In Katy Nelson's column Monday "Bland SBP Campaigns Reveal Little" she writes that "Rather than being a contest about positions on issues and unique visions, the student body president race is a personality contest of barely distinguishable campaigns." Given that only students are eligible for the office of student body president, one can only expect so much differentiation between candidates. It is obvious that they will all be likely to support cheaper and better parking, lower tuition, better mileage from student fees, less dependence on foreign oil, etc. Students represent just one political bloc of campus, so to speak. The real conflicts almost always lie between the students, faculty and the administration, each as a whole.
Still, to dub the campaigns barely distinguishable would be pure fiction. One only needs to skim the various candidates' platforms to see the many unique ideas that they propose. It is obvious that these candidates have put in many long hours of work into communicating their hopes for their University. True, some candidates have allocated their resources to the production of, say, painfully long videos that lack any meaningful content. Some have probably spent a little too much on style and paid for it with substance.
But what is Nelson advocating? That candidates simply focus on their effectiveness as leaders, when that, as she admits, is an intangible skill difficult to prove in the campaign? What is style if not an effort to present often mundane issues in an appealing, inspiring, unique way? Campaigns need what Nelson might call gimmicks to accentuate their differences and draw interest. Of course, voters should understand that such techniques exist for the purpose of communicating a platform and a vision. Without them, things would get bland.
Robin Sinhababu
Freshman
Business
