HopForward and New Horizons, the two tickets running for the Student Government Association (SGA) executive board, defended their platforms in a debate on Thursday night. Senior Yadel Okorie, chair of the Committee on Student Elections (CSE), moderated the event. The debate covered issues like diversity, SGA transparency and its ability to represent the student body.
The New Horizons ticket includes sophomore Noh Mebrahtu for executive president, sophomore AJ Tsang for executive vice president, freshman Rushabh Doshi for executive secretary and sophomore Mi Tu for executive treasurer.
The second ticket, HopForward, consists of junior Anna Du for executive president, freshman Alex Walinskas for executive vice president, junior Lucas Rosen for executive secretary and sophomore Kush Mansuria for executive treasurer.
The debate began with a discussion on whether it was SGA’s role to help fund Greek life activities. New Horizons maintained their support for two bills passed this year that have helped offset costs for two philanthropy and charity events organized by Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI). In total, the two bills allocated $1500 toward two FIJI philanthropy events. They justified their support by saying that these events fostered school spirit and community.
However, HopForward member Lucas Rosen expressed reservations about SGA’s approval of the bill.
“I probably would have voted against [the bill],” he said. “I’m not really too sure about funding fraternities from SGA.”
The tickets also outlined measures to address conflicts of interest in SGA. Mansuria referred to his experiences in the Student Action Committee (SAC), which requires members of student groups relevant to proposed funding bills to leave the room during discussion.
“This is to ensure that any discussion taking place is objective,” he said. “We don’t want commissioners rooting for their own grants.”
Mansuria noted that junior Kwame Alston, chair of SGA’s finance committee, expressed concern that removing such students reduced transparency.
“One of the ideas tossed around was that we should allow a non-voting member to sit in on these meetings so they can relay information that was discussed,” Mansuria said. “This is something that can be transferred over to SGA as a whole in terms of how they’re handling the funding.”
Tu proposed requiring authors of bills to abstain when voting.
“Currently in SGA, you can still vote for the bill you introduced to the Senate, which is a problem,” she said. “That might be the deciding vote, whether the bill gets passed or not.”
Walinskas hopes to increase the use of abstentions when necessary and wants SGA to address conflict of interest more seriously next year.
“I plan on starting our legislative session with a group discussion on conflict of interest, and how we can address this topic going forward because we’ve not been able to address it adequately this year,” she said.
Du added that the HopForward ticket would support bills that directly address student concerns, which have influenced past legislations on gender inclusivity, divestment and menstrual hygiene.
“My ticket prides itself on its platform of innovation, and we’re really excited about bringing this to the next level, not just in the business and entrepreneurial sense but also in the social sense: really having students lead the discussion on hot issues, really having students drive solutions to these problems,” she said.
Doshi said that a senator’s support for a bill does not necessarily reflect the interests of the student body and that the disconnect between students and senators hinders SGA from making changes.
“I am dissatisfied with how SGA is doing,” Doshi said. “We have so much more potential to make a tangible change in our student body right now, and we have not tapped into that potential.”
He believes that one of the biggest problems between SGA and the student body is a lack of transparency. Doshi wants students to be more engaged and attend SGA meetings so they can better understand how SGA works.
He plans to reach out to student groups and proactively understand their needs.
“We’re a reactive force,” Doshi said. “We’re not a preventative force. It’s our duty as senators to really represent the student body, and that’s what I stand for, that’s what our platform stands for.”
Rosen echoed Doshi’s points and added that he wants to use social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat to make SGA more accessible.
“I’m going to bring SGA into the 21st century,” he said. “We want to move to a modern way of communicating with the student body.”
The tickets also debated how sexual assault is handled on campus. Debate moderator Okorie noted that many students have criticized the University’s sexual assault training, such as the Think About It online module, for its portrayal of sexual misconduct. Okorie said many students think the administration is not making a significant effort to address students’ concerns.
Walinskas explained how the connection between SGA and the administration could be used to resolve this issue.
