With GUSA, Everybody Loses
Amid all the campaign posters and candidate Web sites, the handshaking and dorm-room drop-ins, the high hopes and grandiose promises, the thing that truly stands out about this GUSA campaign is what the candidates aren’t saying.
We spoke with seven of the eight pairs who have filed with the Election Commission to run in the Student Association’s executive elections next Thursday (the campaign of Tom Karwacki (MSB ’09) and William Farrar (COL ’09) did not respond to our request for an interview). They touched upon a litany of issues familiar to anyone who has paid even minimal attention to GUSA in the past year: the alcohol policy, the lack of uninterrupted wireless Internet access on campus, the need for student unity, and so on, and so on and so on.
But nobody talked about self-segregation on campus, the tendency for Hoyas of similar racial backgrounds to sometimes break off into different groups with suspicious attitudes toward one another. It’s a serious problem at Georgetown that was made all too evident in the wake of this newspaper’s coverage of the Jena Six incident last semester. Few talked about Georgetown’s homophobia, a viral impulse among some that lurks below the surface on campus but cropped up last semester in shameful hate-motivated crimes.
Nobody talked about how Georgetown’s financial constraints have affected the way financial aid is allocated, forcing the Office of Admissions to offer alumni-funded grants to as many underprivileged students as it can, in sharp contrast to schools with higher endowments that can offer much broader assistance.
Nobody talked about how Georgetown’s Jesuit motto of “men and women for others” calls students to service in the community around them, and the need for Hoyas to reconnect with the legacy of transformative public servants like former university president Rev. Timothy Healy, S.J., who understood the role Georgetown must play in improving its neighborhood and Washington, D.C.
This election season, as we think about what is most important about the choice we make in our next student leaders, let’s borrow a phrase from a candidate running in another presidential election and have a little “Straight Talk”:
GUSA is a joke. A tragically, hilariously, hyperbolically, theatrically side-splitting joke. A joke whose punch line we will never fully understand.
For as long as any of us can remember, GUSA always seems to set its aspirations in the gutter. None of its recent leaders have envisioned a role for the Student Association beyond a mouthpiece for perennial student complaints. Rather than rise to the challenge of all governments and turn its focus on Georgetown’s most enduring, intractable problems, GUSA simply serves as a repository for whatever quotidian, low-brow, what’s-in-it-for-me concerns that students bring up.
In doing so, GUSA confines itself to near-perpetual failure. Its goals are undefined, its accomplishments in tackling serious issues are few. Its legislative arm, as both the former Assembly and the current Senate, is run by a few walking, talking, résumé-building egos who know Robert’s Rules of Order by heart but are clueless as to how to build an effective student government. Its presidents and vice presidents act like glorified hotel concierges, trying to ensure Georgetown students the most comfortable stay possible, with punctual GUTS buses, plentiful kegs and visiting hours in glitzy Riggs Library.
None of the tickets we interviewed gave us any reason to believe that GUSA’s legacy of mediocrity will change anytime soon.
Three tickets, however, gave us reasons for hope.
More than any of their competitors, Schuyler Hawkins (MSB ’10) and Anna Schubert (COL ’09) are genuinely dissatisfied with GUSA’s legacy of inaction on the most important student concerns. They specifically cited GUSA’s absence from the activism campaign that led to the formation of the three LGBTQ working groups last October as a reason for their frustration. Their message of change and range of experience outside of GUSA are compelling arguments in support of their candidacy. Unfortunately, they are not backed up by specific proposals through which they might implement that change.
Kyle Williams (COL ’09) and Brian Kesten (COL ’10) are far and away the most knowledgeable candidates on the issues that have dominated this campaign. We were impressed by their emphasis on campus security and ending bias-related incidents at Georgetown.
But their pitch to students is based mostly on the experience they’ve accrued in institutions like the GUSA Senate and a seemingly endless list of committees and advisory groups, and the connections they’ve formed with different administrators. Their plan for solving Georgetown’s most difficult problems is low on specifics and seems limited to just getting students to talk about them more.
This is exactly the wrong medicine for GUSA right now. It’s hard to believe that Williams and Kesten will really redirect GUSA’s essential mission when their campaign is rooted so deeply in the Student Association’s flawed status quo.
At the end of it all, there are Pat Dowd (SFS ’09) and James Kelly (COL ’09). We’ll admit, we were initially suspicious of candidates who look completely like the kind of people who always get elected: affable, mainstream, endlessly political. The only thing that would make their Joe Hoya candidacies perfect would be if they were named Pat Lauinger and James McDonough.
Beyond the façade, however, we were surprised to find some genuine rays of hope emanating from their platform. They expressed the same kind of over-the-top indignation about the alcohol policy changes as most candidates, but also talked about how those changes related to the forthcoming Intellectual Life Report and finding a way for students to strike the right balance between work and recreation.
Most importantly, their campaign was the only one to present some original, off-the-beaten path ideas to pursue in office, like subsidized summer housing for students with unpaid internships who can’t afford to pay rent. They are realistic about how much they expect to accomplish in one year, but they still have a more thoughtfully considered plan of action than any of their competitors.
