Rowan Armor UNI ’06 302-242-3915 [email protected] Electoral Candidate.
Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg.
I can understand very personally the attachment to a single candidate or even several that comes with an electoral process. As I was, one week ago, a candidate, I am very close to this issue, and I can assure you: I was vested. It is admirable that your sense of justice compels you to write in to the Daily Free Press — this is also an area in which I can relate. However, the shameful spitting on of an electoral process here is not necessary. You have, as it were, judged books by their cover, and made villains out of thus-far fine candidates for student office before allowing them to show you what they might do in office.
I will agree that Deon’s platform was broad in many areas, and deficient in areas that are important to me. The Daily Free Press took precious time to interview each of us as presidential candidates, and they were extremely thorough in coming to their decision. They quoted Deon’s charisma, certainly a positive characteristic in a Union president. Your early pot shot at Deon will not be heard as a dignified stance against amorality or prophecy about next year’s Union operations. It is up in the air at this point, and not doomed to failure as you say. I judge there to be hope.
Furthermore, your blatant endorsement of the Psychotic candidates who did not win the elections in the Treasurer and Secretary positions is obviously predisposed from the start because of your connection with Towers RHA. You undoubtedly know Andrew Nocon, and have heard Andrew’s one much-clung-to criticism of Weber regarding the Union website last year. Let me tell you that it is dizzying how misinformed you are on this point. There were issues not only with conserving the Union’s presence, but also with web design software and access to the Union’s website which was held by the Executive Board, not by Weber’s committee. You should know better than to speak without facts.
Finally, your endorsement of Psychotic at all is laughable at best. As a slate, Psychotic was outperformed in every single office by nearly all of their competitors. In most cases, Psychotic candidates came in last, and there is a very good reason for that. Boston University’s elections are wholly democratic, and in exercising their right to vote students elected those who had touched them most personally, and those who made the most effort, by campaigning, to drum votes up. Jon Marker was singularly the most dedicated to this, but among the other positions as well the Psychotic candidates simply failed to campaign effectively. In not dedicating the time and effort to campaigning during the elections, Psychotic clearly showed a lack of initiative and a clear desire to put forth an effort in the Student Union.
Your criticisms are too soon, too many, and too misinformed.