Image courtesy of cornellalana.wordpress.com
On March 10, multicultural organizations ALANA Intercultural Board and umbrella organizations Black Students United (BSU), Cornell University’s Asian Pacific Islander Student Union (CAPSU), La Association Latina (LAL), Native American Students at Cornell (NASAC), and LGBTQ group Haven hosted a forum for candidates for the Student Assembly (SA) president, executive vice-president, and minority liaison at-large. Moderated by Jadielle Ray and Jevan Hutson, forum members asked the candidates some of the most direct and, for many, the toughest questions they will likely face.
Minority Liaison at-Large
One Minute Break-Down
Saim Chaudhary, ’17: Currently serves as ALANA trustee; promised to work on increasing funding resources, introducing qualitative metrics to funding process, improving the bias reporting system; focused on creating allies within ALANA umbrella orgs. and safe spaces.
Maria Chak, ’18: Currently serves as SA freshman at-large representative; lauded “Breaking Biases” forum she helped organize, admitted and apologized for previous ignorance on issues such as queer identity, proposed safe zones and decreased bureaucracy; struggled with technical questions about ALANA.
Samari Gilbert, ’17: Does not currently hold a position on ALANA board or SA; listed viable plans, such as instating a diversity dean in every college, showcasing cultural performance groups and organizations during orientation; volunteered at Tompkins County Public Library, Ithaca High School.
Much the presidential race, the minority liaison at-large competition features three candidates from vastly different backgrounds. Saim Chaudhary, ’17, currently serves as ALANA’s treasurer and excelled at exhibiting knowledge of ALANA’s administrative and bureaucratic structures. Conversely, Maria Chak, ’18, currently serves on the SA as freshman at-large representative, but struggled with questions regarding the structure of ALANA and other umbrella organizations. Samari Gilbert, ’17, does not currently serve on either organization, but put forth viable plans for improving campus climate.
The candidates answered questions that ranged from the mundane (tangible ways to better minority experience at Cornell, how to bridge gap between minority and majority communities) to the nuanced (who is a queer person and how do they negotiate visibility and invisibility on campus, explain understanding of intersectionality and marginalized identities).
However, the most intense question of the night came from an audience member, who asked the candidates if they knew all of the umbrella organizations under ALANA, and what their acronyms stood for. The question was met with audible surprise and excitement from the audience, which the organizers quieted. The question definitely deviated from the norm of campus debates, and audience members seemed split between perceived the question as too direct, or as a welcome change from typically rhetorical, vague forum debate questions.
The moderators announced after another question that Saim had correctly named all of the organizations (unsurprising considering that he is an ALANA board member), Samari had correctly named four and Chak had not correctly named any of them.
The “pop quiz” style of debate helped audience members discern which representatives best knew ALANA’s structure, without a doubt, but some candidates were emotionally distressed by the “grading” aspect of the question.
President
One-Minute Break Down
Juliana Batista, ’16: Focused on explaining and apologizing for past actions; championed instances of interaction with multicultural community; stood firm on decision to cut ALANA funding; dealt with accusations that she failed to advocate for ALANA as their SA liaison.
Jeffrey Breuer, ’16: Focused on increasing dialogue, interaction and listening; stressed importance of opportunity to work with new administrators and increase funding; absent for community-asked questions.
Matthew Stefanko, ’16: Focused on how overhaul of SA could benefit all student groups, especially minority students; stood firm on decision to cut ALANA funding; proposed increase in support of byline funding, alumni funding and administrative accountability.
Due to an exam time conflict, Jeffrey Breuer, ’16, could not attend the event and instead submitted responses within an hour before the event. However, Juliana Batista, ’16, and Matthew Stefanko, ’16, interestingly differed in much of their rhetoric and many answers. Off the bat, Stefanko focused on his lack of interaction with minority communities, and instead stressed that his focus on student power and increased financial accountability could help all students, but especially ALANA. Conversely, Batista stressed her involvement in developing AIDS week and responding to the “Cinco de Octubre” incident. Batista stated that she would focus on continuing advocacy, restorative justice and increasing programming.
The presidential candidates immediately faced more pointed, difficult questions. In response to a question about the administration “putting minority students on a pedestal,” Batista stressed the need to increase funding and argued that dialogue is “not an end, but a means to an end.” Stefanko, too, argued that the administration does not actually care about students’ tribulations, but rather on keeping the school’s brand name up. Breuer’s response, which was read by the moderators, stated that he wanted to sit down with minority students themselves to craft a plan for how the administration could change in the future.
