Another GUSA presidential election approaches, and there are a number of issues that are essential for the new executives to address.
Ideally, the GUSA executives would play an important role in three major areas of university life. First, the GUSA executives must take a proactive stance in representing the concerns of the student body to the new University President, John J. DeGioia, as well as make significant efforts to mend relations between Georgetown University and its neighbors. It is simply unfeasible for students and community members to have a peaceful relationship if the student leadership only considers its place within the larger community sporadically.
Secondly, the executives should pursue measures to improve the quality of student life in matters of security, comfort and in the academic realm as well. Finally, the new executives should represent all members of the Georgetown community and not simply those who choose to participate in GUSA or those who participate in campus activities.
In an ideal world, all candidates running for executive positions in GUSA would consider these objectives to be of paramount importance. Needless to say, the world of GUSA elections is far from ideal. The cast of characters in the upcoming elections are, sadly, a rather lackluster bunch, the majority of whom have chosen to focus on such mundane and peripheral issues as the One Card over more pressing and visionary proposals.
Of the six tickets slated to run in the upcoming elections, we feel that the Bill Jarvis/Doug Herrema ticket comes closest to meeting our criteria for suitable executives. In relative terms, their platform is more evenly balanced between concrete proposals for improvement in student life and activities, measures for student government reform and a push for fuller representation of the student body by GUSA.
This decision was not reached based on the various tickets’ views on GUSA reform, nor was it reached based on the strengths and weaknesses of the many candidates’ political philosophies. This was not an option, since most candidates steered clear of impassioned positions on the upcoming referendum on the Yard. Moreover, differences between the various candidates’ platforms were less differences in philosophy than they were differences in which concrete measures candidates included in their respective laundry lists. Here we have not even the veneer of lukewarm ideological difference that pervades the United States’ two-party system.
The major difference between the candidates was in skill level and experience. Johnson Elugbadebo (SFS ‘02)/Amar Weisman (CAS ‘03), Joe Kildea (MSB ‘02)/Byron LaMotte (CAS ‘03), and Mike Green (CAS ‘02)/Jeff Watkinson (MSB ‘02) simply failed to show competency as serious executive candidates. The Elugbadebo/Weisman ticket devoted their 1.5 page platform to stating their views on cynicism and leadership and spewing vague bromides regarding the Yard, whose constitution they had evidently barely perused. Elugbabedo/Weisman claimed that the main focus of their “platform” was their support for the Yard but they were unable to articulate coherent views on this, their cherished issue, nor were they able to defend the Yard against even the simplest criticisms.
Green/Watkinson were similarly uninformed of important Georgetown news and have no experience working on GUSA.
Kildea/LaMotte said the theme of their campaign is, “No propaganda.” They adhered faithfully to this slogan. They gave us no propaganda, and nothing else. While their lack of GUSA credentials might be pardoned if supplemented by astuteness, their lack of knowledge of university news and the basic workings of the institution leave the ticket entirely unredeemed. A more serious problem with Kildea/LaMotte is their conservative views of the proper functions of student government. They denounced non-violent protest as immature and said “I don’t think that GUSA should apply itself to the political arena.” They believe that the proper function of GUSA is to plan social events and make student life more fun. Such short-sightedness has no place in student government.
We seriously considered only Brian Dunleavy (MSB ‘02)/Rena Borucki (CAS ‘02), Ryan Dubose (CAS ‘02)/Brian Walsh, Bill Jarvis (MSB ‘02)/Doug Herrema (CAS ‘02) as qualified for the executive positions. Dunleavy/Borucki presented a platform that was concise but focused. They propose adding a regular shuttle service to SafeRides called G.U.T.S. After Dark. They identified diplomacy in town-gown relations as a priority. Nevertheless, Dunleavy/Borucki’s brief platform lacks the breadth or depth of Jarvis/Herrema’s. We recommend that Dunleavy and Borucki run for representative positions in order to carry out the few, but important, proposals outlined in their platform.
Ryan Dubose (CAS ‘02)/Brian Walsh (CAS 02) have impressive student activities credentials. Furthermore, Dubose/Walsh recognize, more than any of the other candidates, the perils of GUSA’s “self-government narcissism.” Our belief that they are not as qualified for the executive positions, then, is based primarily upon the strength of their platform.
Dubose/Walsh make community-building the central focus of their campaign. The unfortunate result is a series of vapid and fluffy proposals that Dubose/Walsh hope will “reclaim Georgetown for the students.” They include the creation of a Georgetown History Museum on campus, increased Jesuit interaction with the students, the monthly celebration of Jack the Bulldog’s birthday and the celebration of Fountain Day and Georgetown Day, the last two of which already exist. We do not disagree that Georgetown may be lacking in community; however, Hoya Blue and similar organizations may be more appropriate vehicles for implementing these proposals.
We feel that Jarvis/Herrema best address the issues that will face Georgetown University in the coming year. They make inclusiveness, an area in which student government currently is deficient, a priority by proposing the resurrection of the Club Association comprised of representatives from student organizations. They devote considerable energy to addressing basic ways to improve campus life, including classroom improvement, the improvement of the Sellinger Lounge, the creation of a housing database to assist students in the search for off-campus housing and lobbying for the space freed in New South to be used for student clubs. Furthermore, Jarvis/Herrema claim they will work to improve the Art, Music and Theater Department and the Journalism curriculum, all of which are sorely lacking in support and resources. Finally, we believe that Jarvis/Herrema will be committed to maintaining a presence in the community by attending ANC meetings and engaging with community members. Therefore, we endorse the Jarvis/Herrema ticket as best qualified for the positions of GUSA President and Vice-President.
