The 2023-2024 candidates for Student Assembly President. From left to right, Sanvi Bhardwaj ’24, Pedro Da Silveira ’25 and Patrick Kuehl ’24.
Today is the first day of Student Assembly (SA) elections, which are open until May 4 at noon. Accordingly, the Cornell Review reached out for interviews from each candidate for SA President and SA Executive Vice President. In the interest of fairness, we asked them an identical set of questions about their thoughts on current issues and plans for action should they be elected. This article contains the responses of Patrick Kuehl ‘24, Pedro Da Silveira ‘25 and Sanvi Bhardwaj ‘24. They are candidates for President of the Student Assembly.
Review: As President of the SA, you are the face of the Assembly. How do you hope to change the Assembly’s perception in the eyes of students?
Kuehl: The Student Assembly has in recent years failed to make significant tangible changes in the lives of the students at Cornell. No one expects respect by just asking for it and neither should the student assembly. Respect and legitimacy have to be earned by the assembly through action. Too often assembly members are elected after a campaign of broad promises with no understanding of where the issues actually stem from. It is time for us to take action and actually make a difference in students’ lives.
Cornell University and Ithaca have problems, I have seen that while working as an EMT here for the last three years. I had to buy a bulletproof vest to work on the streets of Ithaca. We need to be talking about and finding solutions to difficult issues facing students, not just the ones at the forefront of the American media. Students are struggling here. I have seen first hand hundreds of students battling with depression and the wake of assault; I have listened to what they are going through and in many cases heard what they feel would make a difference. If we tackle issues at the heart of Cornell, not just those on the periphery, I am confident we can start bringing legitimacy back to the SA.
In the same vein, the SA has also lost legitimacy because it has stopped listening to the voices of the people and instead has been turned into a place where those elected by a significant minority of the student body can write resolutions with fancy names, do nothing, and operate as detached ideologues.
Bringing legitimacy back to the SA does not have a ‘one and done’ fix, solving this problem will need consistent action on issues that matter and sustained involvement of students and other stakeholders.
Da Silveira: In recent years, the Assembly has become known for focusing on irrelevant issues, rather than prioritizing the student experience. As President, I pledge to concentrate on tangible, quality-of-life improvements, such as installing heated lamps at bus stops, enhancing food delivery options, and adding more outlets in popular study areas. I will ensure the Assembly works diligently to complete these projects, demonstrating our commitment to enhancing campus life for all students.
Bhardwaj: Making tangible change. The assembly is at its best when we’re working directly with student groups to liaise with administration and push projects forward—we’ve seen the greatest engagement with the SA this year through work on the Basic Needs Coalition’s demands, Plan B vending machines, and bringing an MD gynecologist to Cornell Health. Although these initiatives had varying degrees of success, I hope to expand on this momentum of engagement to mobilize students and the SA in tandem to enact real change on campus.
Review: The SA has struggled to attain student interest, with a voter participation rate of about 10% in the previous election. Additionally, all but one candidate in this election will be awarded a seat on the assembly. How do you think this affects the SA’s legitimacy, and how do you hope to resolve this issue?
Kuehl: The structure of elections for presidential and executive-vice presidential candidates is rooted in good intentions and best practices in a world with many competitors. Ideally, the runner up for each race is an individual with differing views, however this scheme fails when there are too few candidates to have anyone get eliminated. The problem is not the structure itself but the lack of student engagement with the assembly. When students see that their actions and voices make change in their campus through their work with the student assembly, they will be more willing and excited to get involved.
Questions about the legitimacy of the Student Assembly due to low voter turnout are completely warranted. Using last year’s elections as an example, how can anyone speak for the student body when less than one in twenty people choose their representative? You effectively cannot. It is really important that students vote, regardless of who they vote for.
In addition to what I talked about in my first response, the SA needs to improve its transparency. This topic has been promised by an SA presidential candidate pretty much every year for as far back as anyone can remember. Transparency, like many other words, is buzzing. So what’s the plan to get it done?
It all comes down to communication about what is going on and what is being proposed to the greater Cornell community. Not a single person showed up to contest resolution 31 before the student assembly passed it unanimously in less than fifteen minutes. Clearly students and faculty felt strongly about this resolution, so why was no one there to voice their concerns? No blame can be placed on others, we must look inward and see what structural changes can be made to address this issue. Better dissemination of resolutions before they are brought to the assembly is a big step in this direction. The assembly should be a forum not a closed conversation.