The candidates also responded to more administrative question, such as how they would improve accessability to STD testing and how they would address high turnover among diverse staff and staff in diversity initiatives.
Most interestingly, however, audience and community members confronted the candidates on their lack of visibility in ALANA and multi-cultural events before the election cycle and, although Breuer was not involved, the decision to cut ALANA’s funding in 2013.
In response to a question regarding the candidates’ active involvement in the minority community, Batista stated that she had attended Haven and LAL events, but would conduct a “listening tour” once elected and “crowdsource” a list of grieviances to give to President-Elect Garrett. Stefanko declined to talk extensively about his past involvement, and isntead focused on holding a 48-hour email period when students could contact him, encouraging communities to recall representatives and holding bi-weekly or weekly meetings with student leaders. Breuer’s response, too, focused on increasing communication in the future, and stated that he wanted to hear minority groups’ concerns “not as a politician, but as a friend.”
One of the most important questions of the night focused on the SA decision to cut ALANA funding from $8.75/student to $7.00/student in 2013, a loss of between $23,625. As The Review reported at the time, ALANA’s spending greatly outpaced the expected cost per student. A BSU conference cost $127/student, compared to the SA’s expected cost of $20/student maximum. Accordingly, Stefanko and Batista’s answers greatly evidenced their stance on student group spending.
Stefanko strongly stated that he did not regret his decision to cut ALANA. Stefanko noted that the previous VP of Finance had not been accountable nor transparent and, as a result, ALANA lost money through a “continuous cycle of issues.” Batista, too, stated that she would not change her decision if facing the same circumstances, and argued that she and other representatives faced unchangeable policy. Breuer did not receive the community-asked questions before the event and, as such, could not respond.
The Presidential candidates also had to complete a “pop quiz” on four ALANA or umbrella organization events they had attended in the past year, and the content of the events. Stefanko listed three events and Batista stated that she could not attend any events in the past year due to “personal issues,” but listed events that she attended throughout her Cornell career.
Unlike the “pop quiz” taken by the minority liaison at-large candidates, the president’s “pop quiz” felt more accusatory, as if it were designed to catch the candidates for not engaging with diverse environments enough. Both Batista and Stefanko noted the business of their schedules, and pledged to attend more cultural and minority events in the future. In the end, no minority students are running for the office of president. The choice to question how the candidates spend their personal time seemed to come more from a desire to “expose” the candidates than to actually determine their stances on policies that will affect minority students, ALANA and other umbrella organizations.
Executive Vice-President
One-Minute Break Down
Peter Biedenweg, ’17: Emphasized fostering communication and dialogue (joked that “dialogue” was not a favored word in ALANA); emphasized building a “healthy and safe environment”; proposed breaking down large situations into smaller organizations.
Emma Johnston, ’16: Again stressed plan to establish on-campus grocery store with subsidies for lower-income students; increasing alumni awareness of ability to donate to cultural organizations through Cornell Annual Fund; emphasized continued work on mental health and sustainability.
The EVP portion of the forum was the least intense segment of the forum. Biedenweg and Johnston both immediately stressed that the EVP position is, in the words of Johnston, “not super defined,” and the EVP could thus spend a lot of time working with students and student organizations.
Truly, the only difference that the two candidates expressed was Biedenweg and Johnston’s response to a question regarding their focus post-election. Biedenweg stated a desire to work on training administrators and student organizations to absorb the dispersion that occurs during board turnover. Conversely, Johnston discussed informing alumni that they could donate to the Student and Academic Services page on the Cornell Annual Fund site and directly benefit students. Johnston also proposed increasing funding through working both with the Student Assembly Finance Commission and CU Tonight Commission.
Interestingly, Johnston also stated that she would support a plan for “mandatory diversity training” at Cornell, stating that the University needs to work on “educat[ing] people like me” (presumably white students) about diversity. The topic of diversity training has recently gained attention after George Washington University’s Young America Foundation chapter faced backlash for requesting to opt-out of “LGBT sensitivity trainings.”
The ALANA and related umbrella organizations’ forum asked candidates about clear, unambiguous issues. Yet, on their way out, many students talked mostly about the intense nature of the “pop quizzes” that five candidates took during the forum. Testing candidates on their knowledge or engagement of an issue in a high-pressure environment is a novel and provocative idea, and one many spectators did not know how to consider.
Sounds like something we need to do for presidential candidates. Wonder if any of them could pass! Congrats to Cornell students for being involved. And demanding that their candidates know something.