Page 4
The Spectator ● September 22, 2020
Endorsements: Junior Caucus
Zoe Oppenheimer / The Spectator
CYNTHIA TAN AND ELIO TORRES
After successful Freshman and Sophomore Caucus terms, the Tan-Torres duo is back and running again. The Tan-Torres ticket’s selling point is undoubtedly their experience. This past year, they organized seven initiatives pre-quarantine, including a gingerbread house competition and an escape room event, both of which sold out all available tickets. They also hosted six events during quarantine, including a Bob Ross painting event with chemistry teacher Michael Orlando and two iMessage game tournaments. Tan and Torres are also heavily involved in the Stuyvesant community. Through their work outside of caucus, Tan and Torres have seemed to maintain a solid grasp on the needs of their class. This is evident through their platform, which is broken down into four sections.
Though they have strong ideas throughout each of these sections, their Events section is, on the whole, their best. Aside from their semi-unoriginal ideas of virtual study hall sessions and virtual self-care seminars, they propose a SING! Greatest Hits Night, which would be a virtual screening of the top moments in past SING!s, and a virtual relay competition, harkening back to the success of their events like the Sophomore Caucus Escape Room. Our only critique is aimed at their virtual college tours idea, in which instead of partnering with the college office to host virtual information sessions for juniors, they plan to contact colleges themselves. The second section of their platform is their External Affairs projects, the most notable part being their plans to negotiate free or reduced CitiBike memberships for
Stuyvesant students as an alternative mode of transportation to school. They also want to reach out to local publishers, galleries, and newspapers to have students’ work displayed. This, however, seems unfeasible, as it is often difficult to have work published, even if the organizations are smallerscaled and local. The third section is their Internal Affairs projects, which is broken down into collaborations with the Student Union (SU), clubs, student body, and the administration. Though not thrillingly creative, this section houses solid plans, including working with the SU Events Department to transition classic Stuyvesant events (such as Styloween) online, partnering with student organizations like the Black Students League and ASPIRA, allowing students of all grades to attend caucus meetings, and communicating with the administration to monitor the feasibility of hosting Junior Prom. A few policies seem idealistic, though, such as having non-caucus volunteers assist at caucus events. Their final section is expanding their website. Among others, the ticket hopes to include an SAT and PSAT update page, a scholarship opportunities page, a college application timeline, and a competition and awards opportunities page. They also want to continue working on their opportunities bulletin and their study guide plat-
Record: ★★★★ Both Tan and Torres have served in caucus for the past two years, giving them an unmatched level of experience. While they successfully organized 13 initiatives during their time as President and Vice President, respectively, of last year’s Sophomore Caucus, their website has not been updated since first semester, and some juniors have noted a lack of communication via e-mail from the caucus. Campaign: ★★★ ☆ The Tan-Torres campaign is classic and energetic—they have a website, as well as pages on both Facebook and Instagram. They’ve used social media to successfully advertise their ticket and were polished and engaged during the debate, both signs of a successful campaign. Platform: ★★★ ☆ While the Tan-Torres platform has excellent ideas scattered throughout, these initiatives are hidden among both unoriginal and unfeasible ideas. Their platform seems to prioritize quantity over quality, and while some of their initiatives are strong, we would have loved if their platform had been more heavily edited. form, both initiatives started last year. While these pages would clearly benefit and assist the junior class, Tan-Torres’ current website has not been updated since the end of 2019, meaning it seems unlikely that their IT department will be able to create all of these resources. It is clear that this ticket has invested most of their time into brainstorming unique social events, which is understandable, as their achievements last year were mostly event-based as well. While some ideas for academic policies are feasible and helpful, such as a guide for teacher recom-
mendations, many are unrealistic and vague, such as “advocacy for spring semester program changes” or creating Junior-Caucus-specific virtual college tours. While some of the policies show that their heart is in the right place, they aren’t well-thought-out. Tan-Torres’ ideas for this year, aside from a notable few, aren’t particularly unique, but they don’t need to be—the ticket’s experience last year has clearly informed their proposals this year. The TanTorres slogan is Trusted and True, and ultimately, that is entirely accurate. For that reason, The Spectator endorses this ticket.
