The Spectator ● September 22, 2020
Page 3
Endorsements: Sophomore Caucus DAMIAN KORIK AND GOSSAMER MORTON Record: ★ ☆☆☆ Neither Korik nor Morton have any prior experience in student government or leadership. They emphasized this, claiming instead that this gave them insight into the experience of “regular students.”
Courtesy of Damian Korik and Gossamer Morton
The Korik-Morton campaign mainly focuses on giving students a greater voice, whether it be regarding their grades or providing input on caucus policies and events. There was, however, nothing about the campaign that made it “special.” It was a perfectly fine effort—but it was also quite average. Neither candidate had prior experience in student government or leadership, but both claimed during an interview that this was a point in their favor rather than a liability, stating that this lack of experience in leadership gave them experience in being “regular students” instead, making them relatable. Both emphasized heavily when interviewed the value of true leadership, despite neither of them having occupied a leadership position in an extracurricular activity at Stuyvesant. Their proposed policies, as well as being limited in number, were by and large nothing beyond conventional. One proposed policy is to send out a biweekly survey for students to “report any grievances” regarding schoolwork
Campaign: ★★ ☆☆ Despite having a campaign website and an Instagram account, their campaign has little active social media presence, and their Instagram has only one post—a photo of their campaign logo. They also lack any sort of presence on Facebook. Platform: ★★☆☆☆ The Korik-Morton campaign emphasizes student agency, but a majority of their proposed policies seem only to build on previous ideas and lack originality. The rest of the policies, while clearly well intentioned, seem largely unfeasible.
or teachers. They would use this mass input to contact assistant principals if there seemed to be a common issue among students. Both stated that the current “spiral of communication” is inefficient, and that a mass student response would put less burden on the affected students to speak up and streamline the process. In a similar vein, they expressed a desire to work with the SU to bring about a unification of grading
platforms, something which has come up repeatedly in the past years. They additionally wanted to implement more in-person events on multiple days and in multiple locations, with social-distancing measures in place. These policies were perfectly fine, but they were not ambitious or adventurous. It was evident that these ideas were built off of previous ones, and we would have liked to see something more original.
Their one more adventurous proposal was for a new escalator policy, which would have students only use escalators if they “needed” to during the specific passing time. They claim that this would make “escalator travel much more efficient and reduce the amount of wear and tear on the escalators.” When questioned further, it was clear that they hadn’t fully thought about the policy’s implementation and ef-
ficiency. Beneath the policy section of their website, they included a link to a Google form for student suggestions about potential policies, further emphasizing their belief in student agency. Despite their willingness to take feedback from students, Korik-Morton failed to make a strong case for what they would offer in return. The Spectator does not endorse this ticket.
JEFFREY TAN AND JOHAN WIELAARD Record: ★★☆☆☆ Wielaard and Tan have both filled leadership positions at some point in their middle school careers, priming them for potential SU leadership. This prior experience includes captaining sports teams and acting as academic mentors for younger students. Courtesy of Jeffrey Tan and Johan Wielaard
Campaign: ★★★☆☆ Though the Tan-Wielaard campaign has not done the best job of outreach and maintaining an online presence, the duo has a strong rapport with one another and are balanced in the qualities they bring to the table. Platform: ★★★ ☆ The Wielaard-Tan platform is specific and actionable. Their plans include karaoke night, group study sessions, and even “Random Play Dance,” in which danceable K-Pop songs are played in a random order. One concern about these plans though is that they may be too recreational, putting perks over priorities.
