By now, you have probably received an email with the Category II elections results. Congratulations are in order for the following new members of SGA/Student body representative positions:
Union Board President: Veronica Hudson
Union Board Vice President: Kieran Lenahan
Student Government Association Vice President: VJ Brown
Activities Tax Council Vice Chair: Stacy McElroy
Civic Engagement Council Chair: Ana Pinheiro
Committee on Campus and Religious Life Members: Ela Hefler; Max Feinstein; Sam
Riehl; Sana Alimohamed
Student Defense Advisors: Karl Wold and Rebecca Surratt
Student Solicitors: Susanna Vogel and Robert Hagerty
Since no one of the five candidates were able to score 50.1% of the vote in the general election, SGA election bylaws state that a run-off between the two highest-polling candidates, Pablo Zevallos and Zi Yang, is in order. I have just heard back from the elections committee and have received permission to report that the overall student turnout for the Cat II elections was 53%, which is hugely impressive given numbers on previous polled items (namely Divest Davidson which was called by 4 votes equating to about a .5% victory last semester).
I will be basing a lot of the analysis in this post on the policy on their websites, and a few on the record chats. If you want to view their platforms, here is Pablo's, and here are both of Zi's pages.
I have heard many colleagues argue that Pablo and Zi are running on essentially the same platforms and are very similar as candidates. I have heard many say this run-off comes down to choosing a candidate rather than a policy, which does have some merit. For the sake of following through with my promised policy post, though, I feel like I must make it clear how different the two candidates are just on the basis of policy and their approach to the presidency.
A clear difference between Pablo and Zi is what they see change happening through different mediums.
First, we have Pablo Zevallos
Pablo, for the most part, seems to aim at disrupting the system. He sees positive change by critically examining Davidson as a whole and addressing what may be wrong in our student culture or with current institutions. Zevallos states that he sees "two different Davidsons--split on the bases of gender, socioeconomics, sexual orientation and housing types", which he seeks to address.
Pablo examines the problem of sexual assault on campus, and seeks to bring new institutions on campus (though through RLO) in order to combat this. The institution he seeks to bring, One in Four, seeks to address changes to culture in order to change the status quo of rhetoric around and acceptability of sexual assault on campus.
Pablo also looks at economic access, and encourages establishing a new starter fund for unpaid summer internships for those receiving financial aid. The model of this is based on a previously-existing effort, CarShare, but still looks at changing the way unpaid internships are approached by the school.
In his examination of sub-free/non sub-free divides, he looks to changes in orientation practices to help remedy the scars between the two groups at the start of campus life. This isn't so much a disruption as a pretty large modification to an existing program of orientation, but the modification is still significant in that working within the system doesn't seem to be Zevallos' main goal.
Zevallos' view on LGBTQIA groups, visibility, and the flag forum seem to be in line with current student trends, and though the trend is seeking reformation, the reformation isn't particularly earth-shattering on campus.
Here's a post on Pablo's mission from his facebook page:
I will be basing a lot of the analysis in this post on the policy on their websites, and a few on the record chats. If you want to view their platforms, here is Pablo's, and here are both of Zi's pages.
I have heard many colleagues argue that Pablo and Zi are running on essentially the same platforms and are very similar as candidates. I have heard many say this run-off comes down to choosing a candidate rather than a policy, which does have some merit. For the sake of following through with my promised policy post, though, I feel like I must make it clear how different the two candidates are just on the basis of policy and their approach to the presidency.
A clear difference between Pablo and Zi is what they see change happening through different mediums.
First, we have Pablo Zevallos
Pablo, for the most part, seems to aim at disrupting the system. He sees positive change by critically examining Davidson as a whole and addressing what may be wrong in our student culture or with current institutions. Zevallos states that he sees "two different Davidsons--split on the bases of gender, socioeconomics, sexual orientation and housing types", which he seeks to address.
Pablo examines the problem of sexual assault on campus, and seeks to bring new institutions on campus (though through RLO) in order to combat this. The institution he seeks to bring, One in Four, seeks to address changes to culture in order to change the status quo of rhetoric around and acceptability of sexual assault on campus.
Pablo also looks at economic access, and encourages establishing a new starter fund for unpaid summer internships for those receiving financial aid. The model of this is based on a previously-existing effort, CarShare, but still looks at changing the way unpaid internships are approached by the school.
In his examination of sub-free/non sub-free divides, he looks to changes in orientation practices to help remedy the scars between the two groups at the start of campus life. This isn't so much a disruption as a pretty large modification to an existing program of orientation, but the modification is still significant in that working within the system doesn't seem to be Zevallos' main goal.
Zevallos' view on LGBTQIA groups, visibility, and the flag forum seem to be in line with current student trends, and though the trend is seeking reformation, the reformation isn't particularly earth-shattering on campus.
Here's a post on Pablo's mission from his facebook page:
It's clear from his statement that Zevallos aims to look at changing the system, rather than working within it. His vision is that we admit what problems we have in order to address them, and that we address them by critically examining the structures and institutions we have in place. Both this statement and his Four Point Agenda reflect this. Early in the campaign, Zevallos also released a YouTube video offering viewers a chance to join him in examining Davidson and deciding how to cause change across the campus.
Then, we have Zi Yang
Zi, as opposed to Pablo, seems poised to try to work within the system of Davidson.
The most radical proposal by Zi is his 24/7 library proposal, which would include the installation of a self-checkout station at the front desk, late-night staff to maintain the space, and installation of a CatCard scanner to keep late night studying safe.
Many of Zi's specific platform goals include words like "increase", "improve", or "further implement", and it's clear that he is encouraging more work within the existing institutions of Davidson rather than more work to change the institutions of Davidson.
Zi has turned change over to student agency, encouraging channels of communication and placing the burden of change for issues like female representation in the SGA on students' shoulders rather than a more top-down approach. (Note: Pablo isn't necessarily a proponent of the top-down approach for this, but Zi's statement is still significant.) Rather than approaching sustainability from the top, Zi praises student initiatives.
Even in the SGA, Zi has explained that he wants those with expertise to come to Executive Council meetings to bring their own findings in order to allow the more "executive branch" of the SGA to make better decisions. Even where the change comes from the top, Zi seems to be turning it still onto the student experts.
There are a few cases where Zi is disruptive like Zevallos, and one is in the way that SGA meetings are held. On every issue, he hopes to have an argument both for and against the proposed change, so that "no voice [be] drowned and no one ... leave meetings with the frustration that their voice was not taken into careful consideration." Zi is also disruptive in his approach to the religious bylaw. Both Zi and Pablo share the same view on the Presidential Religious Bylaw and want continued discussion on it (both also oppose it).
---
I never imagined I would see a race of "change the system" ideology versus "work within the system" ideology, but these two candidates are great examples of either. As a student of the social sciences it has been fascinating to watch these two campaigns and their developed platforms.
It is important to note that both candidates will be great if elected, but it is up to you to vote on who gets to lead us forward. 53% is incredible turnout, but an even higher rate in Wednesday's election would be phenomenal. I encourage you to exercise the chance to impact the next year's SGA by spending that short 30 seconds it takes to vote tomorrow between classes.
---
A quick run-through of my experience on some of these issues:
I am extremely involved with work on access to education, specifically Dinner at Davidson. I have previously been a very active member of the Environmental Action Coalition (Chair of DIITD last year). I also voted in favor of Divestment last fall. I have not mentioned ATC salary positions of the candidates, but I think the "ATC controversy" is a non-issue and that some SGA salaries just make sense - many salaried SGA members have planned to donate their salaries back to Davidson, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment