Stand Down, Stanton

Author: VIRAJ ASSAR '07

Last Sunday, I tuned in to the WRMC broadcast of the SGA / SCCOCC debate. What I heard made me absolutely livid: a poor excuse for public debate, crippled by dismissiveness and facilitated by an ineffectual, informal format.

Following up last week's Campus op-ed piece, agitator David Wrangham '06.5 asked the candidates to comment on the SGA's constitution, its economic dependence on the College, poor integration of student activists into the body, and token student representation on academic and judicial boards. First-year Presidential candidate Alina Levina's response was earnest, professional, and sufficiently lacking in gravitas to make little impact. Then, Levina's opponent, Alex Stanton '07, spoke, and I began a struggle against the fierce urge to cause damage in some way - I got so agitated, I contemplated urination - to my beloved radio.

Stanton referred to SGA President Berman '07 familiarly, repeated the shout-out to SGA elder statesman Andrew Carnabuci '06 superfluously included in his Letter of Intent, and, above all, disrespected Levina and Wrangham, altogether reflecting his insider's sense of entitlement.

Despite rebuking one questioner for "taking cheap shots" at him, Stanton himself dismissed Levina for her limited experience. (Jacobi, anyone?) In response to Wrangham's points, Stanton invited Wrangham (and his friends!) to effect change by running for office themselves next year, ignoring the irony that Wrangham was, in that moment, asking him to do exactly that. In particular, Stanton's plan for combating racism is for students to discuss it openly with each other. As Levina countered, this dismissal of the issue unfairly shifts the responsibility from administration and SGA to concerned individuals. Its implementation hardly requires the presence of an SGA. In fact, Stanton's most reform-minded stated goal is equally weak: to assemble a task force to "evaluate the possibility" of cautiously increasing transparency in community board proceedings. On the other hand, Levina's background involving the Posse Program, lauded as a cornerstone of the College's diversification efforts, does at least signify dedication to reform and diversity.

In several responses, Stanton correctly noted that disagreement and argument are ever-present in democracy. He did so as a warning of poor policy efficacy, rather than because they lead to deliberative legislation, making pluralism and diversity of political opinion useful. Instead, Stanton seemed to warn that students should expect SGA gridlock regardless of leadership.

Having served on the Institutional Affairs Committee during its toothless inaugural semester, I fear such continued acceptance of and limited dedication to fighting institutional problems will compromise the SGA's potential for drawing out and channeling the "student power" that has thus far been a mere campaign slogan.

Stanton's role as a debate participant should not have been to dismiss, but to invite: to show his vision, to inspire. Instead, he insulted his opponent, two questioners, and consequently the polity that provided him his seat at the table. This behavior was allowed because moderators failed to demand professional debate, and, more worryingly, because the moderation format was not set: whoever officiated seemed to arbitrarily amend the rules. This debate was an important one-the single debate upon which the candidacies rest. Therefore, the format should have been firmly codified and followed, and not compromised mid-debate!

If I am harshly critical of Stanton, it is because his (or anyone's) serious experience in the SGA involves respect and responsibility. His position as the upperclassman, SGA-bred favorite in this race necessitated a more sophisticated, more politically savvy campaign than "I invite you to run" and "Well, come on, nobody will listen to a freshman," which (had he conducted it) might have been met by spirited opposition of an equally high standard. Senior Advisor for International Diversity Leroy Nesbitt once explained to me the value of the ability to combine critical policy goals with an intelligent and civil manner of speaking . . . a quality rarely seen in this monster truck rally that is our current political discourse.

Stanton and the SGA elite should realize that students care far more about their own experiences in the community than any candidate's experience in the SGA. I thank him for advising that I, too, can run for office, and instead will participate by taking, and repeating, SCCOCC candidate junior Annie Williams' recommendation that the concerned direct letters to the Campus. And, in the spirit of friendly suggestions, I aim the following at election organizers: Ensure that abstention is an option on this week's ballot.

Because we take seriously our responsibility to vote, we must avoid the uninspired rhetoric and other banana peels that litter our College's political scene, and vote for nothing less than a candidate who sees them, and swears to sweep them away. To the community: abstention, though disparaged by self-styled "rationalists" as "wasteful", can also be seen as a participatory tool. Do not rule it out.