The three candidates running for president of the Student Government Association debated for over 90 minutes Wednesday afternoon in the University Center Houston Room.
Each candidate provided input and resolutions for problems that face the University, especially regarding the main topic of discussion, budget cuts.
When asked which programs or services each candidate would vow to protect in the midst of budget cuts, each provided different answers.
Current Education Senator Michael Harding wants to make sure that student success is the most important priority of SGA.
He told the audience about his friends who had recently dropped out of college because they were “not equipped” to handle the rigorous work at the University.
“We have to keep graduation rates high,” Harding said. “As president of SGA, I will make the free tutoring programs we have on campus more accessible. I want to make sure programs like these are on your doorstep.”
When asked the same question, former senator Michael McHugh said that he would protect the Health Center and athletics.
Candidate Jared Gogets took a slightly different approach to the question.
Gogets did not list the programs or services that he would protect, but rather a solution to minimize damage to all programs through prioritizing and reorganization.
UH can do this, Gogets said, by following examples of other universities in other states who have gone through similar problems that UH is facing, such as the University of California at Berkley.
“UC Berkley was able to save $75 million through reorganizing certain aspects of their university’s own budget,” Gogets said. “Through following this model, I do not believe that the University needs to focus on what to cut at this point in time so much as (what) we need to reorganize.”
In light of the Texas Legislature possibly passing a bill that would allow people with gun permits to bear arms on university campuses, another topic of discussion was concealed firearms.Each of the candidates said they opposed the bill.
Harding, who has a gun license himself, believes that if the law passes, campus police must be aware of who is armed at all times.
“We should instill plans that would make those students who decide to bring weapons to school notify police,” Harding said.
McHugh is strongly opposed to the bill, and said that his time living on campus in the Quadrangle has made him more aware of the crime that occurs everyday on campus.
“In one semester while I was living in the Quad, 16 bicycles were stolen,” McHugh said. “I am afraid that this bill will only increase the crime rate on campus.”
Gogets said that his opinion on the bill did not matter, but rather the collective student body opinion is what is important. Questions that will come up because of the new bill are what worry him.
“The bill is most likely going to pass,” Gogets said. “What will now arise from the bill are questions regarding storage of weapons in resident halls.”
Prince Wilson, current president of SGA, has yet to throw his support towards any one candidate but is confident that any one of the candidates will be successful in office.
“Upon leaving office as president of the student government, I am leaving my successor a lot of responsibilities in the face of the budget cuts,” Wilson said. “The new president will be making a lot of decisions on what to prioritize during their administration.”
McHugh, who said that he runs on the platform of school spirit, is optimistic that the cuts will not impact the University.
“I was admitted into every university in Texas that I applied to out of high school,” McHugh said. “I chose the University of Houston over UT and A&M because I know one day in the near future it will be the best school in the state.”
Wilson encouraged all students to follow up on each of the candidates before the elections begin.
“I urge all of the voters to find out about the candidates, and make sure you know what they are about before submitting your ballot,” Wilson said.
SGA Director of Public Relations Mila Clarke live-tweeted from the debate through the SGA’s Twitter account.
The 150-plus tweets of both questions and answers, and even “commercial breaks” are available at twitter.com/uhsga.
SGA elections will be held Feb. 28 through March 3.
“In one semester while I was living in the Quad, 16 bicycles were stolen,” McHugh said. “I am afraid that this bill will only increase the crime rate on campus.”
