The two candidates for student body president made their final public pitches last night at the annual Elections Board (ELBO) debate in Hotung Caf?© in front of a handful of supporters and members of the campus media.
Both Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate Vice President Eric Greenberg and Treasurer Michele Shelton took the opportunity to reiterate their campaign goals and platforms, each listing ten primary projects for the upcoming year.
Greenberg took every opportunity to plug his social-life track record and promised that his campaign pledge to "reconnect with the students" is more than political rhetoric.
"There's a lack of energy. A lot of people aren't educated on the issues. My leadership style would be to go directly to the students," he said. "We need to really focus on everybody, and not forget the common person."
The goals that Shelton pushed included expanding student-faculty committees, improving the technological infrastructure in Tufts' classrooms, and reforming Career Services.
"One complaint among seniors is that if you're not a computer science major, it's impossible to get a job through Career Services," she said.
The candidates have taken few conflicting stands on issues, and several audience members questioned what sets them apart, beyond personality.
Greenberg touted his year off Senate, in comparison to three-year senator Shelton, as one of his key attributes, as well as his other jobs as an resident assistant (RA) and an event staff manager.
"In terms of experience, I'm involved in more than just Senate. I'm an RA, and I've had to deal with racism, I've had to deal with homophobic remarks in my hallway. I get to see a lot of things outside the Senate," he said.
Shelton, on the other hand, maintained that her projects and goals are more attainable than Greenberg's. "A lot of the issues I want to work on seem very feasible. These projects can actually be done," she said.
Shelton compared her more traditional way of approaching a problem - learning student opinion and then lobbying the administration for change - with methods her opponent has used to get his way.
"Rallies are great to make a show, but in the end, what do they really get done," she asked. "Rallies aren't the only answer. I have no problem fighting with the administration, storming into Mel Bernstein's office and demanding what we want."
Both candidates stressed the need to gauge student opinion, whether through online instruments like Tufts Polls or by knocking on doors, asking questions every week.
"We need to go to the people year-round," Greenberg said. "It seems like the only time we go around and knock on doors is election time."
Shelton agreed, emphasizing the need to bring regular students into Senate projects.
"I'd really like to get the students involved with the process. Senate should be expanded to let anyone who wants to work on anything help - because we need help," she said.
Among the few students at the debate who were not members of student government, however, apathy reigned.
"All 12 people who came to this, most of them have a vested interest," said junior Dave Satine, who stopped to listen while getting dinner at Hotung. "Honestly, they talk about getting people involved, they each have ten issues - by the way, what the hell is a Tufts Poll? - I think if they're going to deal with something, deal with something of consequence, not all this little stuff."
The handful who did come to watch the debate, like senior and former presidential candidate Moira Poe, were concerned by the low level of voter interest in the election. If less than 20 percent of the student body votes, the constitutional referendum and the two proposed amendments to the Senate constitution that are on the ballot cannot pass.
"Maybe it was just that the debate was unpublicized or not advertised enough, but it's getting a little unnerving that four people came out for this. It's beginning to look more and more like we won't have enough people voting," she said.
One of the amendments would give Senate culture group representatives full voting rights, while the other would prohibit student groups from discriminating on the basis of self-acceptance of one's identity.