Maybe GUSA is meant to forever be the misbegotten stepchild of student organizations on campus. Maybe it will never rise to the level of a forward-thinking, far-reaching force for empowering students and improving Georgetown. With Dowd and Kelly, we hope it might at least come close.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this editorial that briefly appeared online early on the morning of Friday, Feb. 15 inaccurately stated that Kyle Williams (COL ’09) and Brian Kesten (COL ’10) did not respond to THE HOYA’s request for an interview. Williams and Kesten never received THE HOYA’s invitation. The editorial was modified following a formal interview with Williams and Kesten.
Feb 20 2008 at 6:15 a.m.
The editorial seems to criticize GUSA for... listening and responding to student concerns?
First the Hoya says "it is encouraging to see the new student association administration ... realize the importance of [expanding GUTS buses] and actually step up to the plate." [http://www.thehoya.com/node/13018] Now they criticize GUSA for working on the expansion.
The Hoya also said, of the keg ban, "Murchison used his position as president of GUSA effectively when the campus keg ban was under consideration, presenting a compelling, well-researched case in favor of the students’ position. He used the vote on the keg ban to demonstrate that the student community was indeed united in their opposition, and he was one of the loudest voices to reach the ears of Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson.
These successes provide an important lesson about how GUSA can be effective." Now it calls its efforts to block it quotidian and low-brow.
GUSA has lead the way in terms of getting Grab-N-Go(Eamon Carr), opening up Riggs Library for study days (Twister and Ben), getting auditing powers to expand accountability of SAC and the funding process and more.
Seriously, guys. This is weak, even from Santulli's usually shitty pen. Has Santulli, or anyone on the Ed Board, ever attended a single meeting of the Senate or Exec Board? (Hint: No)
At the very least, the Hoya ed-board could be a little more consistent in its criticisms of GUSA: first it criticizes them for failing to garner achievements, urges GUSA to actually get these achievements, then, when it actually does get something done, it criticizes them for accomplishing it.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:04 a.m.
I will start of by saying that I am personally outraged by this uninformed, tasteless, and incredibly unprofessional editorial.
I have been an elected member of GUSA for the last year, and I find it appalling that the editorial board of The Hoya would make such claims and accusations of GUSA having never attended a single meeting of either the Executive Board or the Senate. Furthermore, it should embarrass the members of the editorial board to be guilty of such grossly unfounded claims against the Student Association, specifically in attempting to get away with the claim that "[GUSA's] goals are undefined, its accomplishments in tackling serious issues are few..."
GUSA's goals are clearly defined, and its accomplishments are quite significant even if they are not of the quick, instant-gratification, immediate nature that The Hoya seems to desire. With regard to the Executive branch, the goals of the organization were clear when the voters elected Ben and Matt (with more than a 50% majority) last year - their goals have been wireless internet access, access to national newspapers, and increased (and effective) student advocacy to the administration. I doubt even The Hoya could disagree that Ben and Matt have been very effective in accomplishing these meaningful goals. Lauinger Library is now fully capable of supporting constant wireless internet access, we have national newspapers delivered at no cost, and administrators have a better view of Ben and Matt than many of us could have even hoped for before.
This is significant, too, because it is what the voters (that would be you, Editorial Board) chose to pursue in last year's election.
With regard to the GUSA Senate, even more significant, relevant work has been done this year. Even though the Senate is a fledgling organization, the legislative body and the committees within it also have significant work to speak of. The Academic Affairs Committee pressed the faculty to renew efforts to post accurate, thorough, and up-to-date course descriptions online, and the faculty has responded favorably. The Finance and Appropriations committee has a never-before-seen amount of oversight over SAC and the other advisory boards, as well as the Student Association itself, and it has proven to use that oversight responsibly and effectively, which is of vital (albeit little-known) importance to the students.
Lastly, the Senate as a whole has been doing some of its most significant work lately. It is nearing the end of its comprehensive review of the Code of Student Conduct - which is critical to the daily lives of students and which is THOROUGHLY unfair in its current state - and the leadership of the Senate (along with the Student Life committee) is poised to begin meeting with the administration imminently to begin working on meaningful changes to the Code. In brief, the students (and The Hoya) can expect to see a battle over the "more likely than not" standard used to adjudicate student violations, as well as a litany of demands in terms of specifying the definitions of many offenses listed in the Code. Of course, The Hoya's editorial board would know all of these if they did any research or attended any relevant meetings before publishing scathing remarks about GUSA.
As far as your comments that suggest that GUSA does not concern itself with the serious issues of diversity (or lack thereof) and self-segregation on campus, I would point out that the GUSA Senate enacted this year the Student Commission for Unity, which is specifically tasked with studying (in a professional and academic manner) these issues of diversity on campus and recommending changes to fix the problems that it identifies. So please, do not insult GUSA's commitment to diversity.
At least not while the senior staff (heck, even the mid-level staff) of The Hoya is by-and-large as whitewashed as Tom Sawyer's fence.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:25 a.m.
I agree that this editorial is overly harsh at times, but it's basic criticism is a fair one: while GUSA has accomplished some very good things in recent years, Georgetown deserves a more robust student government.
One of the big black sheep throughout this (and every) GUSA election is that most students don't care. GUSA is hardly visible on campus except during campaign season, and until students really take an active interest and hold their government accountible, it's unlikely that this will change.
And until there comes along a GUSA administration that is truly able to draw the student body closer into the process of governing, it will remain mired in an endless rut of producing minor and isolated accomplishments.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:28 a.m.
