I remain unconvinced by Rhett Creighton and Margaret Stringfellow’s campaign statements. Much of their platform seems to be based on their supposed appeal to, as Philip Burrowes recently put it, the “four freak dorms” (Bexley, East Campus, Random, Senior House). Creighton seems to believe that his living at Tau Epsilon Phi should make him a more appealing candidate to students not living in West Campus. This thinking explains his choice of Stringfellow as his running mate; Stringfellow admits to having no experience or prior interest in student government, yet lives at Senior House.
As a resident of Bexley, I fail to understand this line of thought. When I asked Creighton in the debates how he would specifically represent these four dorms better than another candidate could, he did not give me a concrete answer. Creighton could not explain how he would be a better advocate for my dorm, likely because his residence at TEP does not actually translate into a better understanding of the issues facing members of my dorm or any other dorm. In stark contrast, Jyoti Agarwal, candidate for UA Vice President, impresses me because she articulated a real plan under which she and running mate Sanjay Rao would work with and listen to people from all sides of campus, through discussions at individual dorms and at Cambridge and Boston FSILGs. Unlike the Creighton/Stringfellow team, which is furthering the segregation of campus by asking students to vote based on where they live, Rao and Agarwal have a clear plan on how to integrate cross-campus student input. It seems to me that this is a more important quality than where a candidate resides.
Shelli F. Farhadian ’03