The presidential candidates for the undergraduate student
government had the opportunity to discuss their ideas in a public
debate Friday evening.
Three of the four presidential candidates were present at the
debate, each explaining their personal merits and responding to
concerns that have been raised in recent weeks.
Arash Mozayan Isfahani, an independent presidential candidate,
was unable to attend the event due to a family emergency.
“I wanted to be there. … It would have been informative
if I had been able to attend,” Isfahani said, adding that he
has plans for other ways to publicize his campaign, so he does not
feel disadvantaged by not being present at the debate.
Throughout the evening, slate animosities resurfaced between
candidates running for Students First! and the Equal Access
Coalition, while independent candidate Doug Ludlow asserted that a
candidate without slate affiliation would be most successful.
Isfahani also said he believes his lack of slate or group
affiliation would make him able to focus on issues without
political influence.
There was little direct discussion of the differences that have
existed between the slates this past year, but slate politics
infiltrated much of the discussion of various issues that the
Undergraduate Students Association Council may address next year,
such as fee increases, the enrollment cap and funding of student
groups.
Students First! has often been accused of dealing unfairly with
student groups who are not part of their constituency, and some
students are concerned that this would reflect in Allende
Palma/Saracho’s actions if he were elected president.
In response, the Students First! candidate pointed to the wide
range of student groups that have received funding this year
““ more groups received funding this year than in any previous
year.
“It’s unfair to say that we have funded our groups
disproportionately. … We went a really long way to expand
USAC’s inclusivity,” Palma/Saracho said.
Lawson was confronted with his decisions to vote against two
resolutions in support of same-sex marriage and gay rights. Some
students have taken his stance on these resolutions as evidence he
will not adequately represent the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community.
But Lawson said he did not believe that any of his personal or
political views should be a primary concern for voters, adding he
would advocate for the rights of all students equally, regardless
of their sexual orientation.
In particular, Lawson addressed his stance in opposition to the
two resolutions, saying each of them contained a clause that he
believed was too extreme ““ for example, a call for co-ed
restrooms on campus.
Ludlow was asked to discuss his decision to put up a campaign
Web site before the date campaigning can officially begin.
But Ludlow stands by his decision, maintaining that a campaign
Web site was legal to the best of his knowledge based on
information he received in the campaign packet.
Though there were some inevitable tensions between the
candidates, Palma/Saracho said he thought the debate was productive
and informative.
“It made for a really good debate, … it was really
interesting,” he said.