Da Silveira: To be frank, the Student Assembly must deliver meaningful results to earn the respect and attention it deserves. This past year, I spearheaded several initiatives that directly benefit students, such as bringing Ithaca Bikeshare to campus through working with Ithaca City Council and Cornell Admin, and partnering with the incredibly talented and passionate advocates at PPGA to begin the process of installing emergency contraceptive and nonprescription drug vending machines. My goal is to build upon this momentum, transforming the Student Assembly into a solutions-driven organization that addresses every student’s concerns and regains its legitimacy.
Bhardwaj: Having a voter participation rate of 10% is, quite frankly, shameful. The SA has failed to accurately demonstrate our effectiveness and potential for enacting real change on campus, causing the labor of student leaders on campus to go unnoticed. We’ve tried social media, we’ve tried word-of-mouth, but the only way to resolve this is to engage with student movements directly and collaborate with them in any capacity they need.
Review: This year is a byline funding year for the Student Assembly. How do you hope to change the way Student Activity Fee money is spent?
Kuehl: Our most powerful asset as an assembly is our ability to spend the student activity fee on objectives and organizations that benefit the wellbeing of students. We have made a habit out of forgetting this fact and instead opting to take up most of our time discussing plans to make statements with little weight. We need to return to our most important job: how do we responsibly and effectively spend student money?
I believe in a more fluid form of byline funding. As we reallocate every two years, it is difficult to fund initiatives to support students when they need to happen; instead, bureaucracy stands in the way of progress. When we forget what our most important job is, we also lose touch with our ability to use all of our resources. It has been reported most notably in a Cornell Review article titled “Don’t let the Student Assembly waste your money” that the student activity fee has consistently been haphazardly used to fund organizations and departments on campus. We need to think critically about how our money supports students efficiently now, while making positive change for students in the future.
The problem with disorganization regarding money is not unique to the student activity fee, we need to be more intentional with how we operate on many levels. A great example of this is the Student Assembly Infrastructure Fund. Each year the Student Assembly Infrastructure Fund sets aside $75,000 to be spent on infrastructure upgrades to benefit students. Earlier this year, I asked to be added to the committee responsible for this spending. Since, the chair has yet to schedule any meetings to consider this spending. It is not ok to ignore critical infrastructure needs on campus due to mismanagement. To quote the band Rush: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Choosing to ignore infrastructure needs is unacceptable and must change. We need to focus on using all resources responsibly and not haphazardly.
Da Silveira: As one of the most experienced Student Assembly Representatives and the only candidate that was present during the last SAF allocation cycle, I am uniquely prepared to navigate the complexities of these cycles. During the last SAF allocation cycle, I consistently fought for necessary cuts to keep the SAF as low as possible, and as President, I will work relentlessly with the Vice President of Finance to scrutinize each budget and eradicate wasteful spending. We have a duty to protect our students in every aspect of their lives, including their finances.
Bhardwaj: I hope to center marginalized students and their needs. The SAF is one of the biggest responsibilities of the Assembly, and I do not take that likely. During this byline cycle, I hope to center marginalized groups and programming while also centralizing the funding process for umbrella organizations old and new. I’ve been in talks with project teams, members of programming organizations, and ALANA organizations to centralize and streamline their funding process, and I’m excited to see that come to fruition this year.
Review: As President of the SA, your voice is the loudest in the Assembly. How comfortable do you feel speaking on behalf of the student body? Should the Student Assembly take up positions on broader political issues, or should it confine itself to Cornell-specific problems?
Kuehl: Leadership positions are grounded in the foundation of listening. Words can only carry weight when they mean something. Born and raised in northeastern Wyoming, I was constantly involved in political discourse and have an appreciation for differing points of view. I have learned that in order to understand an issue, you first need to learn and listen to all facets of all arguments to be able to make an informed decision. I am capable of speaking on behalf of students because I am comfortable listening to students. A Cornell Review opinion piece written by Cullen O’Hara published this year stated that “Cornell students [need] to pay closer attention to who they’re electing to student office”. I completely agree.
For far too long SA positions have been filled by those who have the most connections. This creates a cabal of political prestige. It is time to start looking at why people want to be in the assembly, what they intend to get done, and the feasibility of their plan. Like it or not, the student assembly speaks for the student body and allocates millions of dollars each year; this is not likely to change.
