After I received several Facebook group invitations just hours after campaigning had officially begun last week, it was clear that the race for next year's Student Assembly leadership was well underway. It never ceases to amaze me how passionate and serious the candidates are about the Assembly. But of course, it does make sense since the race provides students with an outlet and an organization that can bring about change on campus. However, I feel that this campaign is also an example of the lack of credibility Student Assembly sometimes has, since some candidates have decided to run with platforms that are pure fantasy. Student Assembly needs this race to be run by candidates with honest platforms and transparent campaigns if it is to regain the students trust and move forward.
The start of this campaign has strongly reminded me of my high school student government elections: Candidates promise us things that were barely attainable. For instance, I remember that one candidate in high school tried to run a whole campaign based on the promise of new athletic facilities. He was delusional, and the students were fooled into believing he could achieve such a feat. While many regarded it as a joke back then, I find the similarities to the current Assembly race rather worrisome.
While I find the zeal with which many of the candidates seem to be campaigning admirable, it is clear that running a campaign based on a platform that is attainable is not always a priority. It seems that in their quest to get elected some overlook (perhaps on purpose) the fact that what they are running on is not feasible. Jaromy Siporen '08 advocates being able to rush the field at homecoming. Carlos Mejia '08's platform as stated on his Facebook group includes 24-hour dining and library access. While some of those ideas don't look bad on paper, I fear that students might be sucked into this fantasy that what these candidates propose can be achieved as easily as they say. Indeed, the naive assumption that just by talking to our president and informing him of students wishes we will magically obtain 24-hour dining is preposterous. Nobody seriously believes that rushing the field can become legal ( and if it does, it would probably lose its appeal anyways). And Carlos did outline a clear plan stating how he wanted to get things done. "Bottom line is, we need better management of DDS," he told me in an interview. While I find his method comprehensive, I believe he will meet more resistance than he anticipates, both from Student Assembly itself and the administration.
Having said that, I would like to mention that while I might not agree with all that they propose (or how they plan to get it done), I must commend Mejia and Siporen for publicizing their platforms from the beginning. After a couple of days into the campaign, and with less than a week to go, few other candidates have so far managed to publicize the issues they are running on. Transparency is also important; students will never get a clear picture of whom they are voting for if candidates only announce their plan with a couple of days to go in the campaign, after anyone has time to scrutinize their candidacies.
I believe that candidates should stick to issues that can actually be resolved, issues that can make a change in students' everyday lives. I would advocate for getting rid of the $300 charge for cable boxes for students (Mejia and Nathan Bruschi '10 have already made it part of their platforms). Other popular ideas seem to be creating more Greenprint and Blitzmail terminals, or allowing students to pay with dash in all vending machines. All these are solid issues that not only improve students' lives, but can also be implemented by the new Student Assembly leadership. I hope that debates and other events will give students a more accurate assessment of what each candidate represents. For this to work happen, people must not shy from asking the tough questions.
Since the campaign period is so short, it is often difficult for students to get a detailed and full picture of who they are voting for, and there is always the danger of these races turning into what they were at my high school: a popularity contest. But there is still time for students to make an informed decision not only for themselves, but also for the campus as a whole. We must hold each candidate accountable for his or her words.
