TW: This editorial mentions sexual assault, hazing and suicide.
The Maneater Editorial Board settles for the Maximize Mizzou Campaign, the Missouri Students Association campaign run by Presidential candidate Samantha Hole and Vice Presidential candidate Daniel Daugherty, over the Show Me Mizzou Campaign run by Presidential candidate Josiah Mendoza and Vice Presidential candidate Molly Miller. Although we have countless issues with both slates, we demand that, if elected, Maximize Mizzou address our concerns regarding its campaign as well as MSA as a whole.
The confusion and lack of specific direction seen in last night’s debate begs The Maneater Editorial Board to examine the elephant in the room — MSA is a flawed system. As a part of Mizzou Student Media, we as an editorial board have direct access to all the coverage of each executive slate, but were still left scratching our heads with what policies could be enacted.
Neither slate is competent to lead in their current state. Their lack of clarity and clear direction for policy only shows how unequipped they are to tackle the systemic problems on this campus. However, after the empty promises and tokenization of Legion of Black Collegians from both slates, The Maneater Editorial Board has chosen to settle for Maximize Mizzou.
Through our coverage of this election, we have recognized an expansive information gap between students and their knowledge of MSA. Last night made it quite clear that if students have no idea what MSA does, they cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for. Both slates spoke in detail about their plans to get students more involved, whether that be using social media or speaking to students face-to-face. However, at no point in time did they explain what MSA looks like or what MSA does. Why would students want to get involved in something so ambiguous? How are we supposed to believe their plans (or lack thereof) are tangible if we don’t even understand what they represent?
The lack of transparency in MSA translates to the slates of both campaigns. The debate was split into five sections: Representation of the Student Body, Student Mental Health, Racism on Campus, Campus Safety and Achieving Your Goals. Although both slates spoke about their personal experiences and their relation to the issues, they did very little to explain exact policy changes they planned to implement once in office.
For Student Mental Health, both slates struggled with staying focused on the main question at hand. Miller and Hole both come from Colorado, and both mentioned the high suicide rates in their state. They used their background as a way to prove their suitability to deal with student suicide, but this section of the debate appeared to turn into a competition of which slate has a larger connection to suicide. Ultimately, both campaigns’ proximity does not help a voter pick between the two — action and fleshed out policy does.
While Miller spoke on the experiences of those around her who have used campus counseling services, Maximize Mizzou spoke about their experiences utilizing the counseling center themselves. This gave direct perspective into exact issues they could address. Hole talked about how it can take months for students to receive the help they need. Daugherty spoke about his discomfort using the counseling services to talk about his queer relationship and felt like he was not properly listened to when he did. Daughtery even mentioned how marginalized groups may feel unsafe going to the counseling sources at MU — a fundamental issue — but offered no tangible solution.
Race also played a role in the discussion. Miller spoke about her association with the Legion of Black Collegians, and Maximize Mizzou spoke about wanting to amplify voices of marginalized groups. However, it is impossible to ignore that three of the four candidates on stage are white and therefore must tread carefully when addressing racial issues on campus due to the risk of speaking over marginalized groups or acting through white saviorism.
Mendoza spoke about being a person of color and disliking when others speak on behalf of him and offered only a single action item to collaborate with other race-based organizations. Miller only spoke about the LBC and failed to speak on plans with other race-oriented groups on campus such as the Asian American Association and the Association of Latin@ American Students.
Concerning Campus Safety, both groups spoke on the instances of sexual assault but failed to mention the severe hazing in Greek Life last semester, but Miller did most of the talking throughout the entire debate, while Mendoza did not say anything regarding his involvement in Sigma Tau Gamma. With MU’s awful and still ongoing history with fraternities hazing and assaulting students, it is a tremendous flaw for Mendoza not to discuss his involvement and point of view being involved in an extremely dangerous system. Since we have no information about how Mendoza will recognize his position in a fraternity based on his silence in the debate, we cannot trust him to hold the Greek system accountable by any means.
However, Show Me Mizzou did bring up a plan for MU Alerts and their frequency or relevance to the entire MU student body. Miller’s idea of tailoring MU Alerts to notify students based upon their location or proximity to an event was one of the only clarifying points of the evening, and her idea of using an app to make this work was the only example of the slate showing a problem with an effective solution.
Considering both slates had no specific goals to speak on, the Achieving your Goals section felt pointless and only served as extended time for the candidates to talk around the topic.
A recurring issue throughout the debate was the lack of conflict: Both slates had similar ideas and tended to agree with each other about most objectives. It was difficult to differentiate between the two campaigns and what they stood for. However, it is important for our representatives to reflect the student body, and, as Greek Life members only make up one-third of the student body, having representation of non-Greek students is incredibly important. Daugherty has never been involved in Greek Life, and therefore can hold systems in Greek Life accountable without biases getting in the way.
The fundamental flaw of Show Me Mizzou was their reliance on non-partisanship as the driving factor of their campaign. Both Miller and Mendoza repeatedly brought up their ideological differences and how that equipped them to be leaders who could represent the entire student body. However, non-partisanship fails to be relevant in this campaign. There is no Republican or Democratic view about issues such as campus safety or mental health resource accessibility. This begs the question of functionality: How can two leaders who have so little in common work together for an entire year?
Maximize Mizzou slightly won us over with the camaraderie of Hole and Daugherty; they didn’t boast on their ideological differences and appeared as a unit on stage. Both students have experience utilizing the mental health resources on campus and were willing to speak on it. However, Hole spoke poorly when discussing Racism on Campus when claiming she was ready to “get her hands dirty” and be persistent with administration. She centered herself, rather than identity-based groups, in the conversation.
As well, Show Me Mizzou openly refused to make any promises about what they could accomplish during their year as leaders of MSA. Although they said this came from a standpoint of not wanting to be politicians who make false promises to win an election, their lack of stance makes their campaign even less trustworthy. We as students already do not know what they stand for, and with the ambiguity of non-partisanship combined with their refusal to give answers for what they will accomplish, endorsing them comes at the risk of achieving nothing.
Maximize Mizzou has a better chance at addressing the concerns and needs of the student body. To do so, they must acknowledge and change their outlook on why they are the better campaign: Hole’s flaunting of power at the end of the debate can beg the question of whether they only want this position for its title. For the slate to be successful in their leadership if elected, they must recognize their privilege in being white leaders at a predominantly white institution, uphold the voices of marginalized groups without speaking over them and be in active communication with the student body about the progress with their work.
We don’t want to see their faces disappear after election day.
Cast your vote at vote.missouri.edu. Polls are open from Monday, March 14 at 6 p.m. to Wednesday, March 16 at 6 p.m.