With this endorsement, The Observer returns to its decades-long history of endorsing a ticket. Each year, we interview candidates and carefully deliberate who would best serve the interests of the University and its students. Two years ago, this paper made a carefully weighed decision not to issue an endorsement, citing the gross inefficacy of student government. Last year, we made an even bolder announcement when a sole ticket ran unopposed: Abstain, then abolish student government.
We stand by many of the sentiments we expressed in those editorials. Candidates promise much, and inevitably accomplish little. Students are disillusioned with student government, as demonstrated by the fact that a pitiful 899 students voted for the unopposed ticket last year, barely more than 10% of the student body.
However, the weight of The Observer’s civic responsibility is one the Editorial Board takes seriously. Students this year do face a choice in the upcoming election, and they would be wise to elect Elijah Jones and Riley Evers over Mason McCart and Luke Parikh.
In our interview with Jones, we were struck by his candor about the ineffectiveness of student government, which he brought up unprompted.
“A lot of people feel like student government doesn't do anything, and I'm going to agree with that sentiment, having been inside Student Government,” he said. What impressed us about Jones was his clear commitment to changing this.
Jones, in his interview, demonstrated insight into the inner workings of student government and should be able to draw on his considerable experience as Judicial Council president to accomplish his goals.
In our interviews, we asked candidates to identify their top priorities. We thought the ones Jones named have a reasonable chance of being successful.
The first he listed was to reinvigorate the Campus Life Council, a relatively obscure body consisting of representatives from student government, faculty, the Office of Student Affairs and rectors. According to Jones, the body has not passed a single resolution in two years. If elected, Jones would automatically become chair of the council, and we have trust that he would utilize his role to push the body to act.
Jones’ second priority, similar to his first, was to ensure the student senate regularly had a substantive agenda.
“There are a lot of weeks where we do not do anything in senate. The agenda is very empty. The agenda could have stuff,” Jones said.
Notre Dame’s student senate approaches the ineptitude of the U.S. Congress in passing legislation. In some ways, it exceeds it, passing a paltry nine orders this academic year. Three were suspensions of events, elections or other legislation. Several others were minor revisions, updates or suspensions to internal student government rules. On its “Meetings and Minutes” webpage, the student senate has not posted any meeting minutes for this academic year. In several recent senate meetings, the body has had an empty agenda and dismissed mere minutes after convening.
Notre Dame students deserve better. Evers, as vice president, will have the power to set the agenda for senate, and we have hope that she will use that power well.
The priorities Jones named were largely structural and will serve to enable the rest of his policy platform, which we found more realistic than the one offered by McCart and Parikh.
More tangible proposals by Jones and Evers include pushing the Student Activities Office to reduce regulations on clubs and make club formation more attainable and re-allocating $30,000 from the $100,000 annual internal student government budget to clubs through the established Club Coordination Council.
“[Clubs] already have to charge high dues and do session stands and stuff. So let's spend less money for student government and give that money back to clubs,” Jones told us.
We think these priorities are reasonable. Importantly, we also believe that they are achievable. Convincing SAO to ease bureaucratic club requirements may not be easy, but it isn’t inconceivable. And reallocating student government funding is certainly within the power of student government.
The reallocation, we ought to say, wouldn’t be transformative. Clubs already receive $300,000 a year from the CCC, so the funding increase would be a modest one. But we think a modest proposal that is achieved is more meaningful than an ambitious one that is doomed from the start.
It is primarily for this reason that we endorse Jones and Evers over the other ticket in this election.
In our interview with McCart and Parikh, we found the duo charismatic and energetic, but were disappointed when we asked more probing questions about their proposed policies.
McCart and Parikh have touted several ambitious proposals. One listed prominently on their platform is to establish free off-campus transportation to major South Bend destinations by “extend[ing] Transpo route to highest student demanded South Bend destinations (SBN, Downtown, Target, Strikes and Spares, Four Winds Field, etc.).”
However, there are already direct Transpo routes from Notre Dame to Target, downtown South Bend and Four Winds Field. With one transfer, you can also get to the other two destinations.
Asked whether either of them had ridden Transpo, McCart said he had not. Parikh said he had ridden from Holy Cross College to Notre Dame, but not to any location in South Bend. Regular Transpo riders know that what they promise largely already exists.
More worrying than their lack of familiarity with Transpo routes, however, is their proposal to permit only students on Transpo buses, with identity verified by student ID. Transpo is the South Bend public transit system, funded by and for South Bend residents. Student government does not have the authority to exclude South Bend residents from city buses. Student government, moreover, should strive to improve the relationship between Notre Dame and South Bend. This proposal would worsen it.
Another ambitious proposal likely to catch the attention of voters is their pitch to “place high-quality coffee machines in every academic building for students to enjoy for free” with “single-use coffee pods to ensure easy clean up.” Such a program would be incredibly costly for student government to run and would strain its budget. Convincing the University to pay for the program is unlikely, especially as Notre Dame is instituting budget cuts. Relatedly, their proposed snack delivery subscription service seemed to have major logistical challenges, and a number of their other ideas seemed infeasible or lacking in planning.
McCart and Parikh are both affable and charming speakers. McCart said they wanted to be “mayors of the University.” They would be well-suited for the ceremonial aspects of the office.
This Editorial Board, however, does not care for politicians promising more than they can deliver, which is what we believe McCart and Parikh are doing. Constituents who place their hope in such leaders are inevitably disappointed.
That is not to say the Jones-Evers platform is perfect. It consists of much letter writing, continuing of preexisting initiatives and events and increasing awareness of various programs and causes. But critically, it recognizes the limitations of student government, which does not have the power or the budget to radically transform life on campus. We appreciate Jones’ and Evers’ realism about what can be accomplished.
Students shouldn’t expect their lives to be dramatically better after a year of Jones-Evers leadership. But Jones and Evers aren’t promising that. A vote for them is a vote for a ticket that makes modest promises and has the capacity to deliver on them. It is a vote for competence and steady governance.
We encourage you to support Jones and Evers in the election on Wednesday.
