Final Thoughts on the Student Trustee Election

As promised in Monday’s liveblog, here’s the Insider‘s full recap of the debate and some final thoughts on the election as voting begins at 8 AM today.

Earlier this morning, the Sun released its endorsement in the election for Student Trustee.  Writing off the other two candidates I saw as serious contenders in Monday’s debate, Kat Balram ’13 and even their very own Assistant Sports Editor, Lauren Ritter ’13, the Sun sees it as a race between Alex Bores ’13 and Nate Rosen ’13.  They’re probably right.  What was frightening, however, was how much their endorsement of Bores actually painted a far worse picture of the ILR sophomore than one would gather from the rest of the campaign, no matter their political affiliation.

On paper, Bores and Rosen aren’t very different.  Both are Greek sophomores; Bores in DU and Rosen in TEP.  Both are very articulate and seem as well versed in the issues of higher education as is to be expected from a candidate for Student Trustee.  Both have run campaigns with the same general theme; so similar that, at Monday’s debate, Bores seemed to preempt Rosen on his signature idea, the “Big Red Binder” of student ideas and concerns, all while Rosen was waiting with said binder in hand.  And both, unfortunately for the seriousness of future campus campaigns (even mayoral candidate Svante Myrick ’09 is heading down this absurd road), have made cringe-worthy music videos.

There are, however, some major differences.  For one, authenticity.  While both are clearly ambitious, Bores is almost too polished for his own good.  This comment, posted on the Facebook page set up by the organizers of Monday’s debate, really nails Bores to a T:

More after the jump . . .

That isn’t to say that Rosen isn’t resume padding as well.  But it was impressive to hear him say, “I actually got into the race because I was complaining of rising tuition costs and figured I should do something about it.”  Sure, this problem isn’t unique to Cornell and Rosen’s blaming the problem on flawed methodology in college rankings like those in the US News and World Report doesn’t directly address the issue.  But it is a genuine concern of students and one that is probably heard the most on campus.  That’s really all that matters.

The undergraduate Student Trustee is one representative amongst sixty-four adults at the top of their fields looking out for the best interests of Cornell and its mission, be they ex officio members Governor Andrew Cuomo and Speaker Shelly Silver or billionaire business tycoon and University superbenefactor Ratan Tata ’62.  Their role is to relay the concerns of the student body to the experts and then simply act as the eyes and ears of the student body.  The experience Bores cites and the proposals he puts forward, however, don’t suggest that this is the role he wishes to play.

Bores frequently brings up his role in the leftist Cornell Organization for Labor Action’s campaign to punish Nike, which produces Cornell-licensed apparel, because of allegations against a Nike subcontractor in South America as experience qualifying him for Student Trustee.  As far as a leadership qualification goes, this is fine, but Bores sees this as an example of him helping exercise “the students’ voices.”  Therein lies the problem.  Bores wasn’t representing “the students,” he was representing the narrow goals of his specific interest group and it seems this is the approach he wants to bring to the Board of Trustees. Whether he’s touting endorsements from other narrow interest groups like the Sustainability Hub or putting the complaints of narrow race-specific groups like the folks looking to give the Africana Center near complete autonomy on center stage in his campaign videos and platform, Bores has proven himself to be more concerned with courting the concerns of small, but vocal interest groups than the student body as a whole and this is a destructive path for a Student Trustee to take, especially considering there is only one undergraduate representing thousands of voices.

Not to bury the lede, but, finally and most importantly, the Sun‘s “endorsement” of Bores raises serious questions about the candidate’s credibility and character.  They write:

We are not without our qualms with the way Bores conducted his campaign. Bores has not been straightforward about his involvement with some of the initiatives he has taken credit for, including some involving The Sun, and the role he had in crafting them with student leaders. We hope and believe that outside the context of a political campaign that Bores would act with more professionalism and integrity.

This kind of behavior, an obvious reference to Bores’ apparent exaggeration of his role in the Sun‘s expansion of student polling, should disqualify that candidate in voters’ minds.  But while concurrently endorsing a candidate and completely rebuking said candidate’s misleading campaign is typical Stun behavior, it is a sad day when even a sophomore campus politician resorts to such tactics to win an election.  With that, I encourage you to consider the consequences of electing that kind of candidate and go into the voting booth (or, rather, open the voting tab) well-informed on the issues facing this campus and ready to decide who is knowledgeable, caring, and humble enough to serve as your Student Trustee.