Hahaha the Hoya goes crazy again
What I don't understand is why the Hoya thinks that people just want to see more of them and gusa beating up on each other. Maybe the only organization less respected on campus than gusa is the Hoya... Though SAC is up there too as are most of the big clubs like IRC (nerds) the Corp (charge too much for bad coffee) the Credit Union (why do they exist?) Dems and Repubs (chill out)...
Truth is every club on campus bashes every other club and has been for the last two years I've been at Gtown. This is just annoying. Every club has something to offer. Gusa does a lot of good work a lot of it I'm sure I don't know about at all but what I know about I generally like (GUTS, newspapers, Riggs). Maybe it doesn't do enough to publicize itself, but this editorial just hates on the people actually in gusa. That's just not classy and kind of makes the Hoya look pathetic (which many of them probably aren't). This just wreaks of cynicism and jealousy and is frankly more weird than anything else. I don't think anybody will read this and think "Oh the Hoya's right". They'll probably just think "Yeah gusa is imperfect but boy did the Hoya go off the deep end."
And basically that's why I refuse to have anything to do with any of these clubs. Come on, get real. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
And also, this is on the front page of the Hoya's website??? Where's the stuff we actually care about!!!
Feb 20 2008 at 7:50 a.m.
Hey Max,
I think you have a point, but you also don't give GUSA enough credit. (Full disclosure to those who don't know me, I'm the current Speaker of the Student Senate and have previously been GUSA's chief of staff, treasurer, and have ALSO served on the Hoya's ed board. So I've gotten around and have skin on both sides of the field).
You're right, GUSA isn't visible enough. But, truth be told, this is both 1.) not as big a problem as people pretend and 2.) not something that isn't constantly, constantly worked on. I'm not saying we shouldn't work to improve this, I'm saying that this argument is waaay overdone (to histrionic levels in this editorial).
I generally don't think GUSA people are out of touch. One of my friends said this the other day and then I asked, "You think Ben and Matt are out of touch?" and she said "Oh no I don't think of them as GUSA even." I asked, "Do you think I'm out of touch?" and she again said no.
How many town hall meetings do you have to have to know that students care about things like wireless, GUTS buses, more academic flexibility, better dining options, rigorous intellectual life, a better faculty advising system, more student space on campus, additional funding for community service and club sports, et cetera? This article talks about GUSA like it's something separate from the student body. The Student Association IS the student body. We represent all racial and ethnic groups, women, all major stakeholders. We are also leaders of other clubs on campus, participate in community service, use all of the campus facilities, take classes in every major, blah blah blah blah. There are about 100 people serving in GUSA at any given moment. I know every member of the editorial board personally; many have my cell phone numbers. I get emails constantly from general students, from club leaders, from alums. I don't think I'm out of touch.
And to be frank, I don't think students WANT to know too much about their student government. Four years ago Kelley Hampton and Luis Torres created a weekly newsmagazine for GUSA that highlighted every meeting they had and every little bit of progress. They printed it out and slid it under every door on campus. It was called "The Pawprint." I know, I got it every week under my Darnall door. Did I read it? No! Because I didn't care about student government. I was busier going to Dems meetings, studying for class, trolling for rooftop parties, awkwardly making friends, going to lectures, playing intramural dodgeball, etc.
We can cram GUSA down people's throats as much as possible by having weekly update emails, weekly newsletters everywhere, weekly town hall meetings, personally walking around, and we still wouldn't reach the 7,000 students on campus. Even if we did, many of them have better things to do. People complain about us not being visible enough (despite the fact that 30-40% of the student body votes in our elections and 55% voted in our referendum last year), but let's be honest do they really want to know about my recent meeting with the university administration to discuss the future of the allocation protocols that go into dividing tuition dollars among the various advisory boards, and to what degree students should have year-to-year say in the matter? If so, I'm at Tombs every night and love talking shop.
So anyway, I think the point is valid, and should be worked on, but is too often used as a straw-man argument to disparage all of the good work that GUSA really does do. I don't think we're out of touch, we're constantly reaching out to people (town halls, blogs, blast emails, flyering, geographic representatives, Facebook), and the Hoya is overestimating the DESPERATE CRAVING that people evidently have about my work.
I still love you though, Max, and look forward to seeing you at the next secret society meeting of the Jewards.
Best,
Eden
Feb 20 2008 at 8:31 a.m.
I don't disagree that there are a lot of issues that haven't been discussed in this campaign. Some of the issues that the Hoya cites, though, have been discussed. For example, Kyle and Brian have talked about stuff like self-segregation a lot, whether it was at tonight's NAACP/BSA forum or in Brian's work with the Student Commission for Unity. (I'll point out that the Hoya wasn't talking about this either until they got labeled racist.)
The issue of financial aid has also been a hot topic despite what the Hoya says, such as Pat and James's plan to offer subsidized or free housing for students who demonstrate need and want to have unpaid summer internships. Both Tim Brown and Pat have talked a lot about the vital importance of socioeconomic diversity -- going door-to-door, on their websites, in front of clubs, to me personally, etc.
About "men and women for others" and "Georgetown in the larger community," once again I've heard multiple tickets talk about this. At today's NAACP/BSA forum, six of the tickets spoke eloquently about Georgetown's need for further involvement in the DC area; one ticket even called it a "broken city" and called for Georgetown to help heal it. Meanwhile, other tickets have called for increasing funding of programs including CSJ groups.
