Note: The Editorial Board did not consider Unique “Jaytrice” Mackey (22Ox, 25C) for an endorsement because she did not respond to three emails requesting her to sign up for an Editorial Board endorsement interview.
Despite the Editorial Board’s desire to endorse a candidate for Student Government Association (SGA) president, we are unable to do so at this time due to two candidates who have struck us as unable to represent the interests of all students fairly and equally, specifically in regards to their failures to support students with differing political views. This editorial delineates the reservations the Board has about the two candidates and encourages them to find solutions to share with the student body, if elected.
While Jayden Davis (25B) is confident that his lack of experience in SGA will be a breath of fresh air for the organization, we are not certain. SGA is a complicated bureaucratic organization that requires a significant amount of inside knowledge and exposure to fully understand all of the systems and barriers in place. Our concern is that Davis, if elected, would have to learn too much too fast, which would hinder his performance as president.
Compared to Abigail Dubinski (25B), Davis also does not have many concrete action plans. At times throughout his Board interview and Wheel Debates performance, it felt as though Davis recognized important issues on campus but could not articulate concrete solutions due to a lack of relevant experience. The Board had hoped to see Davis produce more concrete plans and extend his network of connections to administration and faculty in a variety of offices so that he can begin to understand the workings of the University.
The Board also has reservations regarding Dubinski, following allegations from a student government member that students were concerned Dubinski would not take their concerns seriously and that she did not provide resources to students in times of need. Additionally, as the second-highest-ranking member of SGA during a time of open expression concerns related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and Stop Cop City campus advocacy efforts, we do not have confidence in Dubinski’s ability to adequately address such concerns moving forward.
Additionally, neither candidate spoke about the violation of the Respect for Open Expression Policy when administration called police on students who were peacefully protesting against Cop City nor when University President Gregory Fenves released a partisan statement in October that was hostile to students’ free speech. This is not a matter of personal ideology, which we feel should not be commented on when considering SGA candidates; in spite of personal beliefs, candidates should have taken a stance on the liberty of open expression during their campaigns.
Neither Davis nor Dubinski adequately addressed the University’s Open Expression Policy and how to best ensure the protection of free speech on campus. This is especially important given the political unrest that has occurred on campus in the past year, and the Board believes the next SGA president must be committed to protecting and representing the voices of all students on campus. Due to its relevance to so many students on campus, the Board expected candidates to address the issue of free speech directly.
Dubinski and her running mate Pranay Mamileti (26C) stated in their joint platform that they would strive to “protect open expression on campus and create an environment where students feel empowered to advocate for issues they believe in.” The Board feels that Mamileti, in his role as SGA’s co-vice president of wellbeing, should not be held to as high of a standard since he is only piggy-backing off of Dubinski’s campaign.
However, we do not have full confidence in this statement. We do not ask candidates to take a stance on geopolitical issues, but we wish that they had been more vocal about their advocacy for students when it comes to open expression violations. During the Wheel Debates, we felt that Dubinski’s answers to questions about the violations and uneven applications of the Open Expression Policy were vague and evasive.
Davis stated that “Emory needed to look at its Open Expression Policy,” but did not mention how he would encourage the administration if he was elected president. Dubinksi followed up by continuing to flaunt her relationships with faculty and organizations on campus rather than addressing the violations she was asked about.
The authority of the SGA president includes the ability to veto any bill, and the president may be consulted on matters of policy. Since the president wields significant power within the organization and the student body, we are fearful that neither candidate can be trusted to represent all student voices in an equal and fair manner when problems arise.
We demand that the leaders of our student body be bold in the face of hardship and advocate for human rights rather than being too cowardly to say anything at all. Due to the enormous amount of suffering and pain experienced by individuals on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which extends to Emory students, we expected more from these candidates.
It would be impossible for Davis or Dubinksi to note and acknowledge every injustice occurring around the world, but in a time of extreme pain and mourning for so many students, we were disappointed by their lack of acknowledgment of pressing issues. If elected, we do expect them to address and present solutions to protect students from violations of open expression. This endorsement of “no confidence” is a call for the candidates to do more.
Correction (2/28/2024 at 8:10 p.m.): This editorial originally encouraged candidates to release statements on Emory’s Respect for Open Expression Policy. However, it is against SGA election policies for candidates to modify their platform after voting commences, which the Editorial Board was not aware of at publication time. Therefore, these requests have been omitted.
Managing Editor Sophia Peyser (25C) and Editorial Board member Jaanaki Radhakrishnan (26C) recused themselves due to a conflict of interest with a candidate and were not involved in writing or editing this opinion.
The above editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel’s Editorial Board. The Board is composed of Marc Goedemans, Sophia Hoar, Carson Kindred, Justin Leach, Eliana Liporace, Lola McGuire, Saanvi Nayar, Sara Pérez and Ilka Tona.
