The four pairs of candidates vying for the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) President / Vice-President positions faced off in the annual USG Presidential Election Debate last Friday. The event was moderated by Clarion Editor-in-Chief Ana Ortega and incoming Editor-in-Chief Aubrey Cox.
While running on near-identical campaign platforms of accountability and transparency, the four tickets added their unique twists to questions regarding USG-affinity relations, DU hate crime investigations, DivestDU, rollover funds and NDA agreements.
The presidential pairings are: Colton Arciniaga and Dylan Lindsey; Hector Rodriguez and Alexandra Terrazas; Mattie (MJ) Hyde and Zach Headley; and Sergio Hernandez and Kania Campbell.
Arciniaga and Lindsay’s platform consists of four pillars: transparency, accountability, sustainability and effective representation. By putting the focus back on students, Arciniaga and Lindsay hope to cultivate greater community representation in university decision-making. The duo also pledged to work with university partners to prevent and address incidents of hate, violence and discrimination.
Rodriguez and Terrazas’ platform is based on the DU values of excellence and inclusivity. Critical of the DU “status quo,” the pair are particularly committed to student safety and well-being by providing greater access and awareness for mental, emotional and physical health.
Hyde and Headley’s platform is also based on equitable representation and administration relations. The pair committed to transparency for tuition and USG budgetary spending, as well as the improvement of student living standards.
For Hernandez and Campbell, their platform “seeks to foster a culture of dissent” by explicitly calling out DU fossil fuel investment, demanding administration transparency for student tuition spending and closing the information gap between the DU board and USG-student communities.
To start the debate, candidates were asked to provide their opinions on the purpose of USG President and Vice-President roles. As current USG Senators, Arciniaga and Lindsay also emphasized the importance of using student connections to get to the heart of campus issues. Hyde and Headley, also current USG Senators, took a similar approach, arguing the importance of meaningful representation because “it is a privilege and a right to represent DU students.” Hyde simply stated, “I’m not here to bullshit you.”
Hernandez and Campbell took a different approach, calling out prior USG administrations which, they believe, have hijacked affinity group activism. They committed to following through on DU’s statement of being a private university for the public good. Rodriquez and Terrazas validated student frustrations with administration bureaucracy. Rodriguez referenced an idea expressed by current USG President Abbie McAdams, saying, USG “feels like a silo” and that it is their role to “open up the doors to the silo, moving everything outside of it to increase inclusivity.”
Given all four tickets are running on a platform of transparency, the Clarion moderators asked the candidates what concrete actions they plan to undertake regarding this issue. Hyde and Headley began by calling for increased communication with students regarding USG actions via a Zoom recording of Senate meetings and weekly office hours.
The first major point of contention occurred when Hyde argued the weekly USG newsletter is never utilized by students; Hernandez quickly defended the publication, stating there is data to back up its existence. According to President McAdams, the newsletter boasts a 70% open rate with 60% full readership.
The debate then flowed into discussion of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). The USG President and Vice-President are required to sign the document in order to attend closed-door board meetings. In an unprecedented move last year, McAdams and Vice-President Shreya Surendra did not sign the NDA.
Rodriguez and Terrazas were the only pair to say they would sign the NDA with Terrezas, stating, “this is the only time we can go to the board of directors. How else are they going to listen if they don’t see us?” Notably, McAdams was able to meet quarterly with the Board of Trustees, but was prohibited from meetings concerning protected information.
Hernandez and Campbell adamantly argued they will not sign the NDA. Campbell justified their decision by stating “the board will tell us sweet little lies either way.” Arciniaga and Lindsay also agreed to not sign the NDA on the basis of transparency. Recognizing the importance of cooperation with the board, the pair argued there are other collaborative avenues. Hyde and Headley agreed, adding the NDA adds a layer of secrecy they no longer wish to have associated with USG.
The four tickets were then offered a hypothetical situation regarding a hate crime incident on campus. The question struck a personal cord for the candidates following the Winter Quarter incident in which three DU students were victims of anti-semetic vandalism on campus. The administration’s response to the hateful act, characterized by many as lackluster and insulting, was met with student outrage.
All candidate pairs agreed USG should, first and foremost, work with the affected student group to provide the exact resources needed in the wake of such discrimination. Terrazas specifically addressed the need to provide more trauma and sexual assault resources for those impacted, stating student health is often an afterthought.
Arciniaga and Lindsay agreed prior administration responses have been inadequate, and called for more transparent investigations. They stated USG is there to advocate for affinity groups, and announced their intention to revamp DU Intervene to include more substantive anti-discrimination training. Hyde and Headley argued similar points, stating there are clear means to prevent such hatred.
As the closing comment on the discrimination topic, Hernandez and Campbell committed to setting a precedent on “calling out people and calling out hatred,” stating, “we shouldn’t be afraid to stand in the middle of political discourse.”
The most debate occurred when the candidates were asked about USG rollover funds and how to address student organization funding. Hyde was first to answer by vocalizing her disagreement with a recent USG decision to invest $72,061 for an e-gaming room in Centennial Halls. On this front, she committed to publicizing the annual USG budget and making more worthwhile investments for student communities.
Hernandez and Campbell disputed Hyde’s comments, stating the e-gaming lounge is a safe space for queer students. They argued that little investments in student life can quickly add up to provide a sense of community. Rodriguez and Terrazas agreed and took on a broader view of the question, arguing USG budgets could also be put to good use through renovating campus dorms and supporting affinity-group needs.
Arciniaga and Lindsay, having the last word on the matter, agreed with Hyde and Headly that the e-gaming room investment was a poor reflection of USG spending abilities. Lindsay and Arciniaga stated there needs to be greater integration of student voices into USG spending decisions to responsibly invest the $600,000 rollover funds for undergraduates.
Another contentious topic touched on DivestDU and continued stonewalling by the administration to move towards sustainable alternatives. As the current treasurer of DivestDU, Campbell bluntly commented, “the DU board believes [Divestment is] too difficult to figure out, as if they don’t have accountants.” Hernandez also argued DU can “walk and chew gum at the same time” by divesting from fossil fuels and investing in sustainable energy.
The other three tickets all committed to supporting the divest movement to ensure a more sustainable future. Uniquely, Hyde and Headley gave concrete examples of on-campus sustainability improvements such as light sensors and moving the campus shuttle to a by-need basis.
A clear theme emerged throughout the debate regarding all four candidates’ commitments to uplifting student voices. Arciniaga and Lindsay, while recognizing the need for a collaborative USG-administration relationship, argued that the Board, Chancellor, and Provost “need to get out of the gold tower of Mary Reed” to engage with the undergraduate community.
Hyde and Headley, as well as Rodriguez and Terrazas, had similar reflections on the need for a collaborative admin relationship. Hernandez and Campbell took a different approach, arguing there is a need to “cut through red tape” by simultaneously meeting with administration and passing resolutions in the Senate based on student interests. In a blunt remark, the duo argued “we pay their salaries so they need to listen to us.”
As the debate came to a close, Elections Commissioner Lindsay Baker announced that, given the number of candidates, ranked-choice voting would be implemented. With the system, should no candidate reach a margin of more than 50%, the top two tickets will be filtered into an automatic runoff.
Voting begins Monday, May 8 and lasts through Thursday, May 11. Results will be compiled and released by the end of week 7 or early week 8. A full list of candidates can be accessed on the Crimson Connect Elections website.
