LIVEBLOG: CCSC Executive Board debate
It’s time for the final event of the evening, with Block Party and The 212 facing off in a Spectator-sponsored debate. Spec Editor-in-Chief Sarah Darville is moderating, and the News Desk’s Sammy Roth has live updates.
Update: The debate is now over. Read it all after the jump!
7:38: And that’s all there is–the debate is over! Check back tomorrow for full stories from the News Desk on this debate, the class council debates, and the CC USenate debate.
7:36: In the closing statements, bit of a back-and-forth about the importance of experience, since more of The 212′s candidates have council experience. Jasiulek says it’s not all about electing the people with the most years on council—”I need new, enthusiastic, fresh people with a wide grasp of our community, and I don’t think we can do that with 212,” he says. The 212′s Habbu says it’s not just about experience–her party’s candidates have actually accomplished things, she says.
7:34: Closing statements now. Jasiulek accidentally talks about the importance of voting for The 212—he catches himself quickly, to lots of laughter. “Strike it from the record,” he jokes.
7:32: For The 212, Hughes is discussing the importance of bringing more student groups to the table in general. “Every group has kind of historically been left out of CCSC,” he says.
7:30: Question: What student groups have been excluded from the CCSC conversation so far? The Block Party’s Barriere thinks it’s important to get students from Greek life more involved, and to make sure the general community understands what Greek life is all about.
7:27: In response to the Bwog comments bit, Block Party members discuss the recent Obama/Barnard controversy, and say that we need a non-anonymous forum for comments.
7:26: Darville asks how the councils can figure out what student opinion is, getting big laughs when she asks if Bwog comments are representative of student opinions.
7:25: In response to the academics question, Block Party’s VP policy candidate Jean-Pierre Salendres talks about bringing in as much input as possible: “We’re just five, that’s it–CCSC has to do way more…you have to listen to what the people need, and you do it. It’s so easy to do, and it hasn’t been done.”
7:24: In response to a question about CCSC’s overlap with academic issues, The 212′s Luo says that “”The academic realm of the Core is not necessarily a safe space for everyone.” She thinks Core instructors should be trained in creating safe spaces for students.
7:21: Habbu talks about the importance of the new Educational Policy and Planning Committee, but Jasiulek is skeptical, asking if CCSC should really spend time focusing on “minutiae” like EPPC.
7:18: Question just for Block Party: Most of the members have experience with event-planning, which is mostly for class councils. What experience do they have that is relevant to exec board? Bell says he has experience with budgets through Greek Life and the rugby team—he managed a budget of $9,000 last summer.
7:17: The 212′s Chen mentions funding for wellness groups, talks about continuing the council’s current student project grants. Block Party’s Jasiulek says it is important for CCSC to do more direct programming for student wellness projects, “actively engaging each other as whole people.”
7:16: Darville: How does Columbia institute better support for depressed students?
7:16: How to make CCSC meetings more efficient? Habbu says The 212 would institute firm agendas, and also bring in relevant student groups. For instance, if they’re talking about green policy, she says, they would bring in groups like EcoReps to discuss it.
7:15: Lauren Barriere, Block Party’s communications VP candidate, talks about improving CCSC’s institutional memory in order to communicate about events and programming better.
7:14: Peyton Bell, Block Party’s finance VP candidate, talking about reforming the F@CU process, says it needs to be more transparent, with “all nine parties present”—whether the governing boards get full votes, or just have to sign off on allocations.
7:12: Habbu says she would prefer that CCSC go back to mandatory Sunday meetings. The current exec board made meetings non-mandatory.
7:11: The 212′s funding VP candidate, Daphne Chen–a Spectator associate news editor–says that her party would give a lot of the council’s current $80,000 surplus to student groups.
7:09: What about Block Party’s proposal to put a lot of money into a massive block party on Broadway, Darville asks? “We would be inviting the student groups we’ve been working with all year to come and showcase what they’ve been doing,” Yoon says.
7:08: Darville asks The 212′s Luo about her party’s platform, which says CCSC should cut large-scale events that aren’t working. She cites the tree lighting as an event that the council should examine to make sure that it is really engaging students. There should be more smaller events, she says.
7:06: Jasiulek says he is “not pleased” that the current student council tabled the proposal for a social justice center. “I’m very involved in issues of race and identity,” Jasiulek says, noting that he’s studying cultural imperialism. “I’m not talking out of my bumhole—we are committed to the student groups that are going to come to the table,” he says, explaining that CCSC must engage groups directly.
