Lily Huynh / The Cougar
Clouded in the midst of past controversies, purified with a fresh set of candidates, the Student Government Association debate was sure to be filled with intrigue and wonder. The question of how worthy each candidate is to lead was only one of the night’s queries; the other was whether this new constitution would lead to a productive student government. Will these candidates and this version of SGA repeat mistakes of days past or buck the trend of ineptitude seen in recent administrations?
Prior to this debate, these candidates were essentially blank canvases for me, outlined only by the various excerpts published in The Cougar. With this debate, they became characters to the student body, each with their own quirks and agendas. Debates like this serve to bridge the gap between rehearsed words and authentic argument. Here are my findings.
The names listed are in alphabetical order.
Biswajit Sarkar, Md. Raj Kabir
Experienced, that is the adjective that presidential candidate Biswajit Sarkar would like you to associate with himself and his campaign. If we’re looking just on paper, that fact may seem true; Sarkar and his vice president Kabir are both doctoral students, arguably with more worldly experience than the other candidates.
The debate proved a common sentiment in political circles that goes against their perceived advantage: experience does not always mean you are most worthy for the job. This pair seemed less prepared than their fellow candidates for how they plan to address safety and policy; they were merely walking through the many problems UH has, rather than explaining how they would address them.
Their experience also falters when you realize neither of them has been on this campus for more than a few months, and while that by itself is not a disqualifying trait, it explains their myopic view of UH issues.
These possible winners chose their time on the debate stage to talk about the lack of food options and the difficulty students have in accumulating in college life. Both are common complaints of UH students, but the lack of details on how they would address this leads me to feel it will stay a complaint under their administration.
Sarkar said it best in his closing remarks that we should probably focus on action, not talk, when evaluating this duo of contenders.
Joshua Sambrano, Lundan Sherrod
Joshua Sambrano is the opposite of the type of candidate who runs for student government to buff their resume or use it as a springboard into politics. He is as much a politician as he is an activist, and it would be hard to deny that he has a passion for UH issues. His debate performance was earmarked with a focus on safety.
He emphasized that safety is not a one-sided problem that more police presence can fully address, and a focus on collaboration would be beneficial. Sambrano preached the need for transparency not just within the student government but within the university itself. He took a very adamant stance that if he were elected, there would be non-negotiables that his administration would hold the university to.
Sambrano and Sherrod are there to fight for you; they seem the most vocal and active in wanting to enact change and make this campus the idealized version that it can be in their mind. Whether you believe they can do that depends on whether you have faith in a receptive UH administration to their loud approach.
Kyra Williams, Sukaina Rizvi
Williams and Rizvi want to make sure your voice is heard. The duo emphasized that during their residency, they would approach the student government as a selfless entity for the students. They wanted to create public forums, either virtual or in person, to hear student voices.
Amazing, but as we all know, that has been tried with past administrations, and we have learned that students do not usually take an active role in advocating for their causes. Student government needs leaders, people who have a vision and do not need to rely on their constituents to share ideas on how to improve the school.
Williams and Rizvi’s solution to safety was honing in on the advancement of preexisting safety measures. Their policy emphasized pushing the stalled campus lighting project to completion and expanding the number of emergency call boxes.
This no-frills approach to safety was my favorite of the night. It seemed like a calamity between practicality and effectiveness. This sentiment rings true when noting that lighting has been proven to be a deterrent to crime, and funds for the campus lighting project have already been allocated.
Unfortunately, that was the highlight of their debate, dimmed by the lack of robust policies or actions beyond simply listening to their constituents. These two seemed admirable in their ambitions and, with a more comprehensive program of ideas, will be strong contenders in future elections.
Tav Cockrell, Ian Kariukit
Perfection is a word that in most scenarios should never be used, most certainly when dealing with college students who run for SGA. Having said that, Tav Cockrell, during the SGA debate reached for that aspiration farther than any other candidate. His responses to various questions and arguments he faced seemed impressively robotic in his ability to fully articulate and explain his position.
He is similar to Sambrano in that they are both active in student affairs, but he has distanced himself with his practical take on issues. Cockrell emphasized that the SGA presidency requires more than a loud voice that will represent the UH student body, but a strategic one that knows when to give an open hand or a closed fist.
Cockrell’s policy oscillated between smart and sometimes impractical. His rebuttal to Sambrano’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s policy was well thought out and offered a solution that seemed more practical and easier. His proposed plan to increase the number of advisors is an important endeavor, but I worry about how the funds would be attained for the effort, as higher education has been experiencing a funding problem, and hiring full-time positions is not cheap.
Having said that, Cockrell seems the most primed to tackle the various UH issues, whether it be through his smooth-talking or his in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of UH.
These are only one man’s views on the SGA debate, and you can affirm or reject them. In either reality, your vote matters, and if you doubt the effectiveness of the student government, there are multiple accounts that explain what can be achieved when we have a proactive administration. The choice is yours.
opinion@thedailycougar.com
