Students React to ASUC Student Legal Clinic Hearings

There has been a limited but noticable student reaction to the Mehta v. Jones case, which was scheduled to be held yesterday. One of the more prevaling opinions has been that of concern of expanding judicial powers in the ASUC, and the ability of the ASUC to interfere with the interworkings of student groups. An email being circulated by the Yvette Felarca, who at this point has a clear vendetta against anyone with a gavel, is attached to the bottom of this post. Here is the meat of the letter:

"This case threatens the very foundation of what Cal is about - providing a space for the free expression of diverse ideas, opinions, and political views. If the J-Council rules in favor of Mehta, this precedent will allow for uncontrolled abuses of power within the ASUC student government. Student groups whose purposes don’t suit the interests of ASUC Senators or Executives could have their group Constitutions declared invalid and their sponsorship revoked. This dangerous precedent would allow the ASUC Senate to be the ultimate authority on the inner content of all student group Constitutions."

Let's take a quick look at this. The case was made at the behest of one of the co-presidents, who claimed that the changes to the SLC constitution were not done properly. It seems that this case is being decided on the basis of the procedure, not the content. In that regard, most of the arguments of the email are without weight.

However, it must be pointed out that even if the material of the SLC constitution was under scrutiny, then the ASUC would have every right to question it. As long as it funds these groups, the ASUC has a vested interest over their constitutions, interworkings, and actions. It is on this basis that the groups are primarily funded. Precedent of this kind of activity can be seen in the financial oversight exercized by Congress over executive offices (EPA, etc.). More locally, it could be seen in student organizations like the the Muslim Student Association, which has had to re-assess the international groups it associates with due to their shifting ideologies and designations by the U.S. government.

In addition, any ASUC hearing would not disband the group or its constitution - it would merely withhold ASUC funding until any required changes are made. The ASUC can choose how it wants to promote services and free speech however it chooses, and if it feels that the SLC is not performing as it should, especially by changing its constitution halfway through the year, than the ASUC has its rights over the funding to the group. Groups that choose to be dependant on the ASUC must be willing to adhere to its rules and beliefs.

JC Letter.docEmail This Post!