7:05: Habbu says The 212 would be “very in support of” a proposed social justice center on campus, and would lobby administrators on it. The 212′s policy VP candidate, Will Hughes, says that he would use the policy committee as an advocate for student projects in this vein.
7:04: Yanyi Luo, The 212′s campus life VP candidate, notes that she’s in charge of the Live at Lerner concert series, and officially announces five straight days of Liver at Lerner concerts leading up to Bacchanal next month.
7:02: In response to a question about non-CCSC experiences, the candidates are listing all of the different groups they’re involved with.
7:00: Jasiulek also expresses concerns about the state of the Core Curriculum, and says his party would demand to know why Michele Moody-Adams resigned as dean of Columbia College last year. “Dean Valentini is a cool guy, but he’s also been not that active” with regards to the Core, Jasiulek says, adding, “Unless we’re willing to go and demand that the administration take us seriously,” there won’t be changes or transparency.
6:59: Block Party’s Jasiulek says he’s “seen all the ropes” of CCSC. He’s been on four committees and spent a year as class president. He also worked on changes to the Glboal Core.
6:57: Habbu says that what she’s most proud of in her CCSC work this year–she’s a student services representative—is convincing the financial aid office to undergo a review.
6:55: Habbu speaking on behalf on The 212, talking about the many mental health groups that have formed this semester–the Student Forum, the Student Wellness Project, Active Minds, etc. She says CCSC has to do a good job of funding these groups.
6:54: Citing a question that Spectator received from a student, Darville asks the parties about wellness on campus. Block Party’s campus life VP candidate, Janice Yoon, says that her party would not limit door-to-door outreach and getting student input to the campaign–they would keep doing it all year.
6:52: Next question: How would the parties use the results of the Morningside Student Space Survey? Habbu says that The 212 would “demand written guarantees from administrators” that certain spaces would go to undergrads. Jasiulek says Block Party would do its own space audit. “There are so many beautiful spaces that can be used well on campus, but they’re just not,” Block Party’s Jasiulek says, citing Wien Lounge as an example.
6:46: Darville’s first question: What makes CCSC relevant?
6:45: Karishma Habbu, presidential candidate for The 212, takes a slightly different tact, says that student groups are not enough, and that her party would do “advocacy on the behalf of CC students as a whole.” Student groups also important, though, she says.
6:42: Alex Jasiulek, presidential candidate, introduces the Blcok Party, says that one of the biggest things Block Party is planning to do is “changing CCSC’s culture.” Student groups are the most important part of their platform, Jasiulek says, because “the only way we’re going to engage our students” is to make them all part of the conversation.
6:37: We’re getting started a few minutes late as people continue to mill into the Satow Room. It’s pretty full–about 50 people here total, candidates included.
It’s a bit disturbing that Block Party dismisses the potential EPPC sans student representatives as “minutiae”…
With this statement by the Block Party, it is clear they have absolutely no clue about the internal politics at Columbia and how the EPPC could single handedly move the student voice from things like the Core Curriculum.
Seriously? you have to stoop to that in order to leverage yourself? Grasping for air as you got beat like the drums that you are.
I felt as if the Block Party did really well… They emphasized the force that student groups can have in bettering our community. I appreciated that.
I definitely agree with the above statement, I think that the outside experience the Block Party brings will be invaluable to being a great CCSC E-board!
Having witnessed the debate, I can’t believe this is still a competition. It was blindingly obvious to me that 212 as a whole has accomplished significantly more in their time—both on CCSC and off it—than the Block Party candidates.
I actually went and searched the names of candidates from both parties on Bwog and Spectator to see if I was missing something, but no—212 candidates came up over and over again for different initiatives (CCSC and non-CCSC), whereas Alex is the only name from BP that came up at all (which is good for Alex, but not for an effective Eboard). CCSC or not, where have the other BP candidates been, if they’re so passionate about changing student life on campus? It’s not like CCSC is the only avenue for large-scale change.
Both BP and 212 demonstrated great energy in the debate, yes, but I think it’s easy to be excited when you’re on the campaign trail. Actions speak louder than words, and 212′s actions have a much, much stronger track record in my view.
While your point is valid CC’12, just because Bwog or Spec doesn’t report on something, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. There are plenty of things on this campus that Bwog and Spec don’t report on that add value onto our campus. There are plenty of people that are heavily involved in student and campus life that have accomplished so much.
