This is a letter of rebuttal to the Emerald’s editorial [“Vote yes on OSPIRG, no on MCC,” ODE, March 5] on voting against the Multicultural Center. Although I am not a student on campus, I was a guest artist and have just recently completed a three-and-a-half-week workshop there, sponsored by Asian-Pacific American Student Union and the MCC. The workshop was called “My Own Story,” and it allowed students of color a unique opportunity to tell their stories, family histories and cultural heritage in a creative performance/theater context. The workshop culminated in a powerful evening of honest, raw and ultimately empowering performances. The audience was truly moved, entertained and inspired. As a matter of fact, the Emerald covered the event.
The editorial talks a good talk about supporting the MCC’s mission statement of having “culturally diverse programming,” but unfortunately, it’s just talk. This half-assed stance is downright condescending and insulting. Anyone knows that when it comes to diversity and equal representation, agreeing with it philosophically is just not enough. There needs to be action. And that’s what the MCC does every day. However, in order to fulfill its mission statement, it desperately needs these extra funds. The two main reasons for opposition in the editorial are trivial, weak and most importantly, do not address the problem.
First of all, the editorial claims that it is “not convinced that all groups will be encouraged to visit the MCC when seeking money for events.” What is this reasoning based on? Hearsay? Assumption at best?
Secondly, the editorial believes that “when the MCC has a written plan for executing this cultural programming fund, we may support it. In the meantime, we ask you to vote no.” Just because the MCC may not have a piece of paper outlining every single item the funds would go to does not mean it is incapable of doing so.
Furthermore, not having a piece of paper outlining every single item does not mean the MCC doesn’t need the funds. That is the heart of the issue. Not some official document outlining every line item. Not just agreeing with the concept of cultural programming, which the Emerald editorial smugly does. Once again, action. Not just talk.
Maybe the reason some student groups don’t appeal to the MCC for funds is because the MCC doesn’t have enough funds to begin with. Simply put, the amount the MCC is asking for is paltry compared to other campus organizations’ funding.
I am not saying that other campus organizations are less important than the MCC. But like other campus organizations, the MCC deserves equal consideration and should receive more funds for its programming. Without the MCC and the small student groups that it encompasses, culturally diverse programming — guest artists of color, speakers, heritage nights, films, etc. — will suffer a monumental blow. What may happen is gentrification of thought, attitude and perspectives. And I doubt that the University would be proud of that.
In a time when there are still racial incidents on campus as well as in society at large, diverse multicultural programming can at least address issues that need to be discussed. For the sake of not only culturally diverse programming, but also the MCC’s mission to unite rather than divide, I urge the student body to vote yes for the MCC.