So why did the ed board know absolutely nothing about any of these things? Maybe it was because instead of actually attending any of the campaign events, reading the platforms, following the candidates as they went around, going to the clubs where they spoke, etc, they just asked each ticket to answer 6 questions (one of which was about Hoya independence) and made 100% of their judgment based on that. They didn't go to any of the events (not even to their own debate), didn't walk around with the candidates. They based all of their judgments off of 2 hours of interviews with 8 tickets, 6 questions each. Bravo!
Is this journalism? As the Hoya's EIC said when I asked him that question, he said "No, it's opinion." And a woefully uneducated one at that.
--------------------
I was also annoyed by how the Hoya used the candidates as a way to disparage GUSA. For example they talked about Schuyler's dissatisfaction with GUSA's work on the LGBTQ stuff. Typically, the Hoya didn't factcheck anything, or else they would've known that GUSA was involved with this process from the start, speaking out about the hate crime, urging administrative action, and eventually appointing many of the student members of the LGBTQ task force. Matt Appenfeller, GUSA's VP, even sits on one of these boards! The Hoya covered our work on these boards in its own paper just in December and yet repeated this claim without the slightest bit of editing.
The Hoya also attacks the Student Senate, which I lead, for being "run by a few walking, talking, résumé-building egos who know Robert’s Rules of Order by heart but are clueless as to how to build an effective student government." Well, the Senate actually isn't on my resume in case they're interested, and I don't use Robert's Rules of Order, much less have I memorized it. Meanwhile we've gotten a lot done in terms of increasing student oversight over the club funding system, working to revamp the Code of Student Conduct, analyzing and tackling issues of diversity and unity, and we even had a hearing about the Hoya's independence movement. We've also built a Senate that is much more diverse (ethnically, racially, socioeconomically, gender), gone to geographic representation to make sure that we have agents in every part of campus, made use of referenda on key issues, and gotten the power to appoint people to every policymaking board on campus. (Didn't know about that, ed board? Try coming to our meetings or reading our online minutes.) We're also now debating whether or not to recreate the Club Union, to allow every club on campus to send representatives to GUSA to advise us on policies that affect student organizations on campus. Yes, despite this trashy work, the Hoya will still get a rep.
And how did the Hoya make this judgment of me, personally, being a resume-building-egomaniac Robert's Rulesophile? Again, no member of the Hoya's editorial board has ever, ever been to a Senate meeting, certainly not when I've been there. They have a beat reporter who is great and comes to most of our meetings, but I doubt they asked her for her feedback either.
This is a ridiculous stereotype that the Hoya is perpetuating without the slightest investigation. Quite frankly, it's kind of pathetic for the "Newspaper of Record" to have gotten the record so wrong. I'd be embarrassed to have let my lack of preparation, inaccuracy and use of idiotic stereotypes show so easily. This really just reflects badly on Steve and Pierce for continuing their vendetta, and the rest of the ed board that, unfortunately, went along with them for the ride.
Anyway there are a million other criticisms I could make of this article. It's painfully clear to me that the Hoya did zero prep for this, otherwise they would've known the factual inaccuracy of almost every assertion they make, especially their list of the issues we AREN'T active on. Of course, we're active on every single one.
Sorry that we didn't solve racism in the last 12 months, guys! Sorry that homophobia is still around! Sorry that self-segregation isn't gone! Sorry that we haven't quintupled our endowment in the last three semesters! Sorry that students still care about things like party policy! Boy, did we screw up! Next year we'll be sure to get rid of racism and homophobia. The endowment might have to wait till next summer, though.
Ah well, it's frustrating to see the Hoya get it so wrong, embarrass itself by putting SO little effort into its work, and in the meantime just damage the Georgetown community further by perpetuating the myth of GUSA's inactivity.
-----------
Oh, one last thing. GUSA is not just some organization. It's about 100 people, real, living, breathing people who spend dozens of hours a week working to try to make Georgetown a better place. I don't know why the Hoya gets off on criticizing what these people work so hard to do. They're students; they're in your classes, in Leo's, at your parties. Some of them even write for the Hoya. (Pierce used to work for us before he flamed out.) I am continually amazed at how cruel the Hoya is to the scores of students who spend thousands of hours of their time working on these issues, just to be called "pathetic" and "a joke" by some people who did two hours of interviews with candidates -- not even real GUSA people who have been involved. The human face is often forgotten.
Feb 20 2008 at 8:39 a.m.
Eden,
I think one way to make students more aware of GUSA is to allow GUSA Senator's to email their students a few times over the course of the year to update them on their progress and solicit new ideas. Ditto for the Pres/VP.
No need to shove a daily newsletter down everyone's throats or hold a pizza party every Tuesday night -- just have your rep craft an email every month or two to let you know what's going on. There's probably a way to set it up so that the reps don't even get access to the emails to avoid privacy concerns. That'd be the most effective, and isn't at all spammy -- though I'm sure that wouldn't stop the Ed Board from calling it "unwanted intrusions into students' inboxes" if they're going to follow standard procedure of calling for something then deriding it.