I think there is a certain truth to what you are saying; however, one cannot measure how involved someone is in campus life based on how many times Bwog or Spec writes about them.
This is fair, and so please enlighten me—can you specify what the rest of BP has spearheaded, that has had a significant impact on campus? I mean beyond events that happen every year, beyond sorority-specific initiatives. Something that has spanned and positively affected multiple student groups.
I’m not being facetious, by the way…I’d genuinely like to know.
Knowing the background, this is far from over. What these elections comes down to is a complete paradigm shift in what qualifies a qualified CCSC E-board. Over the past two years, CCSC’s presence in my undergraduate experience has been underwhelming. I believe this is so because there is a fixed set group of people in CU politics, a clique if you will. Members of this clique are simply moved around and promoted.
Here’s what I found from Bwog: From the 212, Jared is the CC ’15 class president, Daphne is currently a ’14 class representative, Yanyi is an interesting person and Will baked a pie and has a cool room. From the BP, you’re right, Bwog hasn’t reported much on each individual. But it has reported on CU Rugby, CSIS, Greek Life, Raw Elements, Glass House Rocks and CIRCA–all of which have been successful thanks to the leadership of the candidates in the BP.
I didn’t mention Karishma and Alex because it would be redundant to outline their experience in CU politics. They have both been massively invested in CCSC, class council, etc. However what I’ve noticed from Alex is his vision. Back in Fall ’09, Karishma was Alex’s for the CC ’13 class council. Now I can’t confirm this is what actually happened, but a ticket usually forms around the picking and choosing of a visionary president. In ’09 Alex as presidential candidate made the right choice with Karishma since she’s proven her dedication to CCSC, and it is my belief that Alex has made the right choice again with the candidates of the Block Party.
Also, with respect to the atmosphere of the Spec debate. There was an overwhelming presence of CCSC members, which is to be expected. And throughout the debate, they did the neat little snap-clap. In this I saw exactly what I mentioned, CCSC reuses its members. The E-board’s allegiances should truly be to student clubs and the CC community at large, not to the CCSC clique. Also, I’d really like to criticize Spec’s lack of objectivity. They’ve repeatedly mentioned that Daphne is part of Spec and absolutely posed questions that catered to the extensive involvement of the 212′s candidates in CCSC. The CCSC-specific questions forced Alex to take many of the questions directed at the Block Party. Let me again stress that the Block Party’s involvement with student life rather than CU politics is a strength, not a weakness. They are the party that most represents me, the average CU student. In a way, they are the Students’ Party of CU.
the Block Party, as it is clear that only the Block Party candidates know that much about themselves. Look you clearly lost the debate, accept this with some humility.
Hi there. Whenever we interview or mention a student who has worked on Spectator, we indicate their current position or former managing board position in the interest of full disclosure. It is a recognized principle of ethics, not a means to self-promote. If you have any questions about this, please reach out to editor@columbiaspectator.com.
I see all this attacks for Block Party. Haven’t heard much from either party other than their facebook pages. I must say CCSC always tries to see how they can get other people involved and Block Party brings new faces that have excelled in the community, as I heard in the debate. Now that this new influx of people tries to come in, CCSC people sem to instantly align with the other team that has always been involved. There you go, you want change and you elect the same. Not surprising but 212 will not have my vote. Cheers to Block Party’s president for changing the way we view student government…. doesn’t mean it will work in one year only but I am glad to see a drastic change in approach. Our government should not be controled and monopolized by a tiny group. I have never liked CCSC because of how they stay inside and do things only consulting with their friends. I thought a government should be more representative.
will and yanyi have never been on council before
yanyi has been on council as a rep
I’m in no way good friends with any of the candidates. In fact, I’ve ran against members of both teams. That being said, 212 is a much better party. Not just in their seriousness, but their true devotion for columbia students. I mean in no way to say that BP is bad; they are very talented individuals. But whereas last year the decision seemed to come at the last minute, this choice seems clear to me
seriously – no ties to either candidate here, and i am not on council, spec, bwog, any of those things. but i was at the debate tonight, and it was clear to anyone in the room who was better. 212 was full of energy and could barely stay in the time limits with all the things they wanted to say. they had solid answers, no fluff, very specific proposals. block party on the other hand looked sullen and defeated, and alex probably did 80% of the talking. whenever cornered, block party would just retreat behind some nonsensical vague platitudes about ‘community’ and ‘student groups’. not impressed.
the block party people seriously have no idea what they’re doing. for the love of god vote 212..