The main word that comes to mind when one seeks to describe the Wielaard-Tan ticket is “good.” Theirs is a good campaign. The two candidates have a good rapport and brainstormed many initiatives to improve the conditions of the sophomores, like karaoke nights and group study sessions. They have also managed to strike a difficult balance that caucus
candidates often fail to strike: that between making policies that are in caucuses’ wheelhouse and policies that will meaningfully impact students’ lives. Namely, they would try to persuade Principal Seung Yu to have all teachers post their slideshows on Google Classroom after their classes. That balance is delicate, and they manage to strike it. That’s impressive and
commendable, and it makes their campaign stand out. Their platform, however, does not always succeed in this regard. Most notably, their plan to make the school’s elevators accessible to anyone who must commute seven or more floors between periods is problematic on several levels. First, there are too many students with seven-floors-or-greater gaps
for the policy to be effective. There would just be long lines for the elevators. Relatedly, the plan would create enormous traffic for those who do need the elevators, such as students with medical passes or teachers with carts. And because of these shortcomings, the administration would never agree to the policy. Wielaard-Tan’s more unre-
alistic policies, combined with a level of detail that while not completely unsatisfactory is not highly rigorous, hurt our generally positive view of their platform. But we were not terribly impressed with their record. As with the rest of their campaign, they were good: both worked in small leadership positions in middle school or freshman year, and they ably described those positions. But neither consisted of the sort of event-planning executive experience that one wants in a Caucus leader. Their campaign, finally, is good. Their website is accessible and decent-looking; they have an Instagram account with four posts; the candidates have a good rapport, and they present professionally. But there is nothing that makes them stand head-aboveshoulders over other tickets. It is, well, good. We think that, if elected, Wielaard and Tan would serve their class well. They would be good, but we do not believe that they are the best option sophomores have.
Endorsements: Junior Caucus DIYA RAO AND ANISA PALEVIC Record: ★★ ☆☆ Rao has minimal experience in student government at Stuyvesant while Palevic was a Sophomore Caucus Events Committee member. Campaign: ★★ ☆☆ The pair has pages on both Instagram and Facebook along with a website, but there is little to no content posted. They attended the Junior Caucus debate, presented their platform well, and it was evident through their interview that they respected the policies of the previous year’s Sophomore Caucus but had ideas for how it could improve. Platform: ★★★ ☆ The ANIDIYA platform, as outlined in its policy statement, is very comprehensive. The platform’s ideas and plans to execute them are clear, and there are unique ideas for the junior class. Though creative, some proposals seem over-ambitious and not well-thoughtout.
The ANIDIYA campaign most significantly aims to help juniors de-stress during their most difficult year at Stuyvesant, and the ticket specifically focuses on dealing with the uncertainties of college applications during COVID-19. In general, the platform centers on hosting fun activities
as opposed to more academic initiatives, with the exception of their college preparedness plans. While Rao lacks experience in student government at Stuyvesant, she (along with Palevic) is a part of the debate team and runs a non-profit organization that helps to bridge the educa-
tional socioeconomic gap among middle schoolers through book clubs and tutoring sessions. On top of being a member of the Events Committee for last year’s Sophomore Caucus, Palevic has interned for Congresswoman Tedra Cobb’s campaign, which she says has taught her much about leadership and campaigning. Rao and Palevic seem to have good chemistry with one another; during their interview, they emphasized how they complement each other. Rao describes herself as more of a “big picture” person, while Palevic carries out the ideas. Given Palevic’s experience on the Events Committee last year, this dynamic makes sense. Ohe of the campaign’s main points is events and creative empowerment, which will rely heavily on social media to advertise programs. They are also planning on showcasing student artwork through story highlights on the Junior Caucus Instagram page.
In order to help juniors relax, the campaign plans to hold optional Zoom craft sessions—not dissimilar to the Bob Ross sessions hosted by Tan-Torres last year— during which participants can learn origami and painting. While ANDIYA’s focus on creativity as a means of de-stressing is commendable, the campaign itself has not effectively used social media for outreach about their ticket, thus calling into question if this proposal would play out. ANIDIYA also focuses on increasing extracurricular involvement through club spotlights on Instagram, and they plan to use Google Forms so that clubs will easily be able to reach out to the caucus for a spotlight. Again, their record on social media is unclear, as the campaign currently lacks a strong presence. ANDIYA’s emphasis on social media throughout their platform also feels very limited and lacking in creativity, as online platforms are not the only
way to engage and support the junior class. Lastly, the ticket emphasizes transparency: letting the student body know what actions the caucus plans to take as well as its progress. To uphold transparency, the campaign proposes monthly updates and anonymous feedback forms. While commendable, transparency is something expected of all caucuses, whose leaders traditionally send out emails to their grade, sometimes even biweekly, with announcements and updates. Overall, ANDIYA is very aware of the needs of the student body, citing their own or their friends’ concerns about remote learning and addressing those issues with promising proposals. Their lack of experience and limited campaigning over social media, however, do not make them the most promising candidates for Junior Caucus. The Spectator does not endorse this ticket.