Eden, you guys control the texts of the voting ballots, right? Why not add a question like:
"Would you want your Senator to contact you several times a year via email to update you on current campus issues?" Although somehow clarify that the Senator wouldn't have direct access to the emails, to assuage privacy concerns.
I dunno, thoughts?
Feb 20 2008 at 8:58 a.m.
Common Sense,
Interesting you mention those ideas. I completely agree, I've had both of them myself -- proof that they really are, as you say, common sense.
I had a meeting with Stephanie Lynch, Director of Residence Life, a few weeks ago. Matt Stoller, another GUSA Senator, and I went to talk to her about getting Senators email privileges to email their constituents once or twice a semester, or other ways that we might be able to incorporate Senators into their communities especially since that was half the point of geographical representation. Unfortunately, we were rebuffed -- they argued that GUSA shouldn't get special treatment over other "clubs", and very firmly said this wouldn't happen. We are currently exploring ways to get around her objections. In the meantime, we are encouraging our Senators to attend community council meetings (though these themselves aren't really a great way to get to know most of your constituents) and several of our senators HAVE been holding local town halls or pizza parties.
As for your other question, I have been working with CSP and the Election Commissioner to add an "exit poll" to this year's ballot, mostly so that we can find out who is and isn't participating in our election. Seniors? Freshmen? Women? Men? African-Americans? Hispanic students? We're working through the technical stuff now but hopefully it'll happen. I dunno if we will add that question you suggested just because of the really short turnaround, but hopefully if we don't get the email sitch figured out by next year then we can include it in the exit poll then.
Again, great ideas! We've been working on them already. The unfortunate reality is that everyone assumes GUSA can just "do" stuff like get access to emails for every dorm on campus. In reality it's much tougher and it takes a lot of time. I'll admit I haven't been spending as much time on that recently as I have trying to rewrite the Code of Student Conduct, maybe I should refocus on it though.
Thanks for the great suggestions,
Eden
Feb 20 2008 at 3:35 p.m.
The Hoya is a joke. A tragically, hilariously, hyperbolically, theatrically side-splitting joke. A joke whose punch line I will never fully understand.
The Hoya does not fact check. The Hoya commits libel. The Hoya has blind vendettas. The Hoya forgets to invite candidates to interviews and then tries to cover their mistakes up. The Hoya refuses to put in the effort required to be a good newspaper.
Have you seen the news racks? No one reads the Hoya.
The Hoya is a joke. A tragically, hilariously, hyperbolically, theatrically side-splitting joke. A joke whose punch line I will never fully understand.
Feb 20 2008 at 3:55 p.m.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath here.
Every year, The Hoya endorses a ticket for GUSA president and vice president, hoping that these candidates will be different and finally turn student government into something positive and constructive. Every year, the winners (whether Hoya-endorsed or not) turn out to be just some slightly modified version of their predecessors, and nothing really changes.
As a reporter, editor and now editorial board member for The Hoya, I've covered four different GUSA presidents. And the fact is, however inconvenient it may be for some to admit, when you turn the bright light on GUSA, they don't really accomplish very much. Even Ben and Matt (who were also interviewed for this editorial) conceded that under the best possible scenario, a GUSA president gets the chance to enact one campaign promise.
So one president makes a movie, the next gets OTM to agree to a limited weekend GUTS schedule (which they were going to do anyway), and the next gets students free copies of The New York Times and the Washington Post, the full content of which is already available for free online.
The only real, significant changes I've seen as a student here (on the Living Wage, campus security, gay rights and questions of Catholic identity) has come from committed students working through advocacy groups with specific missions. GUSA has often helped out, or provided some amorphous level of support, but the impetus for change always came from somewhere else.
Maybe that's the case for most student governments, and it's unfair to criticize GUSA for that reason. But responsible journalism means telling people the truth. And if we're going to tell people who to vote for, we should also tell them that whether they vote for Pat or Kyle or Schuyler or Otto von Bismarck as a write-in candidate, all have an equally slim chance of really making a difference.
Feb 20 2008 at 4:47 p.m.
I think it also bears mentioning that this piece reflects the opinion of a five-member editorial board, not of The Hoya as an institution nor of the individual members of The Hoya who don't sit on the editorial board.
Feb 20 2008 at 4:54 p.m.
But again Steve I think you're just plain inaccurate.
Pravin's administration did more than make a movie. (In fact, their admin didn't make it -- they just invested in it and reaped thousands of dollars profit which then went to student activities.) Pravin's administration also negotiated the creation of new restaurants in Hoya Court to replace the old, crappy, generic ones. They expanded Grab-n-Go (which was originally a GUSA idea) to include dinners and not only lunches. They started the Supper with Jesuits program which served hundreds of students that year. They did a lot of other stuff, too.
As for Twister, the GUTS bus stuff wasn't going to happen anyway -- I know because I personally headed up this project. We found the funding, wrote the schedule, and originally worked around OTM to get the contract approved. OTM originally argued that there was no demand and that previous efforts at this had failed -- we changed that argument and the program has become a resounding success that OTM now endorses. You reported on this in the Hoya, and the Hoya highly praised Twister for this. Your statements on this are just, plain, 100% inaccurate.