How? By arming students, you allow them a very effective defense against thugs who steal and rob and sexually assault students. Keep in mind though that in order to otain a CHL you have to attend a government approved CHL seminar ($100+), purchase a weapon ($399.99+), buy ammunition (depends on firearm), buy a concealable holster ($40) and wait 60+ days to even et the license from the DPS. Starting March 1st, you must also have fingerprints on file with the DPS. I think having the UHDPS aware of students who are carrying is a great idea. This would help in a situation if a student was forced to use the weapon and could help with the legal issues that follow. It would not disrupt the learning environment because it is conealed so you wouldn't know if the person was carrying. There really is not way of arguing against this effectively. It can only help. Would you rather be at the mercy of a crazed gunman or have a trained student or two in class with loaded weapons to deal with the threat.
settle down, beavis. no scary ebony skeletons are going to shanghai your bitchin' mountain bike
In light of the most recent UHDPS reports and emails concerning abduction, sexual assault, and armed robbery, it is laughable that both you and the SGA candidate in the article seem to think that this issue revolves around bicycles…
yes its about arming an abnormally paranoid and twitchy student body who harbor delusional fantasies of TAKING DOWN THE THREAT OORAH. clearly the solution to crime/violence is to add more guns to the mix.
Who is really the paranoid one here?
clearly it's me, the guy who walks around the city at night without needing to carry a firearm.
seriously, spineless gun-lickers like you make me feel like a badass just for walking unarmed to the grocery store at night. so, thanks i guess
Hey guys.. don't argue with a fool. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I was at the debate…Jared Gogets was the only one really answering questions and the only candidate I'm going to trust to help all students. He is the only one that can change SGA from what it is now. If UH wants more productivity and things to change, they will vote for him.
'legally "purchased" gun.'
Not legally carried. That has no bearing on the topic. You think that the law had any effect on that man? He obviously didn't care What if someone at the bus stop had had a CHL and was carrying? The 'thugs' I refer to most likely cannot go out and get a CHL. They have not the money or time. If they want to commit a crime they will. They won't bother with laws. However, would they think twice about committing a crime if there was a good chance that the victim was carrying a handgun? I think so.
So you're saying poor people are thugs? You think that we'll be safer if more rich people are armed and less poor people are?
I mean that's already how it is, with the highest gun concentrations being in suburbs, (especially gated communities) and you don't think it's safe, so maybe that should tell you something. Don't you think poor people who can't afford to buy guns already think twice? I mean they don't have the resources (bail, lawyers, assumptions of innocence) to get themselves out of prison or off death row the way rich people do, so the consequences are already much graver.
You're more likely to get shot by people from within your race and socioeconomic class than from those of another race or socioeconomic class, because of the stratification of consequences for violence. So if you're talking about making guns more accessible to those who are in the social position to legally acquire guns, as I assume you are, you're actually making your life more dangerous.
Especially when those who can afford guns come from more sheltered backgrounds, often from situations of ignorance that make them afraid of Third Ward, and other working class communities around UH. Maybe they're already on-edge and more likely to stupidly shoot someone.
DATE: February 24, 2011 7:42:23 PM CST
Community Alert
11-0215
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 at approximately 4:30 p.m. a UH student was abducted at gunpoint by one unidentified suspect. The incident occurred on Cullen Boulevard between Holman Street and UH Entrance 14. The suspect took the complainant off campus. The suspect seized the complainant’s cash and released the complainant in a neighboring residential area. The complainant was not injured during the incident.
This case is being actively investigated by UHDPS. If you have any information about this incident please call UHDPS
———–
You are distorting the argument. I said nothing about poor people. The hard fact is that the area that UH is in is dangerous. People are being abducted, stolen from, assaulted, and attacked and they are defenseless against it. Also, your argument about the likelihood of being shot by someone in my own socioeconomic class is not supported by evidence. Only your large vocabulary. Please show some evidence. And to dispute your last point, contrary to popular myth, psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A Secret Service study into school shootings concluded that school shooters do not simply snap and that a person’s downward spiral toward violence is typically accompanied by numerous warning signs such as the Virginia Tech shooter, Jared Loughner, or the Columbine shooters.
–Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000
I'm sure there are plenty of warning signs for shooters. If this is so, why aren't you advocating for more counseling and access to psychological assistance to help with this snapping problem? Guns don't make people more mentally stable.
As far as crime rates, look them up: http://houstoncrimemaps.com/
And the demographics of crime, with sexual assault, it is well established, especially since the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by ackquaintences, and people most often associate with some relation to ethnic and socioeconomic lines. You should be able to find those stats easy.
