My View from the Soapbox: Debating continues over casting Student Union votes

Well, the polls are officially open here at Boston University, and for the next three days you can vote for next year’s Student Union Executive Board. I have always taken a pessimistic and cynical tone whenever I mention our student government, and this race has been no exception.

Clearly, this year’s candidates come from questionable stock: ‘True 2’ are the quasi-incumbents who have been lambasted in The Daily Free Press for their rather ineffective first term, ‘URANUS’ is a rushed, dark horse slate of untested unknowns and ‘Truants’ are the staff of The Student Underground, needing no further explanation.

Last night at the Tsai Center, all three faced off for an excellent, rousing debate about student living on campus. Since the news section has already covered the specifics, I’ll just talk about who won, who lost and who impressed last night.

To start, the winners: ‘True 2’ won last night’s debate by a wide margin. Never before have I seen such a well-prepared, well-rehearsed and reasonable group of people running for our highest office. ‘True 2’ expertly presented their case, effectively answering every question. Even after both ‘Truants’ and ‘URANUS’ fired off several rounds in a not-so-surprising attack during the Q-and-A period, the front-runners remained intact.

In particular, Lauren Rodwell proved to be the shining star of the ‘True 2’ slate and the MVP of last night’s debate. While she never really spoke up until the event’s tail end, the Multicultural Affairs VP was easily the best and brightest of the entire lot. Rodwell absolutely blew away her competition, as she proceeded to lay out a comprehensive, reasonable plan to increase minority enrollment. While the ‘Truants’ and ‘URANUS’ have only promised to do something about this hot issue, Rodwell has already delivered, citing a successful orientation program already up and running on campus.

As expected, ‘URANUS’ came in second, successfully painting themselves as the ‘Average Joes’ and the underdogs of the race. Despite their silly name, ‘URANUS’ proved they were serious and passionate about improving BU’s quality of life; the only question is whether or not they could actually accomplish improvements. While ‘URANUS’ presented plenty of good ideas, their haphazard organization definitely showed a serious lack of depth and prompts real concern. Also, ‘URANUS’ only had three representatives present (‘True 2’ had eight), and only two really had any microphone time.

‘URANUS’ President Adam Eisenhut and Executive VP Brandon Johnson both turned out strong performances, presenting a truthful case for why this slate should be elected. Eisenhut stressed that ‘URANUS’ was just a group of ordinary students, as opposed to the handpicked ‘Dream Team’ of junior politicians that is ‘True 2.’ This slate came off as an honest group of frustrated friends who wanted to make a difference here on campus.

OK, onto the ‘Truants.’ They lost the debate in a spectacular fashion, and despite their ‘spirited’ effort, this slate should be kept as far away from politics as possible. Unprepared, unrehearsed and uneducated, the ‘Truants’ embarrassed themselves, proving what everybody already knew: their campaign was paper-thin and a waste of our time. While they may have gotten a few cheers out of the crowd for crude comments about the incumbent slate, the ‘Truants’ had nothing to back up their words and were picked apart during the Q-and-A period.

Easily the worst performance of the evening has to go to ‘Truants’ President Ethan Goldwater, as each time he stepped up to the microphone the audience was forced to endure a laughable, rambling diatribe full of ‘ums’ and ‘ahs.’ To say the least, Goldwater was not the most inspiring guy up on stage, and at one point appeared as though he didn’t even know his own slate member’s positions.

Though to be fair, ‘Truants’ weren’t a total disaster. Safety Services VP Eliot Kristan spoke passionately about the need for a rape crisis center on campus. Emily Pastel also proved to be a fan favorite with her outrageous attack on ‘True 2’ during the Q-and-A portion. But again, the bad heavily outweighed the good, and the ‘Truants’ slate’s presentation emphasized that they are not up to the challenge.

So ‘True 2’ won, and ‘URANUS’ was a distant second. But should we all vote ‘True’ once again this year? Well, that depends. ‘True 2’ smashed their competition, gave the best performance, had the best speakers and had the best platform, but that doesn’t mean I have to like them.

Overall, I found that ‘True 2’ came off as a bunch of slick politicians, and their arrogant, glossy demeanor left a bad taste in my mouth. In particular, Carl Woog and Remie Ferreira talked down to their fellow candidates and even demanded that both ‘Truants’ and ‘URANUS’ answer a ‘pop quiz’ on the branches of the student government. This insulting tactic, coupled with a strangely skewed audience Q-and-A involving two Senators attacking the underdog slates, left me wary of the ‘True 2’ bandwagon.

So when everyone votes this week, be prepared to make a difficult decision. ‘True 2’ and the prepackaged incumbents seem like a sure shot, but the honest, regular guy image of ‘URANUS’ should ring true with a lot of us. Happy voting!