The two candidates vying for the office of Tufts Community Union (TCU) President, juniors Melissa Carson and Allison Clarke, met in Hotung last night to hash out their platforms. A debate on the culture representative amendment followed the presidential debate.
Though Carson and Clarke outlined similar proposals, they differentiated themselves in terms of how they would work with Tufts administrators.
Carson said working with administrators was the best way to make progress, while Clarke continuously reiterated that she wished to work "with the students, for the students," including fights against the administration. The issue came up repeatedly throughout the debate, as the candidates addressed how they would tackle specific issues.
Clarke centered her platform around being an "outsider" from the Senate, implying she is closer to the student body. Carson, on the other hand, said her Senate experience, including her tenure as vice president, was necessary to run an effective presidency. "I want to make big things happen," she said.
Clarke consistently related issues to the need to fight with administrators, when necessary, in pushing students' desires. She was adamant about keeping the Senate grounded in the student body, as opposed to being above it. "Senators should be fighting for what students want and need," she said.
Carson cited the speed with which she was able to change the parking policy around the library to match the late night study hours as an example of her ability to effect change. According to her, the policy was changed after 30 minutes of discussion with a member of the administration.
During the debate the candidates were questioned about the possible elitism of student government. Clarke said she felt there is a conflict with respect to senators being too friendly with administrators. "Some senators make friends with administrators and then get favors . . . I would like to see senators stop being friends with administrators and start fighting them."
Carson highlighted the flip side, saying that "sometimes you can collect more flies with honey...when you can't you fight." She said that elitism, while not a problem, improves with every year.
The candidates' opinions coincided on many issues, from obtaining need blind financial aid to an unwillingness to run the Naked Quad Run. Both said they were against the controversial culture representative amendment. Currently under debate, the amendment seeks to eliminate the voting power of the culture reps. It would institute Senate-approved lobbyists, instead, for any organization that wishes to have a voice in the Senate.
The amendment was the subject of a debate - more well-attended than the presidential debate - that followed. Four groups have culture representatives on the Senate - the Association for Latin American Students (ALAS), the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT), the Pan African Alliance (PAA) and Tufts Transgendered Lesbian Gay Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC). Culture reps are elected by their respective organizations and vote along with other Senators.
Those in favor of the amendment argued that having only four culture representatives allows unequal representation and that the process is not democratic. Those arguing against it said it will give the senators too much power over the lobbyists and does not address the lack of representation which the culture reps are meant to remedy.
When asked why the culture groups in question did not simply run for the Senate, those opposed to the amendment said it would be insulting to consider an African American senator to be solely representative of African American interests. Some said the culture representative system was instituted because particular groups of people were marginalized.
Supporters of the amendment focused on the arbitrary nature of the culture rep system. They said that Amendment III would allow all groups to have a voice, making it more democratic then the current system.
