[1557] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
VOTE Smith/Kanaga for UA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arthur Fitzmaurice)
Sat Mar 13 00:39:56 2004
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:37:15 -0500
From: Arthur Fitzmaurice <agfitz@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
I submitted the following text for consideration as an Opinion column
in today's issue of The Tech. Unfortunately, I was informed that it
is not going to be included due to the deadline. Still, I feel that
The Tech had a responsibility to report on the UA Debate that it
sponsored. Since it did not, I am going to express some things that
transpired there since they do paint a different picture than the
editorial in Tuesday's issue of The Tech did. I will also respond to
some of the opinions expressed in that editorial. I imagine that
Harel and Phil are on these lists -- I am not attacking you guys in
any way; I just feel that David and Noelle deserve the chance to
respond to Tuesday's Tech. Since they are prohibited from doing so,
hopefully I can help them with that.
Feel free to forward this to your friends who have not yet voted.
Please do not spam any mailing lists that you are not on -- I do not
intend to flood everyone's inboxes.
Thank you for your time. Vote how you feel.
Sincerely,
Arthur Fitzmaurice
(Class of 2003/Current Grad Student)
---------------------------------------------------
SMITH / KANAGA FOR UAP / VP
Tuesday's issue of The Tech included an editorial endorsing
Williams/Vasquez in the current 2004 UA President/UA Vice-president
election. If you read the text of the editorial, you saw that The
Tech thought it was pretty much a toss-up but wavered towards
Williams/Vasquez. Half of the column detailed the "remarkable
similarities" of the two tickets, and the Williams/Vasquez ticket was
even said to "have a slightly different focus." In the end, The Tech
decided to endorse Williams/Vasquez due to their vowed "personal
contact with constituents, their team dynamic, and their ability to
see themselves working with the UA itself."
For the undergraduate population to make an informed decision, the
other side of the story needs to be told. According to their
platform, Smith/Kanaga want to "give the undergraduates at MIT the
power; not the Undergraduate Association." They have gone out and
shared their intentions with many students and have even adapted their
plans to meet the desires of the students they have encountered in
their weeks of candidacy. They plan to work hard next year with the
other student governments (e.g. Dormcon, IFC, Panhel, LGC) to achieve
the goals of the student body.
Smith/Kanaga's pasts serve as evidence for their own "personal contact
with constituents." Smith has spent the past year as chair of the UA
Committee on Housing and Orientation. In addition to working with
other students on the committee, he has solicited input from others on
their opinions of the committee's proposed Orientation/Rush schedule.
Kanaga's personal contact is so substantial that some students have
even been annoyed at receiving emails revealing her dedication to
surging the school spirit of MIT students by encouraging them to
attend athletic events. Both of them have been active in the MIT
community since they were freshmen.
Smith/Kanaga's touch with the undergraduate population is even evident
from the attendance at last week's UA Debate. Smith/Kanaga had
substantial support from fraternity brothers, friends, committee
members, and other members of the UA. Williams/Vasquez seemed to only
attract a presence from the current members of the UA. Smith/Kanaga
have a personal connection with much of the undergraduate population,
while Williams/Vasquez seem to be in touch with a more limited social
circle (arguably the clique of current UA officers). While
Williams/Vasquez see themselves working to serve the mission of the
UA, Smith/Kanaga see themselves as working with the UA itself AND as
working with individuals and other student governments to empower
undergraduates themselves.
The other point in The Tech's editorial was that "Smith is the driving
force behind his ticket." Apparently this was considered a con for
his ticket. Having served on and been chair of UA committees, I can
confidently say that this is actually a good thing. The UA needs to
have a leader as its president. The Tech commends Smith for having a
list of concrete goals. His dedication, drive, and desire to listen
to students not in power make him an excellent choice for UAP.
Williams has demonstrated a knowledge of the requirements of the
office and has been successful in achieving several goals in his
position on the Committee for Student Life. However, he is less
energetic than Smith and as The Tech mentioned, some of his goals
"seem less likely to produce an effect." Furthermore, in his pursuit
of the presidency, Williams has employed despicable measures in an
attempt to defeat Smith/Kanaga. After somehow finding out that the UA
Debate would include a cross-examination, Williams formulated
questions for him and Vasquez to use to attack Smith/Kanaga. Such
questions as one paraphrased, "Noelle [Kanaga], you have gotten people
to some athletics games, but you haven't really done anything else in
your capacity as UA Athletics Chair, have you?" were extremely
combative, malicious, and inappropriate for the debate. Fortunately,
Smith/Kanaga stuck to the issues in their responses and questions to
Williams/Vasquez. They did not lash back but rather stood strong and
fought an honorable fight. Before the debate, Williams also
approached Kanaga to encourage her not to run against him as Smith's
running mate in the election. This kind of behavior is not what I
look for in a student body president.
Smith/Kanaga is a solid choice. The way the UA works is to have a
dynamic president like Smith to represent the undergraduates to the
administration, other student governments, and other external bodies
and to have a VP primarily to handle the internal operations of the UA
(e.g. committee management). The VP should support the President and
help him achieve their goals together. If you disagree, that's still
okay since Kanaga is a strong VP candidate anyway. She has done
wonders with the UA Athletics position -- a thankless and frustrating
position, no doubt, and a position she was warned by members of the UA
would likely have been a waste of her time. Rather than be
discouraged, Kanaga saw potential for the position and has made leaps
in the program. That is just one example of what her passion has done
for the undergraduate community.
Compare this to the other VP candidate. In the past year, Vasquez has
served as one of the IFC representatives to the UA and as the
secretary of another student government (ASA). As an IFC
representative to the UA, Vasquez did not do anything for the IFC
community. When asked at the UA Debate if he had ever attended an IFC
meeting, he admitted that he had not, although at least two of the
other IFC representatives came to some meetings to introduce
themselves and solicit input from the fraternity presidents over the
course of the year. I understand that Vasquez is planning to resign
from this position after this week's election, as he is no longer
affiliated with his fraternity. Vasquez also quit his role as ASA
Secretary in early October soon after another member of the Executive
Board had to quit due to his wife giving birth. Vasquez showed no
regard for the mission of the ASA to serve the MIT community as he
left without sufficient pnotice and in a bad time for the ASA. It
seems that Vasquez's only past experience is a list of resignations.
It is important to note that the UA VP is an appointed member of the
ASA Executive Board. It does not seem that Vasquez will be able to do
this AND fulfill the other demands of being UA VP, while Kanaga does
have the energy and dedication to do so.
I would like to conclude by encouraging all undergraduates to vote.
Electronic voting has closed, but paper ballots are available today in
Lobby 10. Smith/Kanaga cannot win without your support. One of the
few responsibilities of the UA Election Commission is to advertise the
election with the help of volunteers chosen by the candidates. As one
of these volunteers, I have still not been told what to do to
advertise the election. Let's hope that the UA is not trying to
prevent people from finding out about the Smith/Kanaga ticket. If you
have not voted yet, go to the ballots and cast your vote for
Smith/Kanaga.
(This message was bcc'd to several lists of which I am an
administrator/member.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
