Formal Reaction Essay Concerning the ASUCI Flag Ban Legislation.

For the previous days since this essay has been written there has been much stir and controversy regarding a piece of legislation stemming out from the Associated Students-UCI, better known by the acronym ASUCI. This body in essence is the student-run and student elected organization that advocates on behalf of students and creates programs that enhance the student experience at UC Irvine [Mission and History][endnoteRef:1]. The bulk of the controversy concerns a piece of legislation passed by six undergraduate members of the ASUCI Legislative Councilthat bans hanging a flag from any nation in the common lobby area of the student government offices [President Statement][endnoteRef:2]. The legislation labeled as R50-70[endnoteRef:3] resolves with the following three statements: [1: http://www.asuci.uci.edu/about/history/#] [2: http://news.uci.edu/briefs/asuci-president-offers-statement-on-flag-ban-bill/] [3: http://www.asuci.uci.edu/legislative/legislations/print.php?cnum=R50-70&gov_branch=ASUCI]

Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associated Student main lobby space.Let it further be resolved that if a decorative item is in the Associated student lobby space and issue arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.These resolution statements arise from a lengthy and rather outspoken preamble stating a variety of (if I may say, due to a lack of words) claims about the American flag. And this is where the controversy lies. In essence, due to the preamble and the claims made in it, the resolution came to ban not only the American flag, but all flags of any nation in the ASUCI main lobby space. The legislation has its intents, and one of them is to provide a more accommodating and inclusive space for all students of all nationalities. The office wanted to stay neutral. But due to the accusatory nature of the preamble, many people, in particular those coming from the right side, and with the manipulative and egregious doctoring of media in general, have sparked flames to a seemingly diminutive piece of student legislation. Attacks are coming from all over social media and media in general stating that the school is communist, that it should be stripped of its accreditation and that it should lose it federal funding. These attacks are primarily caused by the misinformation of the media regarding this issue. And these attacks are rather inclusive of the whole student body, though not all students feel the same way as the six who passed the legislation. This is another aspect to why this caused such a great stir; with the action of these six council members came the backlash of the media and the masses attacking the whole school and the students contained in it as collateral damaged. There is a great sense of shame in being collectively labeled as anti-American for a certain action that does not represent the whole student body, in this case removing all flags from an office lobby. And this is the flaw of the media, its power to misinterpret, misinform and eventually persuade the masses into an idea that garners hate and attacks to people who were not directly involved in the first place. The legislation stated the taking down and essentially ban of all flags from any nation, including the American flag. But at the heart of the issue is what is stated in the legislations preamble.The preamble states a variety of claims, but what will be discussed are the statements that seem to cause the controversy and backlash from the right wing of political persuasion. The preamble is lengthy, but it is stated in simple words unlike official political legislative bills written in nearly incomprehensible jargon and elusion, it worth the read (but for the purpose of argument I will put it in summary). In short the reason of the removal of all flags stem from the representations and interpretations of the American flag. The preamble states in an argumentative style (i.e. whereforelet it be) that the flag represents a variety of aspects of American history ranging from colonialism and imperialism, to the militaristic actions throughout the past decades and the oppression and hardship these actions have caused upon other nations throughout history, assimilation, American superiority, and the patriotic and nationalistic implications of hanging an American flag. From here they extend the logic, and thus their argument, that since the Flag has all these associated meanings to it, there are some people who are negatively affected psychologically by the presence of the American flag, for the flag represents America and its actions. And in a further extension, the preamble states that the office is an open space, and where there is open space there is free speech, and because free speech in a open space though spoken with good intentions may be interpreted as hate speech [Line 28, fourth to last; see footnote 3] their conclusion comes Let it be resolvedThough the preamble primarily concerns the American flag, the resolution aims to create a more open and inclusive space. They do this by removing all flags, not simply just the American flag, but all flags. What media has done is simply chop up the preamble, chop up and re-state the resolution, and put 0.5 and 0.5 together to 1 and create a sub-par, ill-informed piece of journalism to create headlines, increase views, and stir controversy. In effect, this fiasco has caused great shame upon the students of UCI for being labeled as un-American and even worse anti-America. The collective collateral damage of shaming and labeling that media has caused to the UCI community has tainted the school a very bitter color and collectively identified those who were not directly involved with the motion as those who do. The school was just recently recognized for unboiling an egg and the implications it has for fighting against cancer[endnoteRef:4]; this event corresponds appropriately with the schools initiative campaign to dedicating more research to fighting cancer. This garnered some outstanding positive media attention. Only a couple of weeks later that this whole flag issue comes up and now the whole school is being labeled as anti-American. [4: http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/uci-fellow-chemists-find-a-way-to-unboil-eggs/]

This is not due purely to the actions of the six, this was in most part due to the manipulation of media, in particular right wing media. Media has such a strong influence upon the masses that it can collectively gather the consciousness of many and pin its wrath upon a small action and blow it out of proportions. This is the flaw of media. This essay is not about the flag ban; this essay is not about the actions of the six council members. The intent of this essay to provide a stand against media, aiming to provide a clarification from all the venom it has injected to the minds of the masses. Not once in the resolution portion of R50-70 did it mention solely the American flag being banned. Media has also claimed that the school is banning the flag from all of campus. This is outrageous! I encourage people to open their minds a little and ignore media for a little while and to carefully read the legislation themselves. The intent of the Associated Students was to provide a more inclusive space on their office, and in a public university where diversity is rich and flourishing, there is nothing wrong with being inclusive. What media has done can only be undone by it. Soon this event will eventually blow through and media will find another fish it can hook and butcher.

About the Author

The author of this essay is Elijah Pascual. He is a second year, Mechanical Engineering major at the University of California, Irvine.