approved a non-binding resolution calling on the university to divest from a list of companies it said was complicit in the occupation of the West Bank.

Students debated Beyda's nomination for some 40 minutes on February 10. Reading the minutes, one can track the students wrestling with the impropriety of the question, and at the end, Beyda was confirmed unanimously. She has declined to speak to media outlets, including The Atlantic, citing her role in student government. But following the meeting, a friend of Beyda's wrote to the Bruin, calling on members of the Judicial Board to apologize. Two days later, their apology appeared in the paper. UCLA's chancellor also condemned the tenor of the discussion, and the Times quoted campus Jewish leaders rattled by the conversation and worried about anti-Semitism on campus.