ASG Debates: Night One

Our on-the-scene reporters, Mr. Purple and Ms. Blonde, chime in yet again with their views on how the latest round of Academic VP debates have shaken out:

Dear ASGossip,

Tonight Academic Vice Presidential Candidates Manu Bhardwaj and Todd Connor fought it out in Norris 2G. It’s a small room but it was plenty big for the anywhere from 10-15 observers at any given time. Indeed, the main problem seemed to be the continued inability of the candidates to differentiate themselves from one another, keeping in the spirit of the FMO/AAAB/Casa Hispana debate. Only a few people had questions, most coming from a senator we will keep unnamed but who insiders will recognize as influential in the first round of debates.

From the start, Manu was more confident and had more to say; Todd was calmer and showed a more long-term view. In everything from the opening statements to the questions candidates asked of each other (a new feature in ASG-sponsored debates we are very glad to see and hope will continue) Manu was details-oriented and platform-focused. Todd often spoke haltingly, and offered fewer specifics.

This doesn’t mean that it was a runaway victory for Manu, although it well could have been if the two had more to differentiate themselves from one another. Stung by perceptions that they were clones in spirit who just come from different ethnic backgrounds, Manu strove to stress what made him different, even going so far as to ask Todd, “How is your platform different from mine?” Although all Todd had to retort with was an increased emphasis on programs such as the Leadership Program and Study Abroad, Manu only highlighted his stronger committment to minority issues. Since the primary goal of each candidate is to improve advising (or so this observer thought by the rhetoric), both really have the same emphasis. And is this so wrong? What student wouldn’t agree that advising is extremely poor on this campus?

But what did differentiate the two was the manner in which they responded to questions. On almost every single issue Manu was vehement and had a concrete plan (although occasionally polemic ala Ariel Friedler or Jason Briggeman), while Todd would give an answer rather confidently but with no huge gusto. This was especially apparent when current officeholder Kim Montgomery asked (as some Exec. person always self-righteously does) how they would treat the deterioration of relations between the Senate proper and Exec. Todd stressed bottom-up ideas for about half his alotted time and then spoke in circles for a while, whereas Manu proudly said he was the only one of the candidates (only two anyway, silly!) with no Exec. experience and would make sure they worked more openly in the future.

So as far as this voter is concerned, Manu wins the battle of charisma and abundance of ideas. But the distinction he insisted was so crucial between his web-based, personal Academic Advising Strategy and Todd’s Academic Advising Center building with fulltime staff was the wrong way to go. Philosophers know that when you have two things the same that you think are different, invent a distinction; apparently Manu knows this too. Both should have not relied so heavily on that single issue—not knowing the opponent’s strategy ahead of time is no excuse. Hence, I am by no means decided on who to vote for; enthusiasm is great but sobriety is very needed to deal with the folks in Hardin Hall.

Finally, a word to the wise; name-dropping doesn’t help. Both were incessant in mentioning highly regarded peer institutions and highly placed administrators, with Todd leaning toward the latter, Manu the former.

—Mr. Purple

And from Ms. Blonde, on Jenny Moore…

Great ideas, great experience, she’s comfortable in many settings! She constantly takes in new ideas, like one to make sure Marriot puts Lenten meals at Norris and not just SAGA—and she already researched it ahead of time! She’ll be great.