Left to right: Moderator Tyler Alicea '16, Samuel Morrison '17, Yamini Bhandari '17, Blake Brown '17.
As we all know, the student trustee is the most important, influential, highly regarded, grandiose, and coveted position a Cornell student can assume. From day one until graduation, administrators, faculty, and fellow students tell us this. Why then was less than half a percent of the undergraduate student body present at today’s student trustee debate?
Given all the festering and sometimes explosive animosity students have expressed towards the University’s Board of Trustees this semester, one would expect more than a measly 50 or 60 students to show up to listen to the trustees and ask them questions. The Facebook event indicated 235 would attend of the 1,200 invited.
By the 90-minute event’s close, barely 30 remained in the debate hall–Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room, which could seat at least ten times more. In fact, former Student Assembly (SA) presidential candidate Jeffrey Breuer ’15 asked the three candidates–Sam Morrison ’17, Yamini Bhandari ’17, and Blake Brown ’17–why the event today was so woefully under-attended given their shared stated goals of increasing student engagement on campus and with the Board of Trustees. None had a concrete answer.
In comparison, the SA presidential and vice presidential debate drew an audience at least twice as numerous, and these SA roles are often discredited as second-class in comparison to the student trustee.
The student trustee debate was organized by the Cornell Daily Sun and moderated by that publication’s editor-in-chief ,Tyler Alicea ’16, who lobbed softball after softball at the candidates. The best question of the night, by far, was Breuer’s.
The three candidates, for the most part, echoed each other in the regurgitation of buzzwords like “structural changes,” “transparency,” and “engagement.” Though they occasionally brought up some salient points, the majority of the time was spent on the attempt to establish who was going to offer the most money to select student interest groups and who would create the most special committees, conferences, and programs. Throughout the duration of the debate, Cornell and its student body were identified as ignorant, racist, and rape culture-promoting.
The pitiful turnout is indicative of general student disregard and apathy toward this anointed position, despite the alleged power and influence it holds. The protest community, notably, was absent from the debate, and it seems a growing contingent of the student body is looking elsewhere to effect change on this campus or at least attempt to. It’s either that, or students have reverted to the apathetic norm after all the fanfare of #FighttheFee and #WelcometheTrustees. Most likely, it’s a combination of both.
Clearly, what the candidates have to say–even in response to softball questions–does not interest even 1% of the student body. So when, say, 40% of students vote in this election, what will be on their mind as they cast their votes?
Maybe things have changed since I graduated from college (1972). But in my day we had student government, but it really didn’t do much except plan social functions. So, it was not really a government. Is the student government at Cornell any different? Do students really have a say in what goes on?
Some will tell you student government is a farce. Others will say it has the ability (or potential) to be a meaningful governing institution and advocate for student interests in conversation with administrators and the board of trustees. I’d say, given the way it’s run at Cornell, it’s more the former.