“What does your hair say about yourself?” “Which do you prefer: puppies or kittens?”
These were just two of the more inane questions asked during the Undergraduate Students Association Council endorsement hearings held last week.
Ironically, the above questions got the most coherent and direct answers of any at the 18 hours of hearings this board attended. This board believes that as one of the primary dialogues between candidates and the campus, the process is a mind-numbing failure.
Candidates have only a minute and a half to present their platforms, after which student groups take turns asking unregulated and repetitive questions, which are limited to 30 seconds and cannot be multiple part questions. No follow-ups are allowed and students cannot direct questions to a specific candidate. The only attendees permitted to ask questions were the student groups registered for the hearing.
And although the asinine structure of the endorsement made substantive debate nearly impossible, the content of the hearings was also questionable.
Rather than trying to evaluate the strength of the platforms and the candidates’ ability to execute them, the student groups in attendance preferred to quiz the candidates on their esoteric interests, repeatedly asking each candidate, irrespective of position: “How will you address my student group’s interests?”
At times, it was as if even the pretense of neutrality had been dropped. What was supposed to be a reasoning discussion of the issues often devolved into nothing more than a slate-driven pep rally, with student groups raucously finger-snapping during and between candidates’ presentations.
Many of the student groups seemed to be there simply to cheer on their preferred candidate. The moderator only intervened to enforce the ban on two-part questions and cut people off when they exceeded their allotted time limits. The end result was an almost entirely invalid process that consisted primarily of candidates pandering to student groups, and student groups pandering to their preferred candidates.
USAC endorsement hearings are largely useless and must be reformed. They should be moderated by a neutral party, and all questions should be submitted to the moderator, who would not only eliminate repetitive facetious questions but also ask the questions directly to the candidates. Time limits should be extended for opening and closing statements as well as questions and answers. The hearings should also be opened to the student body at large, so that the process can come to resemble the dialogue that every candidate so passionately espouses.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.