Opinion | Editorial Board

The open seat

We choose not to endorse a candidate for the open Columbia College seat in the University Senate.

We do not feel comfortable endorsing any one candidate after attending Sunday’s debate. We were underwhelmed—both by the candidates’ lack of clear ideas and by their understanding of the senate. We do feel comfortable recommending several candidates, but this editorial is not an explicit endorsement. Rather, it is a breakdown of the situation intended to help you choose a candidate.

At the debate, Marc Heinrich, CC ’16, and Manik Uppal, CC ’14, stood above the rest. Heinrich’s time as a staffer has given him concrete experience and insight into the legislative process and the nuances of the Quality of Life survey. He is well-prepared to—as he put it—“hit the ground running.”  Heinrich’s website details a thorough list of ideas that he has clearly put time into forming. Our only major qualm is that he potentially represents a continuation of stagnant University Senate policies.

Much of being a University senator is making connections, and Uppal stood out with a confident, poised personality. He focused, in large part, on using technology and reinventing “a persona of what it means to be a senator.” Uppal also showed dedication, pledging that he would work as a senate staffer regardless of whether or not he wins. His proposed mobile app for the University Senate, while inventive, is perhaps overly ambitious. Additionally, Uppal’s one-year term might limit his potential for impact.

Jacob Johnson, CC ’17, should be noted for his excellent ideas—particularly those regarding shorter and more specific surveys to assess quality of life surveys that could pressure the senate to take action. While his ideas were impressive, we cannot endorse someone with only one month of experience at Columbia.

For the most part, the candidates agreed with each other on the issues. They espoused largely the same basic ideas—“implementing” the Quality of Life survey, responding to sexual assault statistics, and getting Columbia to divest. 

In response to some of these rather equivocal answers, the question of what candidates meant by “implementing” the survey was asked. The candidates were, by and large, vague about actual implementation and failed to address the question. Conor Skelding, CC ’14, should be commended for his frankness for admitting that he did not fill out the survey—a fault of its massive size, which he rightly criticized. Skelding also accurately noted that because none of the candidates besides Heinrich knew anything about the results of the survey, their responses were simply conjecture.

A field of nine candidates meant that there was only about one minute to respond to each question, so answers should have been concise and not repetitive. Instead, there was much stumbling and rehashing of points. Buzzwords like “transparency” were thrown around throughout the meeting, and there was disappointingly little engagement with the issues and how the senate worked.

The candidates should be noted for their passion for activism. However, most misconstrued the purpose of the senate: It is not a forum for student activism. It is a legislative body that may hear the concerns of the students through their senators. Electing a University senator is not a paradigm-altering shift, as some candidates seemed to think. The University Senate is not controlled by students in any sense of the word. But it must be admitted the University senators do wield a substantial amount of power, and so this election matters.

Again, we feel that Heinrich and Uppal were the two most impressive candidates. Voting begins Wednesday and ends Friday. Consider our position, but more importantly, research the candidates, and go out and vote. 

Disclosure: Marc Heinrich is a Spectator nonprofit development associate.

To respond to this staff editorial, or to submit an op-ed, contact opinion@columbiaspectator.com.

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Abed Nadir posted on

Cool. Cool cool cool.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

This comment was attributed to a person who did not write it and as such has been removed in line with our comment policy.

+1
-5
-1
Anonymous posted on

Make up your mind, is Marc being endorsed or not? Also, a publication is not a fraternity - a person isn't endorsed for a position as senator because they belong to the publication.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, this is a dumb comment. Spec doesn't *owe* an endorsement to anyone.

+1
+10
-1
Anonymous posted on

This comment was attributed to a person who did not write it and as such has been removed in line with our comment policy.

+1
-13
-1
Spec reader posted on

How is it "childish" to not endorse anyone? Spec isn't obligated to endorse anyone they don't feel completely confident in.

+1
-6
-1
Anonymous posted on

Like any respectable media outlet, Spec, I believe, divorces its content side from its business side to prevent conflicts of interest. My guess is that the Editorial Board that produced this article is on the content side, and by the looks of it, Marc seems to be on the business side. This means that, within the context of Spectator, they probably have never interacted with Marc -- and that's the way it's supposed to work. So your proposal then means that Spec ought to blindly endorse him. But that's probably not the way any publication that pretends to be objective goes about it. Though I think it is weak that they didn't endorse any one person, it's better than blindly endorsing someone that plays for "team Spec"

(Ed.: This comment was edited to remove references to an earlier libelous comment.)

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

you should learn to read - he clearly didn't say that Spec needed to endorse Marc. also, you then ended your comment by agreeing with him - "I think it is weak that they didn't endorse any one person" - which was what he was saying all along.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Grow some balls, Spec. If you're going to write an article that has anything to do with a USenate endorsement, be respectable and stand behind one of your own."

I believe he meant Marc there

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I think that "one of your own" refers to "a USenate endorsement" actually.

+1
-8
-1
Anonymous posted on

This comment referenced an earlier libelous comment and as such has been removed in line with our comment policy.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

yeah, then he clarified though...

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

This comment referenced and earlier libelous comment and as such has been removed in line with our comment policy.

+1
-8
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Conor Skelding, CC ’14, should be commended for his frankness for admitting that he did not fill out the survey—a fault of its massive size, which he rightly criticized."

what? why should he be commended for running on a platform he knows nothing about..

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

None of the others did either, and he was pointing that out.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Spectator isn't endorsing anyone. bottom line. That debate was a joke. an hour for 9 candidates to speak???

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

If you look on his website, Heinrich actually outlines exactly what he means by transparency. While it may have been thrown around a lot, at least one candidate means something specific by it.

+1
-3
-1