BSU calls on SGA to address diversity

Last night, the Student Government Association (SGA) held a debate between the candidates running for 2016-17 Executive Board positions.

During a break in the debate, Black Student Union (BSU) Vice President Tiffany Onyejiaka asked SGA Executive President Jack Bartholet if the debate would contain a live Q&A session. Bartholet, who was moderating the debate, replied that there would not be a live Q&A, but a digital questionnaire would be sent out to all students afterward.

During the second segment of the debate, Onyejiaka interjected, requesting to ask a question to the candidates about diversity and inclusion. Bartholet rejected Onyejiaka’s request, citing the preset rules of the debate.

The incident, including the back-and-forth between Onyejiaka and Bartholet that followed, was filmed by a member of the BSU and was shared widely on social media throughout the night.

Not including the candidates, roughly 20 to 25 students were in attendance at the debate. The three tickets currently running for positions on the SGA’s executive board took part.

Charlie Green, Liam Haviv and John Hughes are running for Executive President. Anna Du and Christina Kilgariff are running for Executive Vice President. John Tycher is running for Executive Treasurer and Chris Beckmann is running for Executive Secretary. Green, Du, Tycher and Beckmann are running as a ticket, and Haviv and Kilgariff are running as a ticket.

After each candidate gave their opening remarks, the core of the debate consisted of both general and specific policy questions. The debate’s latter half consisted of personal questions and the candidate’s closing statements.

Part way through the personal segment of the debate, Onyejiaka stood up and tried to ask Du a question about diversity on campus.

Bartholet responded by saying that it was disrespectful to interrupt the decided debate format.

“We’re going to move on with [this] organization, because I think it’s important, and the candidates have been told the format of the debate in advance,” Bartholet said.

In response to the interruption, Haviv said that he believes conversations like these need to happen more regularly.

“We’re asking for your vote,” he said. “And that’s going to happen because we either do something about what you guys want us to do or we’re not, and I think the issue that’s being brought up here by everybody is that the SGA isn’t hearing you consistently, and I think that’s why we’re resorting to this type of stuff… The fact is we need to make sure this situation doesn’t have to happen again.”

Hughes made it clear that he would answer Onyejiaka’s questions, or make his best effort to do so.

“The formal portion of the debate is about to be over, but I for one won’t be leaving this lectern until your question is answered,” he said.

All of the candidates agreed to stay after the formal debate to listen and respond to the questions and concerns of the BSU representatives.

“I’m the vice president of the BSU,” Onyejiaka said, “and something that we’ve noticed is that you guys say we don’t reach out to you, but truth be told, a lot of times we feel like we can’t reach out to you because you won’t do anything… Last year, even when we had our protest, there was no formal statement from SGA in solidarity, or even at the [Black Student] Forum, we felt like there was no support.”

Onyejiaka asked the candidates to discuss inclusion and diversity within the Hopkins community, and she and other BSU members and supporters repeatedly asked questions about SGA’s role in these initiatives.

Haviv believes there needs to be more open dialogue between groups, and this increased conversation will help build trust.

“Every SGA member is going to spend time with office hours in Brody,” he said. “That’s a really good chance for people to come speak to the SGA members.”

Haviv also mentioned he and running mate Kilgariff have made themselves available, listing their phone numbers on their campaign site.

Hughes claimed that during the Baltimore uprising, SGA did little to address the situation. He thought that SGA’s parliamentary procedures suppress the organization’s efficiency.

“What you just did at this debate, I believe you should be able to do at a formal SGA general body meeting. And yet the SGA adheres extremely strictly to its parliamentary rules,” he said. “Parliamentary procedure is a tool — it’s not a regulation.”

Hughes said that student groups should make commitments to diversity in their documents.

Green mentioned the importance of bridging the gap between groups to create a more cohesive community.

“I think the issue is probably due to the fact that the two groups [BSU and SGA] function separately,” Green said. “I think the only way to bridge this, as Liam was saying, is to have members that overlap between both groups and having a set time in the agenda where people who want to speak who aren’t part of SGA can come in, and it doesn’t have to be set on the agenda a few days in advance.”

