Some information regarding this: the members of ASUCI have several jobs to do. If they cannot work together, they cannot do their jobs.

This began when a student anonymously took down the American flag, and left a message regarding its symbolic ties to imperialism and oppression in other parts of the globe.

The flag was put back up with a message stating that freedom of speech is of utmost importance, and inviting a dialogue to talk about the issue openly. This letter was then defaced with, in my opinion, very childish retort that amounted to not much more than "oppressor stop oppressing".

After reviewing some bylaws, it was discovered that it is, perhaps oddly, required that the American flag be on display in the offices to honor a deceased student from quite some time ago.

Understandably, this is a sort of weird law. I felt that perhaps it should be struck (matter of opinion, I have no actual influence on the undergraduate student government). The draft that Guevara wrote, however, imposed far more than that.

I think a lot of emphasis should be added that this new law would affect only the student government offices and no other part of campus. There are many reasons the officers voted the way they did, and nobody can speak on behalf of all of them. This is, unfortunately, the way of politics. If someone in ASUCI legitimately takes issue with the flag, then that hinders their ability to do their job. Of there are tensions, that further hinders things. This is important: to avoid tension sometimes people vote in a way that reflects what would be best for the team rather than their own personal choices.

Those that voted in favor of the flag ban are, I feel, misguided. Certainly not evil. Nor commies. They raise legitimate concerns, but they take it too far. This bill embodies the liberal stereotype of white guilt, and does so at the cost of freedom of expression and sends a very anti-American message. I commend them for standing by their convictions, but condemn them for their shortsightedness.

Those voting against knew they were in the minority going in. They had no chance, but sent a clear message, and one that probably reflects the student body more accurately than the overall vote.

Those abstaining, however, are not cowards. This is the ugly side of politics. To effectively run their office, they have a relationship to maintain with colleagues.

The sad truth is, until this point, UCI has effectively ignored ASUCI. And now, the student body will probably lose all trust. I hope that the student government can recover from this, but I don't know that they can.

Three of the 6 students will be graduating this year, and I have a strong feeling that if voter turnout increases as a result of this, the other three will not return to office next year.

Finally, I trust that UCI can recover from this and I wish to send the message that we should not attack the legislative council for their decision, nor the school at large for the media fallout. Each individual acted in what they believed was in the best interests of the student body, and that is, after all, their job. If you believe they poorly represent you, then make your voice heard and vote them out.