Print Edition of the Student Government Insider of The Observer for Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The independent

To uncover

newspaper serving

the truth

Notre Dame and

and report

Saint Mary’s

it accurately

IN FOCUS thursday, february 7, 2017 | ndsmcobserver.com

Photo Illustration by Lindsey Meyers and Michael Yu

2

IN Focus

The observer | tuesday, february 7, 2017 | ndsmcobserver.com

Becca Blais — Sibonay Shewit Who they are: Student body presidential candidate Becca Blais, a junior political science major with a minor in peace studies, currently serves as the student body vice president. In the past, she served on Judicial Council during her freshman year and was director of Internal Affairs on the Ricketts-Ruelas executive cabinet. A resident of Farley Hall and hailing from New Smyrna Beach, Florida, during her time as student body vice president Blais has previously focused on issues such as sexual assault and diversity and inclusion.

Sibonay Shewit, Blais’ running mate, is a junior from Northern Virginia with majors in IT management and political science. A resident of Welsh Family Hall, she became involved with student government during her freshman year as a FUEL member. She also served as secretary and chief of staff for the Ricketts-Ruelas administration.

Top Priority: Expanding sexual assault resources and prevention methods Blais emphasized the ticket’s plan for the implementation of Callisto, an online platform where students can report time-stamped information of a sexual assault. If a perpetrator’s name appears by more than one person, the information automatically goes to the Title IX

coordinator. Blais and Shewit both commented on plans to work with NDSP to allow swipe access to campus buildings at night as well as a way to key a code, 5555, into the number pads that would immediately alert NDSP of an emergency.

Best Idea: Hiring a third diversity and inclusion officer that focuses specifically on student needs Blais cited the fact that there were two diversity and inclusion officers that oversaw faculty and staff, but had spoken with Eric Love, director of staff diversity and inclusion, and confirmed the possibility of hiring a diversity and inclusion officer specifically for students.

Improving and adding on to diversity and inclusion resources that the University currently provides is a main pillar of Blais and Shewit’s ticket. Other ideas include protecting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and undocumented students by connecting them with CUSE and the Career Center to make sure they have equal resources, working with SUB to bring in diverse performers and hosting a diversity-focused film festival.

Worst Idea: Organizing an “ND, I screwed up” speaker event Blais and Shewit plan on organizing this event featuring

administrators, alumni and students perceived as “perfect” to share a time they made a mistake and how they overcame it.

While well intentioned, bringing in successful people to share stories about “one time” they were imperfect seems less relatable or comforting, but rather, like an effort to reassure students who are already aware of the fact that no one is perfect.

Taking comfort in the failure of those deemed successful hardly seems productive or healthy.

Most Feasible: “Flipping the model” and interacting more with the student body for ideas Blais and Shewit referred to “flipping the model” as increased involvement with student groups and considering their input when making new policies. Blais said she hopes to have a couple members of her team go and speak to different groups on campus at least once a week. “To a very large extent it’s a complete flip,” Blais said.

“Some of the best ideas we got came from this.” Blais said the best ideas come from meeting with dorms and student groups and not from student government remaining isolated in their LaFortune office. She said because of the consistent flow of new ideas, her ticket works on a live platform and her team constantly updates it with input from groups that they deem

possible and beneficial to the campus as a whole. Shewit said student government listens to the student body and attempts to solve the problems that they identify. “We want to make it student-first and studentcentered as much as we can,” Shewit said.

Least Feasible: Ensuring all campus buildings are handicap accessible by Spring and Summer 2017 On their platform, Blais and Shewit state their goal of ensuring that “all campus buildings are handicap accessible, and fight for necessary changes to those that are not.” They listed the deadline for reaching this goal for spring and summer of 2017. Last year, The Observer did a series on disability and spoke with university architect Doug Marsh, who said Notre Dame had over 100 buildings built before 1992 whose barriers were grandfathered in and posed complexities when making completely handicap accessible. When The Observer asked the ticket about the feasibility of their goal and the impossibility of making every dorm handicap accessible, Blais backtracked.

“Unfortunately, not every single dorm … is exactly 100 percent handicap accessible,” Blais said.

