 "Photo: Annie Wermiel/Tufts Daily")
Tufts Community Union (TCU) presidential candidates C.J. Mourning, Duncan Pickard and Elton Sykes offered diverging plans on how to improve campus social life and unity during a debate in Sophia Gordon Hall last night.
The three TCU senators answered questions from Elections Commission representatives, but audience members were not permitted to ask questions.
"The reason why I'm running for president is to improve your Tufts experience," Sykes said, reiterating the three elements of his campaign: improving security, residential life and social life.
Sykes, a junior, argued for adding more security cameras on campus, sprucing up common rooms with renovations and wireless Internet access, and improving school-sponsored social events.
"It's not the quantity of events, it's the quality of them," Sykes said.
Pickard, a sophomore, had a broader reason for running. "I am running for TCU president because I want to build a stronger campus community here," he said.
One can observe vibrant activity in a variety of student organizations when walking through the campus center on any given weeknight, Pickard said. He proposed that the TCU Senate should help to better bring them together.
"I'm running for TCU president because I love the fact that those groups are there. I don't understand why those groups don't have more forums to interact with each other," he said.
Mourning, a sophomore, also advocated increased communication between students who would not normally interact. "I am running for TCU president because I truly want to enhance everyone's college experience," she said, and claimed that the main reason students don't capitalize on Tufts' potential is because of an overall lack of communication.
According to Mourning, many people on campus work hard on a number of issues, such as improving residential life. She emphasized the need to work together to solve these issues.
When Pickard was asked to name something he did not like about his opponents' platforms, he criticized them for being shortsighted and focusing only on specific projects and issues. He said he had a broader vision for the future of the Tufts community.
Mourning accused Pickard of being impractical, claiming that this wide-ranging strategy would "sort of set up the Senate for failure." She said Sykes' platform, on the other hand, was too focused on its three pillars and not broad enough.
Sykes echoed Mourning, saying Pickard's "vision" is not clear.
Student input on the task force
All three candidates expressed indignation at the lack of a student representative on the Task Force on Freedom of Expression, a group of staff and faculty members charged by President Lawrence Bacow with drawing up a university-wide policy on free speech.
"I am infuriated that the administration didn't include a student on that task force," Pickard said. "I am not in favor of limiting any student's expression on this campus," he added. He also suggested creating courses to address race relations at Tufts.
Pickard pointed to a 1999 university report that called for new policies to address free-expression issues. "Where do the priorities of this university lie if it has been almost 10 years and these policies have not been implemented?" he said.
The administration has indicated that it would provide funding for a student-led institution to address first amendment issues, Pickard said.
Sykes also criticized the administration's inaction on the matter. "I think the administration honestly should be ashamed of themselves that they did not allow student representation on that committee," he said, referring to the task force.
Mourning shared these sentiments, calling the lack of representation "ridiculous." She pushed for support networks for groups on campus with a vested interest in the expression issue and said more communication with the administration would be necessary.
"Once you start the dialogue, movement starts next," she said.
The dining debate
The candidates differed most on the issue of the newly reformed points system. Mourning, who pushed for the recent merger of Points Plus and Dining Dollars, lauded the change. Pickard and Sykes painted the move, which also separated points from meal plans in order to give students greater control over the amount of cash they put on their identification cards, as a step in the wrong direction.
"I think that it's a great thing," Mourning said, acknowledging that the new system - which has received positive reviews from many students and will be implemented next semester - did have one downside in that it could affect students' financial aid. The concern, Sykes and Pickard said, was that students receiving financial help from Tufts would not be given as many points as they had when Dining Dollars were included in meal plans.
"There are a lot of students that are going to be here that are socioeconomically disadvantaged," Pickard said, criticizing the program for what he described as a lack of vision regarding how to account for underprivileged students.
Sykes said it was a good idea to combine Dining Dollars, which students use to pay for food on and off campus, and Points Plus, which can be used to make miscellaneous purchases on campus, into the new JumboCash. But he said he does not think it was wise to eliminate points from meal plans.
"Having meal plans without points just doesn't make any sense to me," Sykes said, claiming that there is a lot of confusion about the plan that needs to be cleared up.
Pickard was very opposed to the idea. "I have to tell you, I'm not a fan. I think that on the surface it's a good idea; it cuts down on bureaucracy," he said. But JumboCash is, in fact, a step in the opposite direction, he said.
"We need to really think about how this is going to impact students and involve students before we implement this change," he added.
Mourning rebutted by underscoring what she called the "genius of the system:" that students can independently decide how many points and meals they receive.
Sykes countered that students could simply use cash if they wanted greater control over their money.
"What's the difference between having 450 on your card and 450 in your hand? There is no difference," he said. He said there was a misunderstanding about the change's impacts, and that this confusion was a "perfect example" of the effects of the lack of communication between the Senate, administration and student body.
Funding student activities
All of the candidates discussed the need for transparency and communication about the student activities fee allocation process.
Sykes pointed to last semester's embezzlement scandal as cause for more openness about the system. He suggested that all senators be required to understand the Allocations Board's processes and explain it more thoroughly to leaders of student organizations.
Mourning called for a more accessible treasury Web site where allocation processes are clearly spelled out.
Pickard agreed with this. "There needs to be a lot of changes in the treasury system," he said.
Be the first to comment on this article!