Reports From The FMO/AAAB/Casa Hispana Debates: Night One

By Mr. Yellow and Mr. Magenta

GENERAL

Tonight was the first of a two-night series of debates sponsored by For Members Only (FMO), the Asian-American Advisory Board (AAAB), and Casa Hispana, focusing on the candidates’ stances on minority issues on this campus. The theme of the evening seemed to be barely mitigated anger and invective, as several presidential candidates clearly defined themselves as “outsiders” bent on bringing about drastic change in the way ASG operates. Unfortunately, this frustration with the current ASG system and policies arose chiefly as unwarranted attacks on last year’s Exec Board and on ASG in general. Boys and girls, let’s try to play a bit more nice in the future. There’s no need to be nasty in getting one’s message across. It’s also polite to pay attention to the other candidates while they’re speaking, instead of fidgeting in one’s chair, staring off into space, and making hand gestures at members of the audience (Yes, we saw that, Ariel).

THE WINNER: KARYN BASS

In spite of some questionable moments throughout, Karyn Bass clearly won the crowd over with her seemingly sincere enthusiasm for minority issues, and an undisputed record of working for minority concerns as an ASG senator. Her overall platform seems to focus around the idea of ASG having a more direct impact in affecting students’ lives, and calling for a more “proactive” student government. (That’s much, MUCH easier said than done, dear.)

Unfortunately, she did engage in some subtle dirty pool and politicking. It was clear that she packed the auditorium with some friends, who cheered rudely after each time she spoke. She was the only candidate to receive such attention, and after the fifth instance it became very annoying and a huge detriment. She also seems to have a gift for superlatives: “[Minority issues] are pretty much the most important we could talk about,” and later mentioning that the inception of the Black House is the best thing to happen on this campus in years. Finally, her repeated claim that if we’d had a better president three years ago, we’d have an Asian-American studies program is a definite example of the ASG-bashing that dominated the evening’s rhetoric.

But the crowd responded noticeably to several of her responses to audience questions, especially because she seemed to have a true grasp of the issues. Her comments about “the only minority student in a class” and her enthusiastic support of multicultural distribution requirements and improving Asian-American Studies clearly won the crowd over. Also, in an evening dominated by anger and invective, she appeared passionate and informed without ever slipping into self-righteousness or bitterness.

One other tip, Karyn: TALK SLOWER! :)

I’m having a hard time pinning down my overall impression of Karyn. At first, she seems almost too adorbale, too plastic, too eager. She showed up to the debates in a bright red suit and too tall heels, which instantly makes me think she’s trying way too hard to look professional. What makes this such a mistake for her public image is that the personality she projects contradicts this professional image. Not that she is unprofessional—it’s just that her strengths lie in her “girl-next-door” charm. Karyn has an uncanny ability to charm the audience with a charm that makes her seem like a friend to everybody. Her enthusiasm, while sometimes fake, is contagious. On the other hand, I’m hesitant to trust her wide smile and cheerful agreement with everything anybody says. She has the enthusiasm and drive to succeed as president, but does she have the iron fist to push for what she believes in? More so, does she really believe in anything, or is she just playing the political game?

THE RUNNER-UP: ARIEL FRIEDLER

I really, really want to like Ariel as a candidate. I’d really like to see him do well. It’s too bad that his bold anger against ASG policy is so distancing to his supporters and the average voter. His overall message about ASG? “It is ineffective.” He wants to drastically shrink the number of ASG senators, monumentally slash the budget (see a separate news item for the revealing truth about his quoted numbers), and up the Student Activities Fee by $4 a quarter to create a special fund for large-scale programming. These are all interesting ideas, but they seem to stem from such a pure well of vindictive anger against ASG and all it has done that they come off more as attacks against ASG than valid ideas of their own.

He’s also got some solid figures and (if he’s to be believed) some great research done. He referenced several times a month’s worth of research done on Asian-American studies programs at other universities, and in general had solid arguments to back up all of his ideas and opinions. I think he’d be served extremely well by cutting down on his anger and focusing on conveying his ideas more clearly and with less rage against ASG.

Ariel is known in the ASG senate for being stubborn. At tonight’s debate, he seemed angry with the entire process of student government—continually blasting the institution and claiming he has no respect for it. If this is the case, then how can we explain his longstanding involvement with ASG? Last year, Friedler based his campaign for Student Services V.P. on the fact that he had successfully pushed several key legislations through the senate. For someone disgusted with the process, he sure seems to pride himself on his successes with it. To be successful in this year’s presidential campaign, Ariel needs to overcome his reputation as “the angry senator”, focusing less on what’s wrong with ASG and more on the positive steps he will take to improve life on campus.

