USG hosts debates between presidential, vice presidential candidates

The three Undergraduate Student Government presidential candidates and two vice presidential candidates debated policy, programming and waffle fries at the elections debate on Tuesday night in the Whig Hall senate chamber.

Speaking to about 25 audience members, USG presidential candidates Ella Cheng '16, William Gansa '17 and Molly Stoneman '16 presented opposing opinions on the role of USG in student life and emphasized different issues they plan to address if awarded the presidency.

Stoneman is the current USG vice president, while Cheng is the Student Life Committee Chair. Gansa has not been previously affiliated with the USG. Both Cheng and Stoneman have been involved in USG since their freshman fall. Cheng is a former staff writer for The Daily Princetonian.

The debate was moderated by Adam Tcharni '15, president of the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, who asked a set of questions to all candidates and allowed each two minutes to respond.

Cheng argued that the USG currently focuses too much on programming and not enough on policy.

“I think that we really need to start looking at projects that really push the envelope ... projects that are more policy related such as mental health, sexual misconduct but also things like funding for club sports and also looking at dining,” Cheng said. “These things take more time but also should be USG priorities."

In response to Cheng, Stoneman argued that the USG should not shift its focus from programming to policy because a policy-focused term would remove the USG leadership away from the students they represent.

“Policy at Princeton takes anywhere from six months to three years to complete," Stoneman said. "I want to shift the focus slightly towards event programming,” although noting that policy was still "definitely" a part from her platform.

Gansa, a sophomore and self-described “outsider,” said that as president, rather than large-scale projects or policy initiatives, he would focus on small things that would improve the day-to-day experience of students and “increase student happiness.”

Examples he gave included bike reform, increased frequency of waffle fries and riper fruit in the dining halls.

“Too many times I have seen people bite into an apple only to see that it is waxy and structurally weak,” Gansa said. “I will personally ripen campus fruit if necessary.”

The three candidates also differed on what they viewed as the biggest issues on campus.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Cheng, citing this year’s 20 percent endowment return, pointed to financial issues such as a lack of funding for student activities and clubs. Stoneman said there is a need for more leadership training programs for freshmen and women, and Gansa said that general student happiness was the biggest issue on campus.

Another topic of discussion was the relationship of the USG to the general student body. Stoneman and Cheng both agreed that there needs to be a greater effort to engage with the population, while Gansa argued that greater student involvement shouldn’t be necessary.

“The point is that USG should be working behind the scenes to improve student lives without direct interaction from them,” Gansa said.

In reference to a statement which was published on her campaign website and subsequently taken down, an audience member asked Stoneman if she was interested in allowing students to pay different amounts for different rooms.

“Never, not at all. My platform states that we need to do a reevaluation of room draw,” Stoneman responded, adding that the last formal evaluation occurred in 2009.

“We can really pinpoint some obvious dorms and obvious hallways that can really be made better,” Cheng added.

Candidates also addressed their motivations for running.

Cheng explained that her motivations for running included problems in the way the USG communicates with students, an issue she wants to address in her final year at the University.

Gansa said he was running because many of the issues he was concerned about have not been addressed by the USG in the past. "I’m a little bit tired of waiting for those changes,” he said.

Stoneman focused on women's roles as leaders. “I’m extremely passionate about women’s leadership on campus ... and to a certain extent, you have to practice what you preach." Stoneman explained. "I’m hoping to show that women’s leadership is possible and hopefully inspire the upcoming class.”

The presidential debate was followed by a short debate between the two vice presidential candidates, Aleksandra Czulak '17, who currently serves as executive secretary and Dallas Nan '16, who is currently a U-Councilor.

Both vice presidential candidates have similar platforms emphasizing greater accountability among USG representatives and student-centered initiatives.

Czulak and Nan both said they believed they would work well with any of the presidential candidates, with some reservations.

“Will [Gansa], I believe he has good intentions but I don’t necessarily think that small scale changes like getting more fries will address large scale disadvantages,” Nan noted.

“I think it was a very productive debate,” Tcharni, the moderator, said after the debate was over. “I think it’s a shame that more students didn’t come because I think we’re at a very pivotal time with events on campus and I think, you know, the next president is going to have a very important job.”

Voting opens on Nov. 24. Results will be announced on Nov. 28.