Elections open for GUSA president and vice president, and for class of 2028 and at-large senators, on Tuesday, Nov. 5 at 8 p.m. eastern. Polls close Thursday, Nov. 7, at 8 p.m. eastern. This article will be updated with a link to the voting form.
The editorial board has been clear about its disenchantment with GUSA. However, absent major structural reforms, GUSA’s president and vice president still matter greatly in advocating for student needs to an often unresponsive university administration. Given GUSA’s track record of otherwise lackluster candidates, the Henshaw-Wagner ticket stands out as a bold and progressive campaign that’s been lacking in recent GUSA history.
Devoted to the pursuit of equity and justice across race, gender, class, and other facets of identity, Henshaw and Wagner’s approach is both comprehensive and actionable, with goals grounded in pushing for more transparency in university policies and improving student well-being and financial accessibility. Only one ticket in this race has shown both an understanding of the fundamental problems students face and a sincere willingness to work with a diverse range of campus organizations to enact change. For their intentional outreach to over 40 student organizations to develop an extensive policy platform that reflects the needs of students, the editorial board strongly endorses Ethan Henshaw (CAS ’26) and Darius Wagner (CAS ’27) for president and vice-president in the 2024 GUSA executive election.
The alternative, Allie Sanchez (MSB ’26) and Paul Sperber’s (CAS ’26) campaign—launched, in part, to avoid a 20-page paper for a course on campaigns and elections—positions itself as a fresh face in an institution removed from the student body, yet offers little in the way of substance, and even less in terms of execution. In fact, the campaign seems unconcerned with the needs of students and the broader foundational concerns that many students of marginalized identities experience daily on our campus. The Sanchez-Sperber ticket prides itself on its detachment, presenting its disconnection from GUSA as a point of pride rather than a gap in commitment. But the simple truth is that this approach doesn’t make their platform more compelling, it just means they’re unprepared.
A brief glimpse at each ticket’s platform reveals the sharp divide in scope and substance behind the two campaigns. While the Sanchez-Sperber ticket’s one-Instagram-slide platform lacks any substantive engagement with policy, defining itself as “fixing the little things,” Henshaw and Wagner’s comprehensive 11-page document outlines an exhaustively wide range of goals for their term, each supported by actionable steps and plans for collaboration with the relevant administrative or student groups.
The core differences: Experience and approach
The Sanchez-Sperber platform is centered around inconveniences and accessibility concerns like “fixing the broken doors in Darnall,” addressing “slow elevators,” and correcting broken links on the GUSA website. Upon repeated questioning, both Sanchez and Sperber appeared oblivious to the steps needed to rectify these issues.
At first glance, the Sanchez-Sperber campaign seems well-intentioned. Their status as outsiders who recognize GUSA’s disconnect from the student body has been one of their main selling points, tapping into student perceptions that GUSA is for resume building rather than advocating for student needs. However, their lack of experience also means they need to do more work—not less—to understand how GUSA currently functions and what needs to change to best serve students. Instead, Sanchez-Sperber’s proposals for dining reforms, facilities repairs, and Georgetown Day safety lack consideration of how to implement these goals or how they would impact other community members, like dining and facilities workers. When asked how their administration would support first-years and students with marginalized identities, they spoke about incentivizing Georgetown’s clubs to be more welcoming through funding, but provided no other details.
Not only do Sanchez-Sperber seem uninformed on what student needs are, they also don’t seem serious about using GUSA as an advocacy space to accomplish even the narrow range of goals they list in their platform.
The Sanchez-Sperber campaign fails to fully think through who Georgetown students are and what they need. Georgetown deserves more from its student government than just fixing the little things. We need more than student leaders who tailor their demands to what’s doable for the university administration.
Henshaw and Wagner’s understanding of GUSA’s role extends far beyond the superficial fixes offered by the Sanchez-Sperber ticket. Henshaw is currently the Policy and Advocacy Chair in the Senate, while Wagner is the Financial Accessibility Chair under the Executive. They bring a healthy skepticism toward GUSA’s current shortcomings and recognize where it can do better. As Wagner said to the Voice, “GUSA, for too long, has existed far above our community. It’s time that we get back in the weeds.”
Henshaw and Wagner bring a tangible record of leadership and advocacy to their campaign, and have demonstrated their capacity to engage the student body. They were at the forefront of the successful gender-inclusive housing referendum last spring, which passed with a 91.2 percent majority and 31.2 percent student turnout—an impressive feat considering a historic lack of turnout for GUSA referendums.