Here's something on murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_th…
Socioeconomic status is harder to find direct articles that show that point, but many many point in that direction. Violence is more likely to occur from people familiar to each other, and when the perpetrator has power over the victim (like being a cop, other authority, or intimate domestic violence).
Here's an article about mortality in general, that should be important if you're worried about safety.
http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047…
'I'm sure there are plenty of warning signs for shooters. If this is so, why aren't you advocating for more counseling and access to psychological assistance to help with this snapping problem? '
Because there is no problem according to the Secret Service. You cite no evidence for this point. Only conjecture.
The rest of that socioeconomic stuff has nothing to do with the argument. We are talking about giving students, faculty, and staff the right to carry a handgun on campus. I have given my facts that are straight from the federal government and you are just twisting the argument to something completely different and giving me links to Wikipedia articles. The straight fact is giving people a right to defend themselves effectively will do a great deal in deterring criminals. You seem to avoid my direct questions and argument which is that giving people a right to defend themselves effectively will do a great deal in deterring criminals. Respond to that. Don't give me anymore of this socioeconomic stuff. Tell that to the guy who was mugged in a UH bathroom last week, Or the girl who was sexually assaulted last night. Or the guy who was abducted earlier and was lucky enough to get out alive.
''I'm sure there are plenty of warning signs for shooters. If this is so, why aren't you advocating for more counseling and access to psychological assistance to help with this snapping problem? '
Because there is no problem according to the Secret Service. You cite no evidence for this point. Only conjecture'
Excuse this post. UH offers plenty of psychological assistance on campus for free. In Texas you cannot buy a weapon if you are found to not be in a sound state of mind.
The problem sir is that things get stolen from dorms all of the times. If students have guns on campus, where do they store them? In their dorms? In their cars? Will their guns have trigger locks? A roomate can easily steal a gun and sell it to their friends. People have parties in dorms, so what makes everyone certain that these guns are properly stored away?
That is a good question and is one that needs to be addressed. There are such things as safes which can be purchased for anywhere from $35-$70. This would prevent thieves from stealing the weapon assuming they were able to break in in the first place.
"The rest of that socioeconomic stuff has nothing to do with the argument."
lmao
Prove me wrong then
you want me to prove that socioeconomic circumstances have a profound effect on crime, something you should have learned in your blowoff "intro to sociology" class?
yeah if you want a tutor, i'm afraid you'll have to pay me
I said the argument amigo which is whether or not concealed carry on campus will protect students
a member of the disproportionately poor neighborhood surrounding UH is less likely to kill a member of the predominately middle-class population of UH, given that the criminal penalties for doing so would be much more severe. and yes, the killing of a student by a petty criminal would be a way bigger deal than a student killing a poor person.
contrariwise, middle-class gun-lickers with something to prove like you, bojangles and that other anonymous doof are way more likely to pull a gun over some trivial garbage. bojangles said he wanted to use guns to intimidate "liberal" professors in the other gun thread.
it's just gross to see middle-class university students jerking off to some juvenile fantasy where they save the day and stop the "bad guys" without considering the practical implications of allowing a paranoid cow college to take daddy's pistol to class.
Your saying that under the assumption that all gun-owners are like that. Maybe I want the peace of mind, that a handgun gives me, knowing that I can defend myself if needed. In response to your second 'paragraph' before shall-issue concealed carry laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootouts. This did not prove to be the case. The same responsible adults—age twenty-one and above—now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses.
I think that what bojangles said is irresponsible, stupid and he gives a bad name to normal people like me who simply want an extension of the CHL laws already in place.
Also I'd love to see the facts proving your first paragraph.
I went to the debate, and really only saw one great candidate. Jared Gogets was the only actually answering the questions given. Mr. Harding seems like he was tired of being on stage, and Michael McHugh seemed to have the word "communication" in every answer.
Change is an ambiguous word, rather devoid of meaning. It is now a bit of a cliche. Beware people who advocate for change, you might not get quite what you wish for.