By Dorothy Kim
As a two-time Graduate Student Association Internal Vice
President, I think I can provide Thomas Soteros-McNamara with the
answers he could not find in his submission, “USAC,
GSA haven’t provided housing answers“ (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 9).
His assessment of the housing situation is filled with problems,
inconsistencies and gaps in information.
First of all, he implies that the GSA and Undergraduate Student
Association Council have the power to drag the unfinished
construction of De Neve Plaza out of its current mire. However, his
assumption reveals his obvious lack of understanding concerning how
on-campus housing functions.
Soteros-McNamara was a former member of the On-Campus Housing
Council, yet he fails to realize that Housing is a separate entity
from the university. Like Parking Services, Housing cannot use any
university or state funds to build or run operations. It must
independently sustain all of its own current and future
projects.
De Neve’s recent delays and problems lie not with any
perceived lack of advocacy on the part of the two student
governments. Rather, these delays have everything to do with the
legalities and problems that Housing faces in dealing with one of
its construction companies.
Though USAC and GSA represent student interests in all three
places, their presence is more firmly centered in the university
and Associated Students of UCLA. As a separate body, Housing may
obtain student input, although it’s not a requirement. As of
now, Housing has not committed to welcoming significant and
consistent student involvement in the decisions it makes.
In addition, ASUCLA has absolutely no power or direct influence
on what happens with both undergraduate and graduate student
housing. The only way ASUCLA wields influence occurs indirectly,
through the student fees that it funnels to the two student
governments (GSA and USAC).
More often than not, these two groups decide to lobby both the
Housing people on campus and the state to consider the problem of
adequate and affordable housing for their constituents. In response
to Soteros-McNamara’s suggestion that USAC use rebates to
encourage economically disadvantaged students to live in Westwood,
I ask, where does he think this large pot of money will come
from?
Undergraduates pay ASUCLA $24.03 a quarter. This money gets
funneled into the student governments. Exactly $72.09 per student
each year to offset expensive campus housing is not much of a
rebate.
Yes, they could try using the money that USAC receives from all
its students to refund only the economically disadvantaged, but how
are they going to decide who qualifies as such? Will only those
people with financial aid be eligible for the refund? What about
the people who work at one or several jobs but don’t receive
financial aid? When will a committee be organized to discuss the
answers to these pressing questions?
A more difficult problem is the legality of USAC looking at the
financial aid records of its constituents. Isn’t that
privileged information? Soteros-McNamara needs to realize that
USAC’s money cannot go to individual students but must be
used to benefit all groups.
In terms of graduate students, I think it is safe to say that
all of us would be considered economically disadvantaged. I am sure
that we would qualify under any type of rubric devised to give
rebates.
However, graduate students pay only $7 a quarter in student
fees. Most of this money goes directly back to graduate students,
to be spent in individual departments. The rest is concentrated on
running the central office out of Kerckhoff (yes, we pay for our
office space and it’s not cheap).
Admittedly, as Soteros-McNamara’s article underlined, it
would be nice if the university could “purchase more
apartments to rent to students” but again, that decision is
not up to the university; it falls under the aegis of Housing.
As for Soteros-McNamara’s concern that Evan Okamura and
Alain Dang as respective External Vice Presidents of the student
councils “do not seem to propose any other alternative to
solving the crisis than state-level lobbying,” my comment is
simply that that’s what they were elected to do. The job
descriptions of both USAC and GSA External Vice Presidents require
Okamura and Dang to work on student issues systemwide as well as
lobby the state legislature in Sacramento.
As a graduate student, I find Thomas Soteros-McNamara’s
article particularly reprehensible because he lumps together
undergraduate and graduate students and governments. For instance,
the headline of his submission states that both “USAC, GSA
haven’t provided housing answers” and the accompanying
subheadline points out that the “Problem will get worse
without intervention from the student councils.”
Soteros-McNamara’s submission centers on undergraduate
student housing and his negative feelings towards the USAC. His
inability to distinguish the two also renders his statement that
“USAC and the UCLA administration do not have a working
relationship” completely misleading, concerning GSA. In fact,
GSA does have a professional working relationship with the UCLA
administration, the ASUCLA administration and the executives at
Housing.
I suggest that the next time he plans to write a Viewpoint
submission, Soteros-McNamara should do some research and check his
facts. Or that the Daily Bruin editorial staff really read its
articles, research its facts and makes sure that titles and
subtitles fit the text.
In terms of graduate student housing issues, here are some of
the gaps and holes in Soteros-McNamara’s submission and I
expect these are the answers he has been looking for.
Does he realize that graduate students have no on-campus housing
available to them since being kicked out of Mira Hershey Hall four
years ago?
A new graduate student on-campus housing facility is supposed to
break ground this fall at the Weyburn/Veteran location. GSA has
been involved in the planning of this on-campus housing facility
and will continue to give as much input as possible in the
allocation and planning of the complex that will bring around 2,000
graduate students closer to campus.
Does Soteros-McNamara realize that Married Student Housing is
finally building the last of its apartment units down on Sawtelle
and National and will hopefully alleviate the large waiting list of
graduate students who are married and/or have children?
GSA has spent the last year making sure that access to the few
university housing options remains open to all graduate students.
To this end, GSA has attracted the notice of both Chancellor Albert
Carnesale and Housing to the Domestic Partnership Housing
Policy.
Even with these changes, the reality is that the majority of our
10,000 graduate and professional students are forced to look for
market rate housing because graduate students simply cannot afford
Westwood rent prices on their salaries and stipends.
The cost of housing is especially a problem for UCLA because the
university often cannot attract graduate students due to the high
cost of living in Los Angeles with low stipends. The available
on-campus housing doesn’t come with heavy subsidies because
Housing must earn profit to sustain itself and avoid going into the
red.
Finally, in regards to Tidal Wave II, Soteros-McNamara has not
read recent Census data.
In a state of close to 40 million people, with a huge increase
in the population of the school age generation, I think he should
realize that because we are a state university and not a private
school, Tidal Wave II is not something that can simply be
stopped.
The policy decision is not up to UCLA or any of the other
individual universities in the UC system. It is not even a
systemwide policy; it is a systemwide reality.
With an increase in students across the state, the UC system has
to expand to meet growing demand. What does Soteros-McNamara think
we should do with all these extra, qualified students whom he
thinks shouldn’t be allowed to come here?
Maybe he would find Jonathan Swift’s answer for the Irish
overpopulation problem a comparable solution. I suggest he go and
find a copy of “A Modest Proposal” and see whether that
idea fits his taste.