The two campaigns on the issues
In preparing for their campaign, Henshaw and Wagner showed a willingness to go out of their way to hear the concerns of students. Of the over 40 student groups they reached out to, they were able to organize meetings with 27 as of this past Friday, and secured endorsements from 15. These include, but are not limited to: H*yas for Choice, La Casa Latina, GU Pride, and the Black Leadership Forum.
By contrast, in discussing how their administration would serve marginalized students on campus, Sanchez and Sperber were unable to name any organizations with which they could potentially collaborate, instead choosing to discuss broad concerns around first-year inclusivity while yet again failing to name any specific action items.
As the co-founders of Hoyas Against Legacy Admissions, Henshaw and Wagner have made ending legacy- and donor-preferred admissions a central part of their campaign. The editorial board has likewise called for this initiative, which will neither decrease alumni donations nor imperil student financial aid, after the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overturned affirmation action. When asked during their interview with the Voice, and again during Monday’s town hall, Henshaw immediately gave statistics and an extensive list of government officials, media outlets, and progressive organizations they have already worked with to make ending legacy admissions a reality. They recognize the difficult headwinds they’ll face from administration pushback, but have clearly shown that they plan to make any progress they can on this campaign promise.
The Sanchez-Sperber ticket, however, believes Georgetown only requires minor changes to meet student needs, a view perhaps informed (or left uninformed) by their limited engagement with diverse areas of campus.
Sanchez and Sperber rationalize legacy admissions as part of Georgetown’s “business model,” pinning hopes on a “more diverse future legacy pool” rather than direct policy action, even amidst a consistent lack of diversity in the student population, which has only grown in incoming university cohorts after the end of affirmative action.
Sanchez and Sperber’s view is that “the number one mission of GUSA is to just improve student life at Georgetown, bar none, bare stop.” This informs their opinion that ending Georgetown’s opaque and unethical investments, including those in corporations with ties to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and expanding invasion of Lebanon, is outside GUSA’s purview.
In contrast, Henshaw and Wagner’s position is clear. “I don’t think your attendance at Georgetown should be contingent on support for violence in any manner in any place in the world,” Henshaw said to the Voice. “Jesuit principles of caring for people, to care for the many innocent Palestinians who are being killed in Gaza, would be to not invest in the companies that are actively funding military infrastructure and equipment,” Wagner added.
Henshaw and Wagner understand GUSA’s role in holding university administration accountable.
In their interview with the Voice, Henshaw and Wagner emphasized that their campaign is rooted in uplifting workers’ rights and student activists, an area that seems to fall outside the scope of the Sanchez-Sperber campaign. Henshaw and Wagner have met with groups advocating for campus workers and have pledged support for the ongoing Resident Assistants’ unionization efforts . Through their future roles on the Advisory Committee on Business Practices, which guides the university’s labor policy, Henshaw and Wagner plan to advocate for increased transparency around labor practices so that Georgetown workers, from dining to facilities staff, get what they need and what they deserve.
Henshaw and Wagner have also prioritized accessibility in their campaign, promising to not only make tangible improvements for students with disabilities and mental health challenges, but also shifting the campus environment to promote a culture of access. This includes reducing Counseling and Psychiatric Services wait times, increasing diversity among mental health providers, and making Georgetown’s physical spaces more accessible. This editorial board commends their engagement and activism to address obstacles to the physical and psychological well-being of students, which is another area where Sanchez-Sperber falls short. Listing accessibility as a priority on an Instagram post is not enough—students deserve more.
The Henshaw-Wagner campaign aims to be the sorely-needed bridge between students and faculty. “I think GUSA has a lot of power and respect among the administration that perhaps could be used more effectively,” Henshaw said.
This editorial board agrees wholeheartedly: only the Henshaw-Wagner campaign have shown the dedication, preparation, and genuine engagement needed to lead GUSA to advocate for meaningful, student-centered change.
For those who want more from their student government, the choice is clear—Henshaw-Wagner.
The editorial board is the official opinion of The Georgetown Voice. The board’s editorials reflect the majority opinion of the board’s members, who are listed on the masthead. The editorial board strives to provide an independent view on issues pertinent to Georgetown University and the broader D.C. community, based on a set of progressive institutional values including anti-racism, trauma-informed reporting, and empathetic and considerate journalism. The editorial board operates independently of the Voice’s newsroom and the General Board.