DANIEL LYALIN AND EMMANUEL ABAYEV Campaign: ★★ ☆☆ Though the DNA ticket has an outstanding website, its campaign efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Platform: ★★★★ The DNA ticket has a meticulous platform oriented around technology that is almost perfectly adapted to virtual learning. The ticket, however, fails to propose innovative ideas that will inspire social interaction among the junior class. The DNA ticket stands out for its pragmatic and effective platform. Lyalin and Abayev plan to enact practical, useful initiatives, like a redesigned Junior Caucus website, a central database with access to all recorded class sessions, a customizable bell schedule, and a program that filters Internship Coordinator Harvey Blumm’s Student Opportunity Bulletin. The ticket also plans to expand StuyVantage to essential online student services like Duolingo Plus and a schoolwide GitHub Student Developer Pack. In fact, the ticket has even
started working on some of its ideas along with its technology team. Lyalin and Abayev also exhibit great chemistry and a collaborative spirit. As was clear at the Boardof-Elections-hosted debate and has even been acknowledged by the duo themselves, Lyalin is more technically-grounded in logistics and details while Abayev is more creative and thinks outside of the box—two contrasting leadership styles that compliment each other well. They have known each other since the seventh grade, and their
partnership and mutual respect for their differing leadership styles came through strongly in both the debate and their interview with The Spectator. Moreover, DNA’s professionalism—they came to the interview dressed in a suit—is greatly appreciated. Its website, which was entirely created by the candidates and their technology team, is also beautifully designed and informative. Despite these strengths, Lyalin and Abayev suffer from a lack of experience in the Student Union, though they have some in-school leadership. Lyalin is a board member on the Red Cross and the vice president of the Stuyvesant Ethics Bowl, and Abayev is the director of the Writing Center. Outside of Stuyvesant, Lyalin founded a nonprofit organization, School Supply Campaign Inc., and Abayev assisted Congressman Max Rose in his campaign, founded a tutoring program, Alpha Prep, and aided a study of NCAA athletes at the University of South Carolina. Additionally, DNA’s presence on social media is lacking, and the campaign does not attract enough
Zoe Oppenheimer / The Spectator
Record: ★★☆☆☆ Though the DNA ticket has shown experience in leadership and civic engagement outside of school, the duo has limited involvement with governance in school affairs.
attention from the junior class, ultimately allowing their strengths—a great platform and strong presentation skills—to go largely unnoticed. The ticket’s inability to engage with the greater junior class is also apparent in its lack of social proposals. While their more tangible proposals would greatly benefit the junior grade, social interaction is more important now than ever before. The ticket does not have any original event ideas and does not explain how it would go about creating a “truly unforgettable” Junior Prom. Caucus events are crucial to
promoting unity and camaraderie among all grade members, and the DNA platform does not have a clear, dynamic plan to address this. We, however, commend the ticket for its emphasis on realistic, innovative digital initiatives. Overall, the DNA ticket’s strengths do not compensate for its lack of experience, minimal campaigning, and absence of dynamic social proposals. Though there are undoubtedly many great aspects of the DNA ticket that would make Lyalin and Abayev effective Junior Caucus leaders, The Spectator does not endorse it.
LEO SMULANSKY AND ETHAN BROVENDER
Brovender and Smulansky, like most candidates, lack any experience in the Student Union or caucus. Their respective leadership over smaller Stuyvesant clubs like the Minecraft Club, however, are more hopeful, especially since many of their policies stem from this involvement. But the lack of specific support for the junior class, especially academically and in light of remote learning, draws greatly from the promise of this ticket. Their disjointed dynamic, unfamiliarity with student government, and rather unrealistic and sometimes even unproductive policies further question their capabilities to lead the Junior Caucus. For specific initiatives, the campaign put focus upon a club exchange program where different clubs would swap leaders, as well as a distanced educational
support club hotline for clubs to receive help as they transition to remote learning. When asked further about how these programs would be put into motion, the two’s answers were unhelpful at best, saying that the hotline would be run by club leaders deemed “successful,” and unproductive at worst, with the club exchange program not having a solid argument on how exchanging leaders for a few days would allow clubs to effectively improve. Their aim to make clubs even more accessible by compiling a description of them into a pamphlet, or a “better” StuyActivities, is unrealistic and unnecessary. Above all, Brovender-Smulansky’s sole emphasis on student organizations may demonstrate a lack of understanding of a caucus’s responsibilities. While their
key point of broadening policies and initiatives to the entire student body is commendable, they are not running for Student Union, nor are they pursuing specific roles in its Clubs and Pubs department. As candidates for Junior Caucus, they lack any specificity toward supporting their grade. They only cite game nights and events, such as “lightning round” Zoom sessions for quickly meeting new people, as junior-specific initiatives, though both can ultimately be applied to the general student body. When asked about how they would support their grade academically in the context of remote instruction, they vaguely replied, “You’ve just got to work with what you got.” The ticket certainly understands the social need for students to reconnect in these circumstances but would have a hard time fulfill-
Record: ★★☆☆☆ While Brovender and Smulansky have some leadership in Stuyvesant clubs and the latter has interned for the city government, they lack experience in the Student Union or caucus and are unfamiliar with their workings. Campaign: ★★☆☆☆ With little to no online presence and clear lack of thorough planning and organization, the ticket has earned a Campaign score of two. Platform: ★★ ☆☆ The Brovender-Smulansky platform certainly stands out from that of other candidates, but not for all the right reasons. Their ideas for improving how clubs are run and organized at Stuyvesant have not been posed by others, but they aren’t productive or realistic enough to implement. Most importantly, they fail to propose any plans for supporting the junior class academically or resource-wise. ing any other responsibilities as caucus leaders. The Brovender-Smulansky ticket runs on the promise of helping Stuyvesant student-run
organizations adapt to a virtual school year, but this is not what the junior class needs in such an unprecedented time. The Spectator does not endorse this ticket.