ASUC Is Deciding Calvin Yang’s Fate. But Who’s Holding ASUC Accountable?
- Linton Johnson
- Apr 30
- 4 min read
By Linton Johnson, OVIS Founder
As I write this, the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) Judicial Council—the student government's judicial branch at UC Berkeley—is in deliberations, deciding the political fate of Calvin Yang, recently elected by the student body as Executive Vice President of External Affairs.
The charge? He misrepresented himself as a spokesperson for BayPass, a student transit program managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area’s regional planning and transportation agency.
The irony? The very body judging Yang for misrepresentation has itself misrepresented its own authority—by sending me, a journalist and private citizen, an email it falsely labeled a “subpoena.”
Following my public complaint, I received formal responses from UC Berkeley leadership:
Dean of Students Sunny Lee replied to my request for an investigation with:
“Thank you for sharing this email with me. I'll look into the matter with the ASUC advising team.”
Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Steve Sutton also acknowledged my message.
Yang informed me a member of the ASUC advising team was present at the hearing, which, I hope, signals a serious commitment by university staff to begin examining the issue.
Meanwhile, I have not yet heard back from the editorial leadership of The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s student-run newspaper. However, one staff member told me he did not believe ASUC had the authority to subpoena a student journalist—reassuring, if accurate. That said, even the threat of a subpoena, especially from a student government body, is completely unacceptable.
Let’s back up and talk about how we got here.
Yang campaigned on “BayPass for All”—a popular platform to expand BayPass, a universal transit pass that gives UC students free access to nearly all Bay Area public transit systems, including BART, Muni, and AC Transit. Yang's platform aligned with a successful student referendum to make BayPass permanent and available to all.
But shortly after the election, supporters of his opponent, who lost, filed a complaint accusing Yang of misrepresenting himself as a spokesperson for BayPass.
As a journalist with over 30 years of experience, I looked into the claim.
I contacted a high-ranking official at the MTC and presented the evidence being used in the ASUC hearing. The official told me:
“The MTC would not get involved in the ASUC matter unless there was a copyright violation.”
“Only the MTC can enforce violations of its own trademark—and this does not appear to be a violation.”
“Anybody can use the BayPass name in a public forum, so long as they don’t represent themselves as an official spokesperson.”
“Based on the evidence you presented, it does not appear that the MTC would have any claim against Calvin.”
Shortly after ASUC learned of my communication with MTC, Judicial Council Justice Anvi Gaikwad attempted to subpoena me. She sent me an email labeled as an official subpoena—despite ASUC having no legal authority to issue such a document.
When I asked Gaikwad what constitutional authority allowed her to subpoena a journalist, she replied:
“You received the previous email as you had been listed as a witness in the case mentioned above. However, you have the choice not to show up, there won't be any consequences pertaining to this matter.”
That clarification is telling. If there are no consequences and no real authority, then why use the term subpoena at all? Words matter. Misusing them to coerce someone into appearing at a political hearing is not just inappropriate—it’s a misrepresentation of power.
Which brings us back to the core irony:
ASUC is weighing whether Calvin Yang misrepresented his role while running for election—while misrepresenting its own authority in the process. If the Judicial Council cannot even articulate what it is, how can it fairly decide what someone else is not?
Following my formal complaint to the Dean of Students, I also plan to file a report with the Internal Revenue Service regarding potential misuse of ASUC’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. I am also considering forwarding the matter to the University of California’s Office of General Counsel.
But this isn’t just about me. I’m an independent journalist, not bound to ASUC rules. UC Berkeley students - including student journalists at The Daily Californian are. If ASUC feels emboldened to issue fake subpoenas to reporters, even implied threats could force student journalists to choose between protecting sources and risking punishment. That’s a chilling effect on the First Amendment, and it must be taken seriously.
Let’s assume for a moment that ASUC doesn’t have the power to directly punish a student journalist — even then, it could still create serious consequences for those who challenge it. For example, ASUC could:
Censure or publicly reprimand a reporter for perceived bias or disloyalty to student governance;
Attempt to damage the reporter’s reputation through formal statements, social media, or public meetings;
Shut journalists out of access — by excluding them from key meetings, removing media credentials, or limiting transparency.
Each of these actions may fall short of formal discipline, but all of them can intimidate, isolate, or silence student reporters just the same.
I will continue to report on this story. And I hope UC Berkeley’s leadership, its student community, and especially its student journalists, will rise to meet this moment.
Because when student government begins pretending to be a court — and journalists become its targets — we don’t just lose sight of truth. We risk losing the freedom to find it.
Comments