If you want to look at my (previously) live-tweets on the subject of the SGA Debate, here's a widget of my tweets tagged with #SGADebate. (SGA Debate)
I want to keep this as general as possible, in order to keep any unnecessary bias infiltrate my writing. First, I'm going to give an overview of the performance of each candidate. Then I'm going to talk about how this debate changed the field (if at all). Finally, I'll conclude with some more general comments on the debate as a whole - what I was pleased to hear and what I am saddened was left out from the discussion.
First, an overview of the performance of each candidate. This time, I will go alphabetical by LAST name, so that the order is different this time, too.
Photo from the Davidsonian's facebook page. Go like them for great Davidson news.
Richard Hendrix
As expected, Hendrix shined in the debate today. He has always had a knack for public speaking, and running a campaign without being able to use his voice until today has been a huge disadvantage for Richard. The other candidates should probably be thankful that he wasn't able to speak publicly on his own behalf until this debate. That being said, the crowd seemed to have a particular approach to the debate which was unexpected even for me, and statements that would work for any other debate seemed to fall a little flat with the crowd.
Richard used his time very well and was respectful of the time allotments he was given - not once did the moderator have to cut him off. This style note seems minor, but it is important to have a president who does listen to time constraints and operates within them, even if for something as small as a 1- or 2-minute spoken response.
Wade Leach
I think Wade was the big surprise of the day. He possessed a skill for public speaking I think many of those I have talked to were not aware of. Like Richard, though, this skill seems to be used late in the game. I was unable to attend his Saturday event "Lemonade with Wade", but if anyone who attended wants to contact me about the programming of this meet-and-greet, I would be happy to rescind my comments on his lateness.
Wade started off very strong and didn't end poorly. There were a few very minor blips, but Wade spoke very clearly and very well.
Parker Murphy
I was most impressed with Parker Murphy's performance at the debate. Typically there is a lot of disagreement at debates, but this debate was mostly just each candidate regurgitating what the previous speaker said, but in his own words. Parker's approach to many of the issues that were brought up weren't focused on buzz-phrases like "bridging the gap" or "institutional collaboration". Murphy answered his questions in a very clear, straight-forward way. One part of a debate of this sort is to emotionally charge the policy which the candidate has offered, but the bigger part for me is the substance. On substance, Parker killed the debate.
I caught up with him much after the debate, and he seemed under the impression he didn't do his best at the debate. A major theme of discussion around Parker is that he is a perfectionist and has come to expect so much out of himself, and the short chat afterwards cemented this in my mind, hours after the final answers were spoken.
Zi Yang
Zi's most used phrases were about how he realizes how important it is to consider minorities in voting rather than just following what 51% of the student body wants. This is definitely an important thing to consider, especially given the trouble that majoritarian rule has gotten many countries or states into.
Zi had an uncanny ability to garner applause from the audience today. One time it would be a joke, another time a statement many in the room seemed to agree with. The largest round of applause came after Zi began to answer a question on the lack of gender diversity in the race for student body president (all 5 candidates are men).
Pablo Zevallos
Nobody was surprised by how well Zevallos did today. Pablo has experience speaking in public and has been debating for a long time. He was the only candidate to address directly the point of another potential student body president during the entire debate. He disagreed with Richard Hendrix on how inclusive Davidson is to all of its student body. While other candidates did mention the statements made by those speaking before them, none overtly disagreed.
Zevallos came out swinging, starting off reiterating his Four Point Agenda for anyone in the room who somehow hadn't heard it at this point. He was trying to find the way to bring the debate back to his agenda, and it was clear that Zevallos wanted someone to challenge him directly. The candidates either knew better or weren't interested in arguing with each other, so no other presidential hopeful disagreed with Zevallos directly, explaining why they would do something different from him.
A Changing Field?
There were a few changes in the field following today. Nobody necessarily lost a lot of stock, but several candidates definitely gained from the debate this afternoon.
First, Wade Leach showed his skill in public speaking. This was something he hadn't yet shown to Davidson students, many of whom didn't know him until the race for student body president. Richard Hendrix also showed his prowess at public speaking, but this comes as no surprise for anyone who is not a first year (Hendrix was abroad in London last semester).
