CSUN Election Sets Off Wave of Accusations

NORTHRIDGE —  The election of an all-minority student government has set off a brouhaha at Cal State Northridge in which the winners are accused of election tampering, the losers of racism and faculty and staff members are being investigated for allegedly coercing students to back the winning slate.

The accusations against the winning slate--We the People, headed by student body President-elect Joaquin Macias--could cost it the election.

A student government election committee, which already has concluded the winning slate violated many school campaigning rules, could throw out the election results as early as today.

If that occurs, the opposing slate--Students First--would be declared winners. In an unusually heavily contested election, Students First lost the March 18 balloting by 200 votes out of 2,411 cast. The typical CSUN student government election draws a scant 500 votes.

Macias, 23, a senior who hopes to become a professional politician, said he will fight the efforts to oust him before he has even taken office. He said he is being denied due process rights by a “kangaroo court” committee stacked by students threatened by an all-minority government after years of domination mostly by white students.

The candidate who lost to Macias, Jon Hatemi, said accusations that he or his mates on the slate are racist are untrue and defamatory.

“To say we are racist is slander,” said Hatemi, 26, a military veteran who is student vice president. “We didn’t discuss race, they did.”

For instance, Hatemi said, some professors told students his group was racist and would cut cultural programs if elected.

Although Hatemi said he is himself Iranian American on his father’s side, he said he does not like the term “minority.”

“I don’t want to be a minority, that’s the thing,” Hatemi said. “I consider myself Jon.”

University officials have no authority over the election itself at this point. But CSUN President Blenda Wilson has launched a probe of accusations against six faculty and staff members, said Jim Goss, an aide to Wilson, through a university spokesman.

There does not, however, appear to be a specific prohibition in the staff conduct manual against employees becoming involved in student elections. Also, the accusations raise questions of academic freedom and free speech rights, the right of faculty members to pronounce on affairs as they wish.

As outlined by Yolanda Karious, assistant director of elections for the Associated Students, the accusations involve professors suggesting--or in some cases insisting--that students in their classes vote for We the People candidates.

Also, a staff member allegedly promised what is considered a high-paying student job to a student “if he remained impartial during the elections,” said Karious, who is a student hired to serve as a neutral advisor to the committee.

Macias denies being a part of any improper effort to win votes on his behalf. Although his slate asked faculty members to encourage students to vote, “We told them specifically not to encourage students to vote for We the People” because it’s against the code, he said.

But under the rules of the student organization, Macias does not have to be involved to be found guilty of breaking the rules, Karious said, because candidates are held responsible for anything a supporter does, even if the candidate had no role in the action.

Moreover, the identities of students who reported the faculty conduct are kept secret under the group’s rules.

“They are extremely frightened,” Karious said, pointing out that the secrecy is to protect the complaining students from reprisals by professors.

As a result, Macias and his slate could have their election victory invalidated without ever knowing the identity of their accusers, and not be given an opportunity to refute the accusations.

Hatemi defended the student group’s election rules, including keeping the names of the accusers of professors and staff members secret from Macias and his slate.

“They don’t need to know that now,” Hatemi said. “You’re talking about faculty members who have power over students. . . .. It’s like sexual harassment. They have power over grades.”

Under the controversial new election rules, a winning candidate or slate of candidates can be removed by the election committee under a “three strikes and you’re out” system.

By Thursday, We the People had drawn four strikes, with several other alleged violations to be ruled on at today’s meeting, Karious said. Invalidating the election requires a separate vote, she said.

The strikes include:

* The alleged misuse of the logo of a campus copying shop, which printed campaign literature for We the People. The logo implied the shop supported the slate, the committee said. Macias responded that the company affixes the tiny logo--slightly larger than a match head--to everything it prints.

* A student violated the code by campaigning in class during the two-day election period, which is forbidden.

* A campaign flier wrongly said the slate had been endorsed by the Political Science Assn. Macias said it was a mistake that was later corrected.

* The slate overspent the $500 campaign spending limit by $300.

One of the most serious allegations against We the People--that it tampered with the phone voting system--was dropped because “there was not enough evidence to prove tampering, only suspicions,” Karious said.

Twelve students complained that when they called to vote, using their student ID password, they were told they had already done so, Karious said.

With help from election officials, four of them were able to override the system and cast votes, while eight others, who did not protest until later, were unable to undo the original vote.

Karious suggested that rather than oust the entire We the People slate, the committee might disqualify only Macias and his vicepresident, Oscar Garay.

Under that scenario, the others on the slate who the committee does not believe were involved in the violations would keep their seats in the Associated Students Senate.

“One side [Students First] ran a very, very honorable campaign,” said Karious, who is the neutral party on the committee. But she insists Macias and Garay did not.

“I not only believe it, I do have evidence,” she said.

But Macias says he has complaints too. Ever since the election, he said, he has been approached by white students who say they are “worried” about what will happen if the student body, which is about 50% minority, is run by an all-minority government.

The group’s platform, Macias said, was to “create an atmosphere where students would feel comfortable exploring issues of diversity. . . . Everything we were doing was positive.”