For anyone looking for an exciting, combative, debate about policy and we students’ futures, look to the Democratic or GOP campaigns, not to the Student Assembly (SA) presidential election.
The SA presidential “debate” between Mitchell McBride ’17, SA Vice President of Internal Operations, and Jordan Berger ’17, SA Parliamentarian, last week was anything but a debate. It was 45 minutes of platitudes and pandering with a few decent points about school policy sprinkled in here and there to give the guise of a serious discussion.
Voting for SA president this year will be no easy task because of one problem: the candidates are always in agreement, and the basis of what they agree about is pandering. Both McBride and Berger tried to make themselves appealing to everyone, but if the two candidates are constantly in agreement, they will have no way of setting themselves apart as individuals with unique ideas, perspectives, and policy proposals.
The “debate” format provided the candidates with rebuttals after each initial question was answered. Rather than differentiate, each candidate took the time to plug more canned talking points no different than what the opposing candidate just said. Under each, everything will be “better” because they “will get things done” and “improve communication between the student body and the Student Assembly” and so on and so on. Naturally, “diversity requirements” was also a hot-button issue.
There was but one notable issue on which the candidates disagree, and it might just make all the difference in the end.
When directly asked about past SA candidates and how they often just say what the students want to hear, McBride spoke about the not-yet-opened student-run grocery store in Anabel Taylor, ostensibly created to combat food insecurity on campus but not doing as was promised.
Don’t expect much more “debate” in this race. What occurred last week for 45 minutes was just an anomaly. The real race consists of getting as many Facebook friends as possible to change their profile pictures to the candidates’ logos and get student club endorsements.
Pretty embarrassing. Usually how it is though. I’ll vote for Jordana because she’s not promising mandatory “diversity sensitivity training” in Freshman Writing Seminars. And our only EVP choice is a social justice warrior who has ran for three different positions in as many semesters. The few seemingly right leaning people on the SA don’t seem to be running anymore. What a joke of a body.