Earlier this month, six students on the student legislative council at the University of California, Irvine voted to remove all flags — including the American flag — from a student government work room on their campus in order to create a more “inclusive space.” While the Executive Cabinet of the Associated Students of UC Irvine quickly vetoed the policy, the original vote became national news and the school even received credible threats in advance of a student meeting regarding the vote. The incident became so controversial that state Sen. Janet Nguyen, R-Santa Ana, announced she would begin pushing for a state constitutional amendment to prevent state-funded universities and colleges from banning the U.S. flag on campuses.
The ensuing outrage against the six students who voted to remove the flag was misplaced for two reasons. First, as we at the University can attest to, the exercise of student self-governance is essential to the operation of a school, and UC Irvine’s student government clearly operates to some extent under a system of checks and balances. While an initial group of students voted on this policy, another group was able to veto it — similar to many functioning political systems. But second, and more importantly, the students in question were not denouncing the American flag (or any national flag, for that matter) — they, as those who understand their community best, saw the presence of the flag as an inhibitor to the creation of a broader, school-wide community. Unfounded questions of national pride aside, who is anyone outside the UC Irvine community to question these students’ knowledge of their own social environment?
In fact, the LA Times reports that most of the debate surrounding the flag vote — in particular, opposition to the initial vote — comes from outside the UC Irvine community. On the other side of the spectrum, The Boston Globe’s Editorial Board argues the students’ decision was “just college . . . being college.” While the Editorial Board readily dismissed the concerns of those who were outraged by the students’ vote, it also condescendingly portrayed the vote as exemplary of the hyper-political correctness often characteristic of college students.
Such comments ignore the fact that college students are educated, free thinkers and the UC Irvine students likely carefully thought through this decision. Those outside the UC Irvine community, whether outraged by or apathetic to the students’ decision, seem not to fully understand the aim of these students in their vote. One of the considerations students mentioned when evaluating this policy was the feeling of exclusivity the presence of the American flag creates for students who are illegal immigrants, and for whom the sight of the flag causes stress and anxiety. For many, the students’ measure argued, the American flag — and other flags — can symbolize colonialism and imperialism. Additionally, some students may, due to political beliefs, take offense to the prominent display of a given nation’s flag, as such a display implies approval for that nation’s activities. (It is important to note that requiring anyone to salute or otherwise idolize the flag has been declared unconstitutional.)
While the relative impact of the presence of the flag is debatable, the students’ reasons for removing the flag are valid. Notably, the most damaging part of this ordeal was not the national outcry, but rather the UC Irvine administrative response — something even faculty members have decried. Immediately after this story broke, UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman condemned the students’ vote and declared it unrepresentative of the 30,000 undergraduate students at the school. Though he later wrote an op-ed for the LA Times demanding an end to the general furor over this topic, this initial response demonstrates a disregard for the importance of student self-governance and, given students’ recent defense of their six representatives’ vote, perhaps a disconnect between himself and the views of the student body.
If students find that a prominent display of the American flag in a particular space may promote an exclusive environment, a measure to remove the flag does not demonstrate disloyalty to the country. If removing the flag from that one space does not promote greater inclusivity, then the veto was the right move. Decisions such as these are not a matter of national concern and should be left to the students.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