Not only that, Twister's administration also led the effort to defeat the keg ban (as the Hoya gave him credit for), opened up Riggs Library for study days (which the Hoya had previously called for), and a lot more. In addition to these "marquee" successes, Twister's administration made progress in a lot of areas (wireless, which nobody can just deliver in a year, but they did get an expansion to WGR; Flex$, which went through after his term ended), and advised on a myriad more issues ranging from the creation of the bus system that got students to the Verizon Center to the ongoing effort to reform the core curriculum.
Plus you're forgetting the Accountability and Reform Amendment, which made the GUSA Senate much more representative, much more active, and gave GUSA the auditing powers that have allowed things like the Activities Endowment, the Fee's surplus, the advisory boards' huge reserves to come to light.
As for Ben, he got campus newspapers, has brought the Add/Drop extension to within an inch of success, expanded the Riggs Library program, worked with UIS to prioritize the wireless rollout and try to speed it up, and a million other things you don't know about. They also helped create the LGBTQ Working Groups, appointed GUSA people to the Provost's upcoming working groups on intellectual life and the core curriculum, etc. This doesn't even mention the work that the Student Senate has done to completely revamp student finances, bring more accountability to the Advisory Boards, do a 360 reevaluation of the Code of Student Conduct, work with the faculty to push again on online course syllabi/course information (again originally a GUSA idea), et cetera et cetera.
Your oversimplification of the work that GUSA does is the problem. It's true, many of GUSA's accomplishments aren't readily and obviously visible right away, but whether it's Grab-n-Go, the GOCard, the Student Activities Fee, GUTS buses, Flex$, Hoya Court, or even the creation of the Corp, GUSA does all of these things. Simplifying the thousands of hours of work of 100 students into "GUTS buses" or "newspapers" is quite frankly insulting to the people who do the work and kind of pathetic for a former EIC of the Hoya to just be so willfully ignorant. Lying about the circumstances of those efforts is just plain dishonest.
Saying that all GUSA did was one thing a year is like me saying that the only thing the Hoya does is generate lots of paper trash around campus, and ignoring everything that's actually ON the paper. It's like me asking, when it comes down to it, is the Hoya really producing anything other than a paper product with ink on it?
Feb 20 2008 at 6:31 p.m.
Yes, Steve, I echo all of the previous posters' comments, especially Eden's.
While I'm glad the Hoya Ed Board has changed their tune on GUSA from "It gets nothing done" to "What it gets done is stupid!" At least it recognizes the fact that we do, indeed, accomplish things in our tenure here.
Whether expanding GUTS buses, opening hours in Riggs, Grab n Go, Flex dollars, LGBTQ working groups, defeating the keg ban, getting audit, control and transparency over the Student Activities Fee, GOCard, free newspapers on campus, a commission on seriously studying and making recommendations on diversity and self-segregation on campus, nearly add/drop expansion, defeating proposed changes to the academic calender that would've eliminated Columbus Day, etc. --- is stupid and not worthwhile, of course, I leave to the reader. That's an editorial judgment.
What irks me most about the article is that it's just plain inaccurate. I agree that most Presidents, themselves, can only accomplish 2-3 major projects per year. It takes a lot of time, resources and lobbying to effect change. However, one of the reasons why we introduced the Senate was to be able to spread out the work, so the Senate can itself work on several important goals, which Eden pointed out above.
But, as Eden noted, there HAS been talk about self-segregation on campus (most pointedly with Williams' and Kesten's tickets), there HAS been talk about financial aid (Dowd and Kelly's ideas for subsidized housing), and there HAS been talk about increasing funding for volunteer projects (like the 25 Days of Service or increased CSJ funding). The Ed Board got the facts plain wrong on GUSA having done no work on the LGBTQ issue -- while I certainly give the majority of the credit to the various LGBTQ groups on campus that raised the issue and met with President DeGoia, GUSA had a strong role in the creation, appointment and recommendations of the three LGBTQ groups -- GUSA's VP, Matt Appenfeller, sat on one of the boards which met almost daily.
I don't mind editorial comments, but at least make them bear a semblance to the truth. As for the opinion that, "Its legislative arm, as both the former Assembly and the current Senate, is run by a few walking, talking, résumé-building egos who know Robert’s Rules of Order by heart but are clueless as to how to build an effective student government," -- aside from the fact that we hardly ever use RRoR, I would like the Ed Board to come out and say exactly who these "walking, talking, résumé-building egos" are. To blandly disparage GUSA, the Senate, and the real work a lot of people have done in one broad brush-stroke merits that, at least.
Feb 20 2008 at 6:56 p.m.
There's far too much self-seriousness being exhibited by both sides in this conflict, and it's at the cost of addressing (or at least getting started in addressing via acknowledging / naming) the underlying threshold problems.
1) Regarding all of the 'policies' which the editorial board brought as a means of attacking the majority (the totality?) of the GUSA candidates: The HOYA needs to get real - GUSA is supposed to be a representative assembly, not an oligrachy or autocracy. These agenda items are NOT on the agenda of the majority of people on campus - no one cares about self-segregation. I would invite the HOYA to nominate a ticket running on 'self-segregation', 'bias', housing for poor students, etc. Good luck to you.
2) All this bickering within and regarding GUSA is ignoring the fact that, as compared to many other 'elite' (I use the word in quotes, take note) universities, the potency and ability of Georgetown's student government to influence policy and implement change is minimal.