Second, Zi Yang showed everyone that he definitely is a "man of the people", someone who considers not only the majority vote, but also how a decision can affect the voters in the minority. The example he gave was his zeal over moving the coffeehouse/pub into the space currently occupied by the Multi-Cultural House. This was a major misstep in many eyes last year, but Zi's acceptance that he was in the wrong and clear understanding of how to learn from this mistake is likely to have garnered him some support. The cheers from the crowd during many of his answers shows that many of those in attendance believe in him, too.
Third, Zevallos has indicated he totally understands his platform. He was incredibly ready to defend it should anyone challenge him on it, and it seemed clear not only to the crowd but to the other candidates that Pablo's policy is not something to challenge directly. Towards the end of the debate he began to sound like a broken record repeating his platform, but this may work in his favor rather than against him. (Especially since two of the crowd questions were centered around the perceived lack of any agenda by the Student Government Association.)
Finally, the winner of the debate.
It's hard to put a finger on the winner of debates like these, and often it becomes a process of elimination until one can find a single candidate that didn't totally stink. In this debate, every candidate did an excellent job, and this was incredibly difficult to narrow down. Even so, I believe that the winner of today's debate was Parker Murphy.
I had my doubts about this candidate, but today he showed a clear understanding of the SGA, was able to relate his own experience to the job of SGA President, and set as an agenda not to try for particular goals on day one but to be available to any and all students in order to find what needs to be done. Parker's debate style is not flashy by any definition of the word, but the substance of his responses was spot on. He is by no means a bad public speaker - in fact, quite the opposite - but his responses seemed to value substance over style, something I find very respectable in a debate.
Again, every candidate did an excellent job today, and I am impressed with all of them.
Comments on Debate Topics
What is not said in any form of discourse is just as important as what is discussed.
Here are some major things I felt were left out of the debate today:
1. The Religious Bylaw
Just a week ago, the current SGA President, Chris Ragsdale, sent an email update about the progress on the Religious Bylaw and word from the Board of Trustees. As many Davidson students may recall, this was a HUGE issue last year, when a large majority of the student body agreed that the presidential bylaw requiring the president of the college to align with PCUSA was a bylaw which needed to be reconsidered. This conversation first came up when deciding on the new president of the college in a search that ended with the lovely Carol Quillen at the school's helm. The problem, though, is that Quillen is not Presbyterian and would therefore have to sacrifice her own religious integrity in order to be Davidson's president.
Not only did the student body overwhelmingly support dismantling this bylaw, but Faculty and Alumni groups also wrote of grievances with the bylaw, urging the Board to reconsider the law. It has been mostly under Chris Ragsdale that this issue has been carried to the Board, but it hardly makes sense for this discussion to end with his term.
2. SGA Reform and a renewed efficiency
What many don't realize is how much the SGA has changed in the past two years, and there seemed to be very little comment on this. Davidson's Student Government Association is the most transparent it has ever been. The people that we have working in the SGA are some of the smartest, most organized students on campus, and there seemed to me very little mention for all of the hard work that the SGA senators put in each semester here. This was especially the problem when discussing female SGA senators, of whom only Emily Rapport of Dinner at Davidson fame/badassery was mentioned. In a tweet by Emily Rapport, she called the candidates out on this.
While I hardly think any of the candidates were being malicious in any way, and while I also believe that the candidates have no issues with taking their friends for granted, per se, it is fairly troubling that there was only praise for a few senators (and only one female) within our Student Government. The candidates need to make sure they are aware of the work that other members of the senate put in, as well as appreciate the system which has been set up for them. The SGA is now running at the highest level of efficiency and transparency I can point to (I realize I haven't been at Davidson for more than 3 years, but the differences are not insignificant between my first year and now).
That's all for now. I've decided to save policy analysis for the inevitable run-off, so that I can get more input from the two candidates squaring off for one last shot. Apologies for how crudely written these posts have been - I have been extremely busy and haven't had time to proofread anything I have written. If anything seems out of place, please reach out to me. Again, my Twitter handle is @HamptonStall, and I would love to hear from anyone about what they thought of the debate or the race overall.
---
Don't forget to vote for your favorite candidate tomorrow between 10am and 10pm. I will probably be voting later in the evening so I have enough time to mull over what I have read and heard over the past week or so, but I encourage many of you to vote as soon as it crosses your mind - it only takes a minute or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment