Yesterday, Student Assembly Vice President Noah Riner '04 responded to charges that the BuzzFlood's recent debate debacle may not have come as close to fruition as members of the organization -- namely Kabir Sehgal '05 and Brent Reidy '05 -- claimed it had. Riner wanted to "respond with the facts." Sadly, his "facts" cannot be considered as such. He even admits that his knowledge of the circumstances is limited: "The student-organized debate did not materialize for reasons that I'm not fully aware of [sic]."
As someone intimately familiar with much of the behind-the-scenes wrangling, I wish to clarify some of Riner's assertions. But first, I offer full disclosure: I do not like the BuzzFlood, period, for reasons I have made clear in other publications. In general, the organization is devoted to self-serving, superficial goals disguised as an effort to "celebrate excellence" at Dartmouth. This, however, is fodder for another column.
First, Riner writes that "all presidential candidates confirmed, at least by telephone or email, that they would attend the student-organized presidential discussion." He cites one sui generis e-mail receive beforehand. The rest are all either telephone calls, or e-mails solicited after the fact. The telephone calls were fielded solely by Kabir Sehgal and therefore cannot be confirmed by anyone -- Riner included.
I had access to the much-lauded e-mails -- the ones Riner believes prove candidates had confirmed. (Sehgal recently sent them across campus with the recipient list kept private.) Well, in case you were wondering, those are not statements from the actual candidates. Rather, they were generated by the press offices after Sehgal contacted them. The original e-mails -- not the cut-and-paste job Sehgal's been showing off -- contained headers like "approved" or "fine." In other words, The BuzzFlood constructed the statements, and the press offices gave the go-ahead. How surprising is it that a campaign would be nice to constituents during a presidential election? Especially students who were disappointed that the candidates hadn't made their event.
This also raises another question: Why go through so much effort to get these statements in the first place? The event never occurred, after all. Was it not for the exclusive purpose of self-praise? The statements are like seven bad jokes -- all with the same punchline. Each lavished effusive praise on the BuzzFlood -- praise that was, almost undoubtedly, penned by Sehgal or someone else from the BuzzFlood. In my mind, these efforts sound more like sad desperation than proof of anything.
Oddly enough, Riner appeals to BuzzFlood's selflessness. The event in Lebanon was not even going to mention BuzzFlood, he claims. The banners would all tout "Dartmouth College's Student Assembly." Past intentions, contrary to Riner's writing, are important in this discussion, because they give some understanding of BuzzFlood's motivations. Back in October, the 'Flood was finally forced to work with Rocky in order to get invitations sent from the President's office. The students were not pleased. In an e-mail shortly after this decision, Brent Reidy explained that "we [the BuzzFlood] need to make sure maintain [sic] a certain degree of control over the event." One of their "demands" (his word, not mine) even states, "We [The BuzzFlood] are listed as the key sponsor of the event, and the poster design for advertisement must be approved by us." Selfless indeed!
Since Riner is so content to rely on hearsay from Sehgal as proof, I'll add a bit of my own. I recently spoke with an individual in the area who worked in the Clark campaign's office on Main Street. He definitively said that Clark never committed to a debate here -- not BuzzFlood's, not Rocky's. Clark was always planning to be in the south of the state. Further, the individual repeatedly referred to the BuzzFlood's efforts as a real "headache." He also used a few terms unsuitable for these pages.
Perhaps Riner, and anyone else inclined to believe the BuzzFlood's version of events, should keep in mind the principle of Occom's razor: The simplest explanation, with the greatest explanatory value, is probably the correct one. So should we believe that Sehgal single-handedly corraled all seven candidates into a debate two days before the primary with no major media partner lined up, with no evidence of commitment beforehand save one e-mail, and that the candidates were so bummed by the cancellation -- yet so impressed by the BuzzFlood -- that they sent personal notes to Sehgal? Or is it more reasonable that the event never coalesced in the first place, but the BuzzFlood still yearned for the attendant glory?
The wealth of evidence points to this latter interpretation. No doubt, BuzzFlood tried to dupe the media; no one was buying. As Riner's column demonstrates, however, it looks like they did dupe the Student Assembly.
But enough from my end. You be the judge.