No amount of internal hand-wringing, debating, editorializing, etc. is going to change the fact that the way the rules are written, power is distributed on campus, and constraints are enacted, GUSA cannot do that much. The president cannot do that much. The senate cannot do that much.
The most revolutionary ticket, in my honest opinion, would be one that faced up to those facts and campaigned with a coherent plan regarding how major, fundamental, and long-needed STRUCTURAL changes in the organization and power-holding of student government could be implemented.
Right now guys, I hate to say it, but we're all like little kids running around on the playground while the parents watch in the background. (Parents being the boards, administration, professor senate, executive committees, etc.)
Feb 20 2008 at 7:06 p.m.
Your statement about Grab-and-go being a 'GUSA' creation is a lie. Get your facts right.
The original impetus for grab-and-go originated via a collaboration between two sophomores in the Fall of 2005. The two brainstormed and came up with the idea in September of 05. Then, one member of the pair initiated communication with a variety of groups (yes, GUSA was one of them, as was the Corp, but the majority of progress was made via work with various components of the 'adult' administration - a few people in particular)
It would never have come to fruition without their efforts. I won't give the names, but I'm sure many people would at least recognize the name of the 'active' member of the pair - he was all over campus.
It was not a GUSA-originated or GUSA-sponsored idea. Stop trying to take credit for other's ideas. (Ha! The classic overreach of government is infecting hoyas at a young age. congrats.)
Be careful with what you say in public forums - lots of people (including alums) read it. Lies will bite you in the ass.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:18 p.m.
Correction: Fall of 2003. (ironically, I was just corrected by an individual mentioned in these posts) Time flies.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:20 p.m.
http://www.thehoya.com/node/5778
Just going off this article, it would seem to partially refute that statement. "[Secrety of Housing & Facilities Eamonn] Carr, who has been closely involved in the Grab-n-Go program since its inception, said that its success so far led to the plan for its expansion. ... Carr began exploring the idea of a portable meals program nearly two years ago, when he sat on the Student Association’s Student Services Committee. In September of last year, Grab-n-Go was introduced, offering salads, sandwiches and bagels. ... He also credited other members of the GUSA’s current administration for helping push the process through."
I'm certainly not versed in the specific circumstances leading up to it, but from what I've heard from past Execs and GUSA members, GUSA did play an important role in Grab n Go.
Feb 20 2008 at 7:46 p.m.
You got the lead name right. Don't believe everything you read in the paper regarding the process. It's factually accurate in that he was sitting on that committee ... but it was a one (and a half ... there was a behind the scenes guy as well) man job, and GUSA was his platform for access, not the source (or execution) of the idea.
I won't say anymore - I don't want to step on Eamonn's toes. (or out myself) But it was decidedly NOT a GUSA idea / project. It was an Eamonn-'anonymous' project, which Eamonn really ran with once the original idea was born. And believe me, if he had stayed within the confines of GUSA, it would NEVER have happened.
Again, be careful with your sources!
Feb 20 2008 at 8:06 p.m.
Actually, the idea for Grab-n-Go was first aired in a GUSA presidential election. The Hoya reported on this a lot of times.
This was slightly before my time but from everything I read the idea first appeared in a series of GUSA campaign platforms and then GUSA started working on it.
I think GUSA's leadership on Grab-n-Go (or Grab 'n Go as it was originally conceived) is very well documented. I apologize if I have some of the very specific facts wrong, I hope you believe me that I'm not trying to lie just basing it off of what I read and what alums from that time told me. I don't know who first came up with the actual idea, all I know is how it became prominent and how it got worked on.
Feb 20 2008 at 8:10 p.m.
http://www.thehoya.com/node/5281
"The Grab-n-Go lunches, pre-packaged meals that students can take from the dining hall, are a new addition to Dining Services after the idea was introduced in last year’s GUSA presidential election."
Feb 20 2008 at 8:19 p.m.
Again, I'm giving you on-the-ground reports here - I have no ulterior motives. You keep on bringing up Hoya newspaper articles, which have ... at best questionable credibility.
The Grab-n-Go program was the result of a brainstorm between Eamonn Carr and an associate of his in the fall of 2003. Eamonn pretty much spearheaded the entire process following that session. Yes, he was involved with GUSA, but the idea had nothing to do with GUSA and it wasn't implemented because of GUSA. It was only implemented because of Eamonn's willingness to give massive amounts of his time and interface with the administration / Marriott executives / executive committees.
(It was supported by a presidential campaign at the time, but campaigns 'pick up' lots of ideas - and I know both the people on that campaign: they never claimed they (or GUSA) created the grab-n-go concept, only that they supported it because it was a popular idea, as evidenced by the growth of the program)
Don't take credit for the work of others - the lesson here, again, is to be careful when you make bold statements in public fora. People will check and check again what you say, even at the level of a college newspaper.
My Best
Feb 20 2008 at 8:32 p.m.
But Al Gore did create the internet. We all know that.
Feb 20 2008 at 8:34 p.m.
I would just like to redirect the conversation away from petty issues or differences regarding The Hoya or GUSA, and back to the main point that this editorial is not grounded in facts, is libelous, and is journalistically irresponsible to publish.
