In other news: Hell freezes over

The conservative case for CalSERVE

By Amaris White and James Fullmer
From the April 2007 Print Edition

            For two conservatives who have been deeply involved in campus politics since they arrived on campus two and a half years ago, writing an article recommending the entire CalSERVE executive slate is, to say the least, a tad unsettling.

            We conservatives have offered our support to Student Action for many years with the assumption that because they are politically moderate — or at least less liberal than the alternative — they would be better student leaders than crazy, far-left liberals. But we watched last year as the Patriot endorsed two Student Action candidates — one of whom was even rumored to be a Republican — and then saw them first sue their way into office and then try to get the student body to pay for their legal fees. We would be very wrong to make this same mistake again.

While CalSERVE’s executive candidates may support political issues that we adamantly oppose — the repeal of Proposition 209, further investment in Gender Equity resources, the “No on 85” campaign — where it counts, they are our best choice.

 When it comes to Associated Students of the University of California politics, CalSERVE has a proven record of willingness to work for students, regardless of political belief. Let’s look at some examples. First, should conservatives fear repression by their student government if CalSERVE is in power? Not if history and money are any indication. The Berkeley College Republicans have actually received more funding from the ASUC in years when CalSERVE has controlled the executive offices, and less when Student Action has been in charge.

Next, before we even begin to worry about whether or not our student leaders agree with us on the issues, we should be confident in the knowledge that they aren’t absconding with our money. While Student Action thought it was appropriate to demand $22,000 in personal legal costs from our student fees this past summer, CalSERVE senators banded together with Berkeley College Republicans Party Senator Victoria Mitchell and other independents to ensure that this could not happen.  Thankfully, this coalition was able to stop Student Action.

            Finally, throughout this past year, despite an exorbitantly huge budget, the executive branch has approached the ASUC Senate’s financial committee for more funding.  CalSERVE senators Carolina Jauregui (academic affairs vice presidential candidate), Van Nguyen (presidential candidate), and others from CalSERVE have opposed this. Rather, CalSERVE believes that this money should go to student groups directly to fund what they see fit.

             It is here that we really see that, beneath the obvious political differences, campus conservatives and progressives from CalSERVE share the same basic vision of government. While Student Action members brag of all the things that their government has been able to accomplish with our student fees — regardless of whether anyone has actually heard of half of these accomplishments — CalSERVE speaks of giving the money back to student groups. Call us crazy, but we think this goal bears more than a passing resemblance to the conservative view of government as being a means of empowering the private sector — in the case of a university, student groups — rather than trying to do the job of the private sector itself.

 In addition, CalSERVE boasts an impressive slate of candidates. As the Patriot has endorsed Carolina Jauregui and Taylor Albright, we will simply refer you to pages 14-15 for a description of their strengths as candidates. So let’s tell you a little bit about Daniel Montes and Van Nguyen, the CalSERVE candidates for External Affairs Vice-President and President, respectively.

 Montes co-founded, with Igor Tregub, the student group ACCESS, and has in the past year shown an impressive commitment to improving student safety on this campus. In addition to his passion, Montes brings an impressive knowledge of local issues and of the city bureaucracy that an EAVP must learn to navigate.

Nguyen likewise is about as far left as they come, but as an ASUC Senator he has seen firsthand the damage that a funding-hungry executive office can do to student life. Consider what he told us about the budget of the President’s office: “I have no idea why the budget should be as big as it is in the current President’s office…it’s supposed to facilitate dialogue and mediation and give a voice to the students …we really need to prioritize money to student groups.” Whatever else he may be wrong on, he’s absolutely right about the role of an ASUC President.

 Conservatives, it’s time we look beyond our preconceived notions of what CalSERVE stands for, and realize that its candidates are by far the best choice for us and for all of Cal this year. If you want your government to be clean and efficient, then vote for the only candidates who can make that a reality. Vote for CalSERVE.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot