Patterson: Well they posted the survey online and true, it didn't get a lot of responses. However, the senators were to blame because they didn't get out there and weren't proactive enough. When they made a second push, especially with the help of Senator Eva Alkasov, and "hit the pavement" they saw a spike. This is the kind of effort Patterson will put forward next year.
No points, this sounds great but didn't actually explain the time management this would require. Getting 100 surveys filled out a week, especially by going out and about and having students fill them out in person is going to be terribly time consuming and restricting to other duties.
Amazan's rebuttal: Amazan responds by saying that the piece of the puzzle that Patterson is missing is giving students incentive to participate. The resources are there, it just takes a bit of bait to get to the students to utilize them. Furthermore, there is a 32 person Senate, and Patterson has said nothing of how she plans to utilize them.
+ 1/2 Amazan. You're right Amazan, students do need incentives or need to be able to see some tangible benefit to get them to do something. What would be really great, and also worth 25 points, is to name an example of that incentive.
Patterson's rebuttal: Well, next year's Senate is gonna be spanking new, they're going to be committed, and they're going to have so much fire that TIME!
Once again, no real point came across before the time expired.
Question 8 to Amazan: Some people have said that your platform is too idealistic, how would you go about achieving actual results?
Amazan's response: Yes, it is true that people have said our campaign is a bit up in the clouds. However, she has previously named tangible services for each of her platform points. Education- the college councils, communication- a website with shout boxes and town hall meetings, culture- two orientations, one for teaching students how to program and how to be in student orgs, and student life- proactive initiatives against alcohol abuse and academic dishonesty.
+1 Amazan. First a quick comment:it might help to fight the perception that TU Dream Team has their heads in the clouds if in their main campaign advertisement they weren't...ya know...standing in the clouds. But anyways BOOM! Amazan fields this question almost perfectly and names 3 very tangible and realistic improvements without hesitation. The last one on students was pretty weak because initiative isn't descriptive but she did enough to get the point.
Patterson's rebuttal: Basically Patterson states that a lot can be said in a name. And the fact that TU Dream team is called TU dream team means they spend all day dreaming. TU Action, on the other hand, is committed to achieving results. TU Dream team's initiatives are realistic and do-able, but how innovative are they? TU Action is just as innovative. College councils are already in the constitution, shouldn't they happen anyways?
Fumble!!! Patterson kind of drops the ball here. Who cares about the names? Amazan just stated tangibles so that's what you need to attack. Then Patterson concedes that those are tangible improvements, but asks if they're that innovative? Well hopefully they are, because then Patterson states that TU Action is just as innovative! Patterson fails to point out any flaws with the initiatives.
Amazan responds: A name is whatever, her initiatives are new, she's creating resources.. TIME!
Yea.. same old
The official debate ends and now questions open up to the audience. First one is to Amazan (question 9): You said you were gonna fight academic dishonesty. How the hell are you gonna do that, especially because students already sign a policy and see it in every syllabus?
Amazan: Well well, Amazan just so happens to work for UDC, and that's why she picked that as a platform point. She proceeds to name drop a bit, and then says that lots of students are referred to UDC because of dishonesty. She wants to speak and communicate with students more, and change the language of the conversation to explain to them just how badly it can mess up your academic career if you're caught cheating. She wants to impress upon students to be professional.
Eh, no points. I really don't see this as that big of an issue, and I doubt Amazan will be able to do much from her position as TSG president to scare students into not cheating.
Question 10 to Patterson: You said you wanted to create opportunities for students, how are you gonna do that? Oh, and also Martin Luther King had a dream and he got shit done. Gee, I wonder which side this young lady is supporting?
Patterson states that her ticket is more about having students take advantage of the resources available to them, and not so much creating new opportunities for them, just making them aware. Patterson responds by saying that Martin Luther King had a dream but he also had a plan and took steps to achieve that dream. She isn't sure this is something Dream Team can do.
+1/2 for Patterson. This mostly is awarded for fielding a question from someone obviously coming from the other side and not getting trounced. Fired that blow right back with confidence, but didn't really get into any specifics so can't award a full point.
Question 11 for both: Define what you mean by using the media to advertise to students?