“We have a lot of access to the administration, [such as] dinners that happen on a regular basis,” she said. “I would like to see [us] sit down with the administrators and discuss whether they are aware of the flaws the students have identified and how we can go forward.”
Tsang disagreed with Walinskas’ approach, and stressed the need for revising student training programs.
“A dinner alone is not going to solve the problem of sexual assault,” he said. “The first step begins with the training. The sexual assault training is full of problematic language. It approaches sexual assault and makes it seem like it’s a frivolous issue.”
Both tickets endorsed cultural competency courses to further diversity on campus. New Horizons pushed for the creation of required courses.
“Understanding diversity and inclusion goes beyond trainings,” Tsang said. “It goes into the classroom. Speaking as someone who serves as student representative on the Homewood Council of Inclusivity, I can say there is a variety of students, faculty and staff devoted to analyzing how we can include diversity not only in existing coursework but adding in new coursework.”
On the other hand, HopForward wanted to take a more flexible approach.
“I definitely support cultural competency courses, but we have to approach it from a student-driven discussion perspective,” Du said.
The tickets also expressed their support for a $15 minimum wage for workers at Hopkins and for fossil fuel divestment. In the past year, contract workers and students on campus have been demonstrating to raise the University’s minimum wage. The student group Refuel Our Future has also held protests, demanding that University no longer invest its endowment in the fossil fuel industry.
Mebrahtu believes divestment would benefit the University and the planet.
“In the long run it would be equitable and profitable,” he said. “Even if it were not, I think Hopkins should be able to lead on issues such as climate change and global warming.”
Walinskas agreed, saying that the University should set an example as a leading public health institution.
“For us to be investing in something that is [contributing to] climate change is absolutely atrocious to the Hopkins reputation,” she said. “Our money invested in fossil fuels is a relatively small portion of our endowment.”
Du recommended that SGA maintain a closer connection with organizations like Refuel Our Future.
“They’ve been doing an amazing job pressuring the administration,” she said.
Tsang, author of the fossil fuel divestment resolution passed in February, noted a lack of transparency regarding fossil fuel investment by the University.
“If you look at our investment in fossil fuels, even though it may only cost two to three percent of our investments, it’s a little shady,” he said.
Initially, the format of the debate did not allot time for a live question and answer session. Instead, students were allowed to submit written questions to the moderator. However, in response to audience complaints, Okorie added twenty minutes at the end of the debate for students to directly address candidates.
One student brought up concerns about the lack of Native American representation at Hopkins. Both Walinskas and Tsang agreed that SGA can help to make a space for marginalized groups.
Walinskas said that SGA can help Native Americans at Hopkins create a sense of community.
“We don’t have a group for Native American students operating through OMA [Office of Multicultural Affairs],” she said. “I encourage you, as a Native American student, to start the idea for that. SGA can help provide the resources.”
Tsang, however, cited the need for more administrative support in increasing the presence of Native Americans on campus.
“We need to put Native American students in leadership roles to look at policy and structural barriers to having Native Americans on campus,” he said.
After the debate, some students shared their thoughts about the candidates.
Junior John Hughes emphasized that SGA has to change the way it approaches addressing diversity on campus.
“I’ve been very concerned with trying to make sure SGA is actually concerned with diversity and inclusion and tough political issues on campus, rather than maintaining the status quo of sticking in their ruts of athletic promotion and bickering over student group funding,” he said.
Senior Bitsiti Hagos said that how the parties performed in the debate reflected how they will represent students and interact with the administration.
“These people are supposed to represent us to the administration,” she said. “The administration is not always going to receive it well. If they can’t handle themselves in the debate, they can’t handle themselves in front of the administration.”
She said that it is important for students to be informed about their representatives.
“The debate really did highlight how some candidates didn’t know what they were talking about,” she said. “That’s why I came — to have an informed decision, and not just vote because I’m friends with one person rather than another person.”
Sarah Y. Kim, Morgan Ome, Jacob Took and Alyssa Wooden contributed reporting.