A top priority of the student assembly should be making life better for Cornell students. There will always be bigger fights than those at our University but we as an assembly need to focus on our people. The student assembly should be wary of finding itself in topics that don’t directly affect the student body; the assembly is not the place for long-winded political debates. What Cornell needs and students want is action through realistic plans, not more talk.
Da Silveira: I firmly believe the Student Assembly must focus on protecting students, mediating disputes, and delivering tangible quality-of-life improvements. It is a disservice to the student body when we devote time to issues that ultimately have no impact on Cornellians. My mission is to steer the Assembly toward addressing Cornell-specific challenges, restoring its credibility as a problem-solving institution.
Bhardwaj: As President, I aim to be a mouthpiece to administration, uplifting concerns from the student body to the people who make the decisions. Speaking to broader political issues, the Student Assembly has a moral responsibility to take positions on them. Cornell students are not isolated from the political climate we live in today, and marginalized students in particular have to live with the implications of politics on their livelihoods. Ignoring this ignores a very real facet of the Cornell student experience.
Review: Cornell recently announced a theme for the 2023-2024 school year, “The Indispensable Condition: Freedom of Expression at Cornell.” The year is supposed to spark a campus conversation about free speech. How do you plan to lead the Student Assembly in approaching that conversation?
Kuehl: One of the crises facing our campus is the inability for students to have constructive disagreements about issues in an open, in-person, moderated forum. I commend the Administration on the theme for the upcoming year. Free speech is a difficult topic to grapple with. On the surface it seems so easy: let anyone say what they want and deal with the consequences. On closer inspection, we realize that one of the most paradoxical parts of the debate around the First Amendment is that, in order to be tolerant, we need to be intolerant towards intolerance. But where is the line? That is a question that can never be fully answered and will continue to evolve throughout the grand experiment of democracy.
Part of the job of the President of the Student Assembly is to engage the community in dialogue. We need to understand that we have to allow alternative viewpoints while creating an inclusive environment for everyone to feel comfortable enough to participate. If we focus on including all campus stakeholders and points of view in conversation, we will all become more enlightened learners.
Barraging a resolution with criticism and alternative perspective is an opportunity for strength. I am glad resolution 31 received as much criticism as it did as it allowed me to analyze my own beliefs, strengthen some and disregard others. However the most effective path towards progress is discourse that happens in an open and free environment before we pass legislation, not online afterwards. My goal is to do everything I can to make this a reality by more fully involving students in the conversation through resolution comment sections and promoting engaged conversation in committee before presenting before the entire assembly.
Da Silveira: The Student Assembly’s failure to protect students amid politically charged incidents is a travesty. No student should feel threatened or harassed for expressing their beliefs. No student should be in the position of accepting that they will get threatened, doxxed, SWATTED, and etc., in order to lead and protect their fellow students. As President, I will fervently advocate for the protection of free speech rights and connect students with the necessary resources to foster a secure, open environment that encourages expression and debate. We will stand up against any attempts to suppress or intimidate our students, ensuring that Cornell remains a bastion of intellectual freedom and innovation.
Bhardwaj: As I’ve said before, the Assembly needs to engage with groups across campus to govern in a reflection of what the students want and need. This means engaging with groups across the political spectrum, but there is an important point that is often missed in this conversation: as an Assembly, we can’t legitimize hate speech and groups on campus. Although students deserve to be heard, they do not have a right to attack students and make them feel unsafe.
Review: The Student Assembly recently made national headlines with Resolution 31: Mandating Content Warnings in the Classroom, which was rejected by President Pollack. You voted for the resolution (Representative Da Silveira did not vote for the resolution, as he was not present the day of its adoption). After everything that has happened since, would you vote for it again, if given the chance today?
Kuehl: I voted for resolution 31 as did everyone else on the Student Assembly, I still agree with the sentiment I initially expressed regarding the resolution. In order to engage with difficult topics, students need to first be capable of engaging with them. I read the resolution fully, as I do with all resolutions and, at the time, decided that it would be beneficial for students. After the recent events I still agree with the thoughts by which I made that decision however, at the end of this response I have laid out some things I would have done differently and some things I would have done to better engage campus partners and the community at large.
A main talking point in the discussion about trigger warnings is the ability for difficult content to actually benefit traumatized individuals in confronting those feelings. This idea has some merit, but I also stand by my belief that all people should be able to make informed decisions for themselves. It is not our place to decide when someone confronts their previous trauma nor is it our place to impose ourselves on anyone’s way of life. We are all adults and we can make our own decisions.