THIRD PLACE: KIM MONTGOMERY

Last year’s Academic Vice-President winner returns again for another round of electioneering. This time, she’s running on a campaign platform featuring bland ideas with long titles, such as the “Online Budget Priorities Referendum,” and centering around credibility as a chief merit toward election. (Lord only knows why we should believe her when she says she’s “credible”; that’s a pretty gaping hole in her platform and arguments.) Kim has loads of ASG experience, a history of results (including scoring Hindi language classes and eliminating Saturday finals for Fall 1998) and a few interesting ideas. What she lacks chiefly is enthusiasm for her ideas and her platform. It could be that her goal is to establish herself over the week as the most consistent candidate, while the other candidates rant and rave about ASG and its many problems. (It’s worth noting that she’s the candidate who quite clearly ripped on ASG and the last Exec Board the least.) She’s definitely an establishment candidate, with a history of highly visible involvement in ASG. This will serve her well in standing out from the pack of bickering “outsiders” looking for “drastic change.” If she could only add a sliver of enthusiasm to her strategy, it might catapult her to victory. In fact, the chief difference between her performance in the debate tonight and that of the other clear ASG establishment candidate, Karyn Bass, is that Karyn showed enthusiasm and passion, while Kim showed a consistent blandness in her speaking style and delivery. A serious dose of passion would give her the edge to challenge Karyn and overtake her in the hearts of the voters. Or, I could be high on pot. Who knows?

Kim is definitely the most mature and professional of the bunch. Always dressed in a snappy business suit, she manages to accomplish what the other candidates cannot—she actually seems comfortable. Besides a very appropriate physical appearance, Kim exudes a quiet confidence in her abilities. However, for all her public speaking skills and professional attitude, Kim never seems to have much to say. Yes, she agrees with this. Yes, she agrees with that. What will she do? She’ll form a committee to solve the problem. Where Kim both succeeds and fails is in her lack of committment—for someone who doesn’t really care about the election results, she is the perfect candidate. Her answers please everyone only because she doesn’t really say anything. In my mind, Kim Montgomery is in love with politics, but lacks the passion and resolve neccessary to achieve the real changes that students demand.

FOURTH PLACE: BRIAN OBERHAUSER

Slipping into the Steve Forbes slot in the election this year is Brian Oberhauser, a stiff and geekish candidate with a refreshing sense of humor and a very specialized platform. His goal is simple: to make Northwestern the #1 school in the nation in the many polls that decide such rankings. He’s also the most outwardly “outsider candidate”; in fact, those two words were among the very first out of his mouth at the debate tonight. So far, he’s displayed the greatest wit in his campaign, with the slogan “B.O.: A breath of fresh air.” Funny stuff, bud. Where he seemed to lose points this evening was in his intriguing desire to both maintain the status quo and to challenge it. He’s an outsider, yes, but he still believes that large-scale programming should be left in the hands of the large student groups, such as A&O and FMO. He’s also not very supportive of minority issues, such as race relations and multicultural distros, so he failed to connect with the audience on that score. More than that, his platform just seems unconnected to anything the students might want for this university. Sure, being #1 in the nation would be nice, but it’s a vague goal, and how will we achieve it? Plus, if it is achieved, the possible benefits have not been adequately articulated. Other than some increase in school pride, there’s not much to directly benefit the students in becoming #1.

Oberhauser should have thought through some of his ideas a little better. Experienced candidates realize that the FMO/Casa Hispana/AAAB debates can make or break a campaign, so in this case Brian’s newcomer status hampered his performance. His answers on the race-oriented questions suffered from a lack of knowledge or forethought on the issues. One more thing, Bri. I’m sorry to be so harsh—but nobody cares about your leadership experiences on the Speech Team. Sure it’s all you've got, but that’s my point. Don’t call attention to your lack of ASG experience by repeatedly mentioning your speech team. Otherwise, that will be all that people remember about you.

FIFTH PLACE: JASON BRIGGEMAN

Jason has a decent platform, but a completely unimaginative one. His two chief goals are retreads of ideas that have knocked around ASG for years: placing power for the appropriation of the Student Activities fee into the hands of each individual student, and improving the quality of food in the dining halls. His argument for the latter was somewhat interesting (he wants to change the contract with Marriott so that they get paid after each quarter and therefore have an incentive to make better food and bring students in for meals), but his ideas are somewhat stale. Minor parts of his platform seemed to focus chiefly on changing ASG rules, specifically those governing student groups and elections. (Can one get any more impotent in a platform? Seeking to reform ASG election rules?! This will benefit chiefly those ten or so students each year who run!)

At the debates this evening, Jason clearly lost many points by showing a general lack of interest and knowledge about specific minority issues. When he did offer controversial opinions on minority issues, he failed to support them with any enthusiasm; his claim that multicultural distros aren’t necessary fell on deaf ears because he had no real reason why there shouldn’t be multicultural distros. And supporting his claim that there is no racism on this campus with the statement that “I can't think of one person on this campus who’s a racist” was highly inept. Of course you can’t, Jason; you’re a white male! You have no concept of what it’s like to be judged based on skin color. Sometimes saying nothing at all is preferable to saying something stupid.

In general, Jason’s platform and delivery both have a long way to go before he can compete with his fellow candidates. He seemed clueless much of the evening, except when talking about the issues focused on in his campaign. Hopefully when race issues are brought up in the ASG-sponsored debates, he’ll have more to say than empty and vague rhetoric.

I respect this guy a lot. He seems to be a clear thinker with very straightforward and practical ideas. Unfortunately, he didn’t show tonight that he has the experience or confidence to carry out the mammoth task of ASG president. Jason’s delivery was bland. Like Oberhauser, he didn’t seem to know what to expect from the debates tonight. Also, one of his main platform issues dealt with the rules for ASG campaigns—he called attention to the fact that the auditorium microphone violates the rule against a candidate’s use of loudspeakers. Is this a real concern on campus? No. Work on your platform a bit, buddy.