A single look at the ASPSU election shows that it’s got all the hallmarks of a real-world political campaign. We have scandals, mudslinging, distractions, lobbying and unrealistic promises. And, following a trend we’ve seen nationally, voter turnout is depressingly low.
A single look at the ASPSU election shows that it’s got all the hallmarks of a real-world political campaign. We have scandals, mudslinging, distractions, lobbying and unrealistic promises. And, following a trend we’ve seen nationally, voter turnout is depressingly low.
There’s not much the average student can do to get around the scandals, distractions and lobbying—but the promises? Those we can expand on. How many are doable? And how many are just unrealistic platitudes designed to please?
Let’s start with the Tiffany Dollar/Marlon Holmes ticket. Dollar has promised to fight rising tuition costs, try to get more funding for PSU, attempt to make affordable textbooks available, counter sexual assaults on campus and extend computer lab hours and services offered at the ASPSU Student Food Pantry and library.
Student government almost universally is unable to prevent tuition hikes like this year’s 9 percent increase. Dollar would need to lobby the Oregon legislature for more money for PSU if there was any hope of decreasing tuition. While this is one of her goals, the state legislature is unlikely to expand the budget for higher education while K-12 schools are struggling to make ends meet.
The affordability of textbooks is another thing Dollar has little chance of changing. The Portland State Bookstore, an independent business, already does what it can to make books affordable. They print in-house, offer various pricing options and try to make used books reasonably affordable.
Professors here take similar action by creating course packets, choosing the most inexpensive book possible, or foregoing textbooks entirely. For Dollar to make a difference textbook-wise, she would have to either convince all professors to take these actions or convince the textbook publishers themselves to lower their prices—something that would take the efforts of hundreds of thousands of students and lawmakers.
One promise Dollar could carry out, however, is attached to her ticket almost as an afterthought. She states that she will attempt to decrease ASPSU’s spending and, should she succeed, make the money available to students as a scholarship. It would take a lot of paperwork and approval from various departments, but it could happen.
The Victor Mena/Mona Syeda ticket shows some potential. Its first two promises—building community and giving a voice to student groups and resources—are certainly doable. They are admirable, in fact: stronger communities on campus result in better academic performance. Awareness of student resources could help the community grow stronger.
Mena’s other promises, however, are less than realistic. Like Dollar, he promises to fight tuition increases. He wants to improve access to higher education; the how and why are unclear. Mena also aims to move the student cards from HigherOne to a bank, which the administration is likely to do anyway, given a recent lawsuit against HigherOne.
Mena also mentioned that he hopes to improve public safety, although this is not under ASPSU’s jurisdiction. His other ambition—to eliminate the SHAC services fee—is not only unrealistic, but also a bad move, given that students need SHAC and SHAC needs money.
The Ethan Allen Smith/Jeffrey Frankenhauser ticket has made only two promises: to defund paid ASPSU positions and to ensure that ASPSU focuses more on students and less on itself.
Given that Smith and Frankenhauser have both agreed, if elected, not to accept the “leadership award” that comes with the position, it is fair to say that these are realistic goals. Some students are wondering what else Smith and Frankenhauser are planning for ASPSU, if anything.
Finally, the Diamond Zerework/Anam Pasha ticket: Zerework promises to fight tuition increases and raise student awareness of the accessibility of scholarships and grants. This second point is a bit baffling and unclear—I’ve never met a student who didn’t know about scholarships and how to get them.
Zerework also promises to communicate with students as much as possible and work with student and community organizations, although she has not specified what for. It’s unclear, but not unrealistic, and these are both good promises, if kept.
The other goals, however, are quite unrealistic. Zerework promises to raise funds for athletics, which most students already feel are overfunded. It’s also not within her authority, as athletics is its own entity.
Zerework also wants to keep computer labs open at all times; the manpower, energy and security this would require (still outside her jurisdiction) make that unrealistic.
So, like every real-world election, the ASPSU elections are filled with unrealistic promises and empty buzzwords; this is the primary reason students tend to feel that ASPSU doesn’t represent their interests.
This, combined with buzzwords and unclear goals? I’ll give the candidates credit: they certainly know how to run a campaign just like real-world politicians.
As a surrogate of the Mena/Syeda slate, I am compelled to offer a few corrections:
Saying that something isn’t under ASPSU’s jurisdiction is slightly misleading- we’ve made plenty of recommendations concerning issues that we didn’t have any direct control over that were accepted by the University Administration (the administrative structure of the Cultural Centers comes to mind). Given the relationship that Victor Mena has with administrators, it isn’t infeasible to envision action being taken on a CPSO issue at the behest of ASPSU.
Also, Mena never said he wanted to eliminate the SHAC fee- he was misquoted in the initial Vanguard presidential candidates piece. What he said was that students should have a voice in the process of setting the SHAC fee. That precedent has been set at Oregon State, where members of ASOSU’s Student and Incidental Fees Committee make recommendations concerning OSU’s health fee to the OSU President, Dr. Edward Ray. In that capacity, those students were able to successfully recommend an 8.4% decrease in the health fee.
Also, why running on making sure students have a voice in the renegotiation of the HigherOne contract is unoriginal simply because it’s something that’s recently come up in the news is beyond me. We had decided to run on this issue even before the news of the lawsuit broke (I for one, felt vindicated). Surely we want a student government that will lobby for the best deal? In any case, I fail to see how promising to work to change a situation that is likely to change anyway constitutes an “unrealistic promise”.
Cheers,
Nick Rowe
SFC Chair Candidate
As a supporter of Tiffany Dollar, I will say that the writer of this piece ought to have actually asked Tiffany how she would accomplish the things she is promising. Her record for working on behalf of students speaks for itself. The sad thing is, I would be money that the author of this hit piece didn’t bother talking to any candidates at all, which is typical of the quality of reporting the Vanguard has been doing lately.
Normally opinion writers get a bit of slack for making absurd statements, but honestly the writer of this piece was being lazy. It isn’t hard to go and talk to the candidates, since most of them are in the Park Blocks daily promoting themselves. Current members of ASPSU have records that are publicly available for reviewing. Attacking Victor or Tiffany by stating that their plans are unrealistic without reviewing their records is practically criminal.
“I’ve never met a student who didn’t know about scholarships and how to get them.”
As this article does, I will make an assumption of my own by saying that the author must not have many minority or first-generation students as friends. These students often have trouble learning about scholarships and also learning how to fill them out so they will be competitive applicants. The lack of social capital that these students possess often hinders their ability to “know about scholarships and how to get them.”
The Zerework/Pasha ticket is a joke full of generic promises. Zerework promises to increase athletics funding? That’s not what I saw when she voted in favor of the student fee budget earlier this year when athletics funding was decreased. Too much flip-flopping going on with Zerework. You gotta give her credit though, she’s a true politician.
The Vanguard has also conveniently failed to include H Forrest Alexander or any of the For 20 slate, despite multiple inquiries made to the editor over a duration of several weeks. It’s bad already to explicitly be biased towards one candidate (as this publication has been); to outright refuse another candidate, especially one who has gotten a large influx of late support and several on-campus endorsements, is journalistic malpractice at best and corrupt at worst.