The informal Q&A session with BSU members and other debate attendees lasted about half an hour. Alexandra Ballato, CSE chair, praised students for bringing it upon themselves to use these forums to express their concerns.

“I am delighted that students feel strongly enough about certain issues, especially something as important as diversity, to bring it upon themselves to use these forums to further their own interests,” she said.

Ballato explained why this year’s debate format was different from previous years. In the past, the SGA executive debates had an open Q&A session at the end of the event. However, because there was difficulty in obtaining a room this year, Ballato said, the CSE did not send an email to the candidates explaining the debate format the day before the debate. The CSE forgot to mention a live Q&A session in the original email.

“When we realized that we failed to include that question and answer portion at the end, we felt that it would be unfair to blindside the candidates last minute and not give them time to prepare,” she said.

Ballato said that the CSE’s alternative would be to allow students to submit questions online after the debate for the candidates to answer.

Immediately following the debate, Bartholet said that he was pleased the candidates were able to address the issue of diversity and the role of SGA.

“I think it’s important to have a discussion about this,” he said. “I would have preferred that it would have been done within the bounds of the debate, but I’m happy that the candidates had to address this and lay out their visions for diversity and inclusion.”

After the debate, the incident went viral on social media, with about 5,200 views and 50 shares as of press time.

Sophomore Jillian Pak argued in comments on the video that following the debate rules is secondary to debating critical issues.

“The fact that Jack kept resorting to how it ‘didn’t fit into the format’ just to follow the ‘rules’ seemed to be a convenient excuse for not addressing valid criticism raised by Tiffany and other present members of the audience,” she wrote in an email to The News-Letter later in the night. “The University and its SGA members need to stop treating valid concerns expressed through protest actions as disruptive or inconvenient. They should consider it a sign that a real need for a place of discussion is not being fulfilled.”

Sophomore Mia Berman, who was also active in the Facebook comments, emphasized that it would be better to ask students of color about their reactions to this debate. She wrote in an email to The News-Letter that the real issue at stake is the need for an open forum to voice questions.

“If we are to make informed decisions about our votes, as was allegedly the point of this debate, then we must be allowed access to the information that actually matters to us. If the university will not give us this information, we must find it ourselves,” she wrote. “[t]he ‘rules are rules’ argument is one used to silence opinions that those in positions of power do not want to hear, as is obviously seen in the video… By brushing these arguments aside, they tacitly endorse a system of violence and oppression.”

The Green Ticket released a statement on Facebook after the debate inviting the BSU and any other students or groups to continue the discussion in a meeting after the end of elections, at 6 p.m. on April 12 in Charles Commons Salon A.

“Following tonight’s SGA Executive Board Debate, we recognize the need for immediate concrete action on diversity and inclusion across this University,” the statement read. “As candidates, we will actively seek out and collaborate with underrepresented student groups on campus. More voices need to be heard, and we’d like to hear yours.”

On his campaign’s Facebook page, Haviv released a statement as well, saying he should have addressed the concerns of underrepresented students in the moment.

“What I should have done: I should have taken the mic, walked to Tiffany, and listened up. I didn’t. I apologize. I think to say anything else would be wrong,” he wrote. “I believe failure is an important thing — it teaches. But I believe it only matters if you don’t make the same mistakes twice. I will not let the same mistakes I made tonight happen again.”

Haviv wrote that he would be available throughout the day on Thursday, April 7 in Brody, Nolan’s and the AMRs to talk with any students who feel their voices are not being heard.

(Hughes did not release a post-debate statement.)

In an email sent to the student body around 1 a.m. Thursday, Bartholet clarified his initial decision to dismiss the BSU’s concerns, and he apologized for focusing too heavily on procedures and preventing a crucial discussion from taking place.

“I lost sight of the real substance of the issue,” he wrote. “The fact of the matter is that the discussions audience members were trying to cultivate couldn’t be more important to our community here, and there is no better place to raise these concerns than with those seeking to be the leaders of the Student Body. These discussions have been silenced, not only at our University, but also around the country, and tonight I played a role in silencing voices that have been silenced for too long.”

Voting for SGA Executive Board positions will take place from 9 a.m. on April 9 through 9 a.m. on April 11 on groups.jhu.edu.