Freedom of speech is the most important right that we hold. It is the right that allows all other rights to exist and is the right that allows us as members of this nation to fight freely for what we believe our future should look like. I would never want to impinge that right.
That being said, it is simply not an impingement on free speech to encourage professors to consider adding content warnings on difficult topics to their syllabi.
Now some things I would have differently before voting yes on this resolution:
Engaging Campus Partners: After a long conversation with two wonderful professors, Stephen Ceci and Michael Macy, I realized that, while our job as an assembly is to support the students, a critical stakeholder in that initiative, especially when dealing with class content, are professors. If I were to reconsider this resolution, I would engage professors in the conversation to better understand how to support students struggling with PTSD while not impinging on the ability of professors to teach what they feel is important and valid.
Engaging additional perspectives on campus will always be beneficial. While I have strong views, I am never right all of the time and am always open to new ideas – especially from those with whom I disagree.
Change the Title: Nothing in this resolution mandates anything of contention. The resolution uses the word implores when urging professors to include difficult content on their syllabus.
Get More Specific: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a legitimate medical concern for members of this community. Trauma is real and needs to be taken seriously, providing content warnings, just like every movie does, is not unrealistic. That being said, these categories should be listed and capped.
Not Use The Term ‘Trigger Warnings’
Trigger warnings is a hyper-polarized term and I don’t feel like it really embodied the message that the resolution was portraying. If reevaluated I would reframe the resolution to focus on providing class content on syllabi so that students can make informed decisions about class choices.
Da Silveira: I hold great admiration for Representatives [Claire] Ting and [Shelby] Williams, who crafted Resolution 31 with a genuine intent to protect vulnerable students. My guiding principle is to support measures that directly and positively impact our student body. While I endorse the spirit of the resolution, I am fully aware of the logistical challenges its implementation would present. In my experience, Cornell professors have shown great understanding and support for students’ needs, and I believe that despite the rejection of this resolution, it has ignited an essential conversation about how sensitive topics are handled in the classroom. As President, I will continue to nurture this dialogue, always keeping the well-being of our students at the forefront of our decisions.
Bhardwaj: Yes. The national headlines and general rhetoric misconstrued the intention of the resolution—to support students who are forced to relive traumatic events in the classroom—but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for it again. The Assembly’s messaging and tactics surrounding the resolution could have been different for sure, but that does not mean the resolution itself is without merit.
Review: Finally, is there anything else you would like to tell the student body?
Kuehl: Our goal as the student assembly should be to make real changes that benefit the students. In five years, each and every one of us will be out in the world making change and there will be a new cohort here at Cornell University. Part of our job is making life better for us now, but equally important should be our dedication to ensuring that students’ lives are the best they can be after we are gone.
As a first responder who has worked in this community for three years, I have seen those students who are struggling; they are our friends and our classmates. We need to be thinking about how we critically engage students in organizations on campus.
Currently, we are leaving students behind and unless addressed, this trend will continue. Nearly
a third of our generation is struggling with mental health concerns and it has been proven time and time again that we can mitigate this by taking time to build community.
If elected president I am committed to standing up for the needs of this community and listening to the voices from all of its corners. I ask for your support and your vote in accomplishing the goals I have laid out through these responses.
As much as I would like your vote, I will conclude with a call to vote regardless of who you choose. The will of the student body is reflected through how it votes and improving voter turnout starts with each and every one of us.
Da Silveira: The Student Assembly is in the midst of a crisis of legitimacy, with candidates making grand promises that never materialize. As your President, I vow to restore the Assembly’s original purpose: to serve and advocate for you, the students. Together, we will create transformative change for your Cornell experience, including e-bike racks in front of dorms, more outlets in study spaces, heated lamps at bus stops, delivery food technology, and more. We will fiercely protect the rights of each student to freedom of speech and expression. Cornell is an extraordinary institution that nurtures world-changing innovation, and as members of the Student Assembly, it is our solemn duty to ensure we enhance the experience of the next generation of leaders who will shape our future. Let’s make this a reality together. Make sure to vote May 1st-4th.
Bhardwaj: Vote! If there’s an issue you care about on campus, from public safety to Basic Needs to CAPS, the Assembly has the potential to make real change, but it is only as powerful as the students that engage with it.