Patterson: WHIP, CHERRY AND WHAT?(SHOUT OUT!), Temple media, Temple updates
Amazan: Samesies, and also reminded us that students need incentives.
Well I'm glad both are aware of the different media outlets on campus. And yes Amazan, we know students need incentives. Did you think of one yet? Nope? No points!
Question 12 for Amazan: So you said you wanna help the arts in your platform? Well we're(art students) getting screwed right now, our space is being diminished, and we have like 2 spaces for practicing plays. How are you gonna help us?
Amazan's response: Amazan works with student orgs a lot through the allocations process, so she knows some peeps. She then goes on to talk about the legacy campaign and leaving a landmark, but doesn't elaborate.
At this point, the lack of details from each candidate is starting to irk the C&W's nerves. The young woman said they need space, and this was not addressed in the answer. Also, the legacy campaign and landmarks were never explained, so I can't really say that would help the arts.
Question 13 from J and H's resident war protester to both candidates: So the US military is on campus, mainly through the ROTC. Well, did you know that the American military murdered, raped, and pillaged more than 1,000,000 people in the Middle East. What are you going to do to get these evil people off our campus?
I'm not even going to take the time to write responses for this one. Both candidates assured the room that they were not in support of raping and pillaging people. Whew, that's a relief. They told the kid if he wants to bring it up, go elsewhere or support a student org that protests the wars. I commend both candidates for their self control, as I probably would have just thrown my shoe at him. And besides, as is obvious in the picture on the right, the ROTC helps TU with its rabid squirrel and chipmunk problem, ranked number #1 in the last C&W poll. +1 both candidates.
Question 14 to both candidates: One of ya has to lose. If it's you, what are you gonna do?
Amazan: Definitely stay involved, they have worked together a lot and Patterson was always great at pointing out details she would miss. They would work well together.
Patterson: Samesies! They wouldn't lose their friendship, in fact, they'd form an alliance! TSG is stronger if everyone is together, and you don't want anyone to fall off.
Aww. No points.
Question 15 to both: I am a commuter. I feel left out. Help me!
Amazan states that the campus is around 80% commuters, and then uses the word "caters" 3 times in one sentence to make the point that actives are catered towards residents. She will help the commuters through her graduation plan because that benefits everyone. Also, incentives.
Patterson: We need to work with the faculty to have more programming incentives to stay on campus after hours. We need to have more funding for programs during the day and in the early evening so they stay on campus more. Meetings need to be earlier because it's unsafe for commuters to have to try and catch a train or bus at 11 pm.
+1 Patterson. Amazan is awarded no points no points, as it is now clear by the C&W poll that focusing on the major requirements through college councils may not be the most effective way to help students graduate on time. Also, incentives? I think Patterson is on to something by realizing that if you place some activities in the gap between when commuters finish their classes in early afternoon and when they like to be home by dinner time, they're more likely to take advantage of it. How bout making a 2:40 movie time at the on campus theater?
Question 16 to both: Are you gonna have the balls to stand up to Ann Weaver Hart, and her claw of doom, if it comes to it? Now that's a question!!
Patterson: Patterson states she is not afraid to go to Hart. She was not afraid to take part in the Jena Six walk out. She names a number of things she finds absurd with the University, such as the canceling of public performances and that there is no Japanese major. And did you know she once called Ann Weaver Hart..dun dun dun... ANN?!
Amazan: As the allocations chair, Amazan many times supported student groups against the allocations guidelines, such as with galas and balls, and wanted to change it. So she proposed a bill, but it got shot down in Senate for whatever reason.
+1 Amazan, her reponse just had a pinch more credibility than Patterson's. Patterson did point out a few things she passionately thinks need to be changed, but the fact that Amazan has already gone about proposing real change to guidelines, which especially with student allocations and its six figure budget, was sure to rustle some administrative feathers. Attempting to change the system vs. accidently calling President Hart by her first name? Point Amazan.
This concluded the debate. Note: I left one or two questions from the audience out but that was in the interest of maintaining balanced opportunities to score points for both candidates. I cut out the questions that were the fluffiest and least important or entertaining. This makes the score of this round:
Amazan: 3.5
Patterson: 2.5
Posts
1 comment:
Another Amazing job from Cherry and What. Moreover, congrats for the shout outs!
Post a Comment