Following the release of our student government candidate endorsements, it has been a pleasure to receive responses from students who passionately agree and disagree with the conclusions our Endorsement Committee reached. In light of this, I want to add further clarity to the Wheel's editorial process. The Committee was made up of 12 students, including myself, who spent countless hours debating, discussing and analyzing each of our student government candidates. I am proud to say that the conclusions reached were the culmination of an in-person interview with each candidate, a live public debate and extensive analysis of their platforms, their prior experience and documents provided to us by them. Every member of the Committee provided input for each candidate, and all conflicts of interest were accounted for and isolated in this process. The conclusions that the Committee reached are what we believe to be best for our University, and nothing more, as they are the culmination of a more than five-hour discussion. Additionally, like any major news organization that splits its news and opinion teams, we follow the same guidelines. Members of our news team were not involved in any editorial discussions or decisions, allowing us to maintain a standard of journalistic integrity and ethics in our reporting.
Within our endorsements, the Committee's unanimous conclusions represent a strong sense of agreement amongst a group of students who represent all walks of campus life. We have high standards for our elected leaders, and if any candidate did not take our endorsement process, or even the campaign itself seriously, it is the fault of said candidate and not the Committee.
It is vital to our democratic process that students have an opportunity to have their candidates critically evaluated by their peers on a level beyond Facebook pages, their friend’s social media posts and campaign flyers. It is the duty of the campus newspaper to cover, both through reporting and editorial analysis, the student government and its elections. Doing otherwise would in itself fail to meet journalistic standards. The notion that any student leader would suggest the Wheel do differently is incredibly concerning.
I would like to once again thank all of our Committee’s members for their countless hours and dedication which allowed the Wheel to reach several informed conclusions on the candidates.
Best,