If you want to hear about meaningful work done by GUSA in just this year, even, ask me (or Eden or Stoller) about the work that GUSA has done regarding the add/drop policy and the necessity of adequate course descriptions and/or syllabi online. Ask me also about how the faculty killed the bulk of these initiatives, and how many dozens of hours of work went into them from our end before they were killed. Some people care about GUSA a whole flippin' lot, and to some of us, it's worth a hell of a lot more than a line on anyone's resume.
-Chair, GUSA Senate Academic Affairs Committee
Feb 20 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Sorry for my off-topic post. I just think everyone could use a little breather.
First off, it's not libelous for the Hoya to complain about the lack of visible success GUSA has had. I can't really comment on this issue because I haven't been here, nor have I been involved for long enough. That being said, how is this any different from newspapers and citizens complaining about how Congress "never gets anything done." Answer: It's not. Clearly both governing bodies accomplish "stuff" but that doesn't mean the job they are doing is satisfactory. Complain all you want about the Hoya's strong word-choice, but you guys just read an opinionated editorial, not even a news article. Relax.
P.S. I bet if you guys fine a way to fix the alcohol policy, you'd get an excellent editorial from this very paper.
Feb 20 2008 at 9:07 p.m.
I think the other posters, specifically Eden S., have pointed out that the editorial was not merely disparaging (which is an editorial decision, agree or disagree with it), but just plain wrong on most of the facts it reported.
And as to the alcohol policy -- well, last year GUSA did play a major role in defeating the keg ban with a very long, well-researched and well-argued policy paper that Dr. Olson admitted played a significant role in his decision. This year, an Alcohol Policy Working Group has been formed (Pat Dowd, one of the Presidential candidates, is on it) to deal with restructuring the current policy. But this editorial seems to imply that even working on it (which they did praise GUSA for originally), is a "quotidian, low-brow, what’s-in-it-for-me concern." Again, an editorial opinion, but one I don't think many students would agree with.
So, I think the biggest thrust of the ire here is not that the editorial is overly harsh, but that it's just plain wrong.
Feb 20 2008 at 10:36 p.m.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Whatevermonikericameupwiththispost. Yeah I absolutely agree that Eamonn was the man who made Grab-n-Go happen. Then again he held a high-level GUSA position for at least two years and was considered one of GUSA's most respected leaders. I got to know Eamonn when I was a Freshman and he was a Senior. I don't disagree with you in the least that Eamonn worked on Grab-n-Go.
But I don't see why you are saying that because Eamonn did it, it's not GUSA. I mean, I was the point man on GUTS buses, but it's still a GUSA success because I used GUSA's influence and access and authority to make it happen. Ben, Matt, and a couple people in InterHall did the newspapers program, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a GUSA/InterHall success. Twister personally handled the Riggs opening, but again he did so as GUSA president. Vikram led the fight for online course syllabi, but he did so as GUSA chief of staff. GUSA claiming credit for Grab-n-Go doesn't demean Eamonn's work. Eamonn was a GUSA leader -- as you can read all over the Hoya.
I never meant to suggest that it wasn't Eamonn who did Grab-n-Go. But again, it came to prominence in a GUSA campaign and Eamonn worked as a GUSA appointee, spent lots of time in the GUSA office (where I met him), coordinated with the rest of the GUSA leadership, etc etc etc.
What is the contradiction here? Saying it was Eamonn doesn't mean that it isn't GUSA. What, do you think GUSA exists as an entity apart from the students who work in it? If we can't take credit for what our members do, who's supposed to be doing the work?
Distinction without a difference. Eamonn, if you've been following this, please know that we all still speak about you with reverence as one of the GUSA Hall of Fame. You're one of GUSA, and Georgetown's, all-time best.
Feb 21 2008 at 12:24 a.m.
This editorial is way overdue. Don't you love how everyone who defends GUSA gets so hysterical about how they're being attacked by a newspaper that supposedly nobody reads. (If nobody reads The Hoya, why are they getting so hysterical?)
I don't really want to see Santulli or anyone else wasting their time writing about GUSA's so-called achievements if the signature accomplishment is "getting auditing powers to expand accountability of SAC." Seriously.
Feb 21 2008 at 1:37 a.m.
Steve you are wrong. Otto von Bismarck is a great man, a great leader, and above all he is the candidate of change in the 2008 GUSA election. Lets reject the divisive unproductive politics of old and usher in a new era of progress through cooperation. Georgetown University, YES WE CAN!
Feb 22 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
Maybe THE HOYA is the joke, not GUSA
Do we really need a student newspaper 'endorsing' and criticizing candidates? On a college campus, such actions are undoubtedly self-interested and motivated by friendships.
The current crop of students running for GUSA are well motivated and qualified. The only 'joke' is the student newspaper and its shoddy writing
Feb 22 2008 at 9:32 p.m.
Actually, the biggest joke (on campus, as in politics at large) is the GUSA candidates who, as always, are self-selected from amongst the gtown population. The people running for GUSA positions may be the best we've got to offer (by definition, since they're the only ones that came forward) but they certainly aren't the 'best'. The best people on campus aren't interested in wasting their time with inefficacious power structures, vapid campaign goals, an unresponsive administration, and a self-congratulatory governing body.
The reaction of the GUSA people to this editorial was predictible and confirmatory: circle the wagons, lash out, reject all criticism, pat eachother on the back, affirm self-worth.
Go get 'em Future Senators of America. (not)