“A lot of the things in our platform again are being updated so that’s something we need to adjust accordingly. Instead of

saying push to make 100 percent of them handicap accessible, we should say push to make sure all the ones that are handicap accessible are to the fullest extent and continue to expand that reach.” As of Monday night, Blais and Shewit’s “living” platform still stated their intention to make all campus buildings 100 percent handicap accessible.

Bottom Line: Prioritizing diversity and increasing resources of support for students Blais and Shewit understand the need for improving upon and creating more resources for students, especially in the areas of diversity and inclusion and sexual assault support and prevention. Due to Blais’ previous experience, the proper connections to University administrators have already been constructed, and the ticket could hit the ground running immediately if elected.

Although several ideas on their platform seem far-fetched, the ideas that are more feasible, centered around student safety and inclusion, hold potential of success and are centered around the students. Blais’ established connections combined with her emphasis on a dedication to listening and enacting student ideas could ensure that the administration hears an accurate representation of the student body’s thoughts and opinions.

LINDSEY MEYERS | The Observer

IN Focus

ndsmcobserver.com | tuesday, february 7, 2017 | The Observer

3

Rohit Fonseca — Daniela Narimatsu Who they are : Junior Rohit Fonseca, the presidential candidate, is an international economics major concentrating in Spanish and a Fisher Hall resident.

He has lived in eight states and spent two years living abroad. Fonseca was student government’s first director of health and wellness, and served as the director of social concerns. He is also a campus tour guide and member of the Knights of Columbus, and he volunteers at the Robinson Community Learning Center.

The vice-presidential candidate, junior Daniela Narimatsu, is studying IT management and political science. She is a Howard Hall resident — and its current vice president — and hails from Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Narimatsu has also served as the director of social concerns for student government and sat on the advisor y committee for student climate related to race and ethnicity.

Top priority: Creating platforms for “civil discourse” on campus Fonseca said the top priority for the upcoming year is to foster an environment for discourse on campus through two programs: Irish Connection and RouND Tables. Irish Connection intends to bring two or more

groups, clubs or organizations that don’t share much in common to an activity, such as a dinner, game, campus event or social service to build relationships between people who might not otherwise know each other.

RouND Tables is the ticket’s answer to the need for civil discourse on campus, centered around topics that are Notre Dame-specific, such as parietals and whether President Donald Trump should be invited to speak at Commencement.

Best idea: Focusing on mental health W hile Fonseca and Narimatsu do not offer up new or significantly changed programming to draw attention to mental health, their plan to emphasize, underline and expand existing resources is both well-focused and highly reasonable. Their intention to continue partnering with Active Minds for Irish State of Mind and Irish Peace of Mind is expected but still important and their plans to better advertise the McDonald Center for Student Wellness Center could benefit students by alerting them of a perhaps underutilized resource. Finally, expanding on the anony mous testimony project Fonseca implemented during his time as the first director of health

and wellness is a highly v isible platform to encourage dialogue regarding mental health and the issues confronted by students on a daily basis.

Worst idea : Feminine hygiene product boxes Fonseca and Narimatsu’s plan to prov ide access to necessar y feminine hygiene products may seem commendable — at least on the surface — but it should be stressed that the ticket does not intend for student government to be prov iding the products. Rather, “sharing boxes” would be placed in female public restrooms across campus and students would be encouraged to leave any “spare products” inside in case another student has an emergency situation. W hile clearly well intentioned, the plan does not require the inter vention of student government in any way and they offered no way to incentiv ize students to donate their ow n products, which can be expensive, especially if purchased on campus. Most students, additionally, do not consider the products they don’t need at a particular moment as “extra” — they tend to carr y a few in case of their ow n emergencies and, as the products have no expiration date, simply keep any

leftovers for their next cycle.

Most feasible : Building on the University’s spiritual life The ticket’s plans to expand upon the Universit y’s sprawling spiritual life is unique and comes off as extremely simple and easy to implement. Fonseca plans to have a brief prayer w ith students followed by breakfast in front of O’Shaughnessy Hall each and ever y Monday morning. As a Catholic institution, it can be assumed that at least some students would be interested in participating in the week ly events, coordinated w ith the Department of Health and Wellness and the Campus Ministr y representative.

Least feasible : Broadening Grab ‘N’ Go locations Fonseca and Narimatsu’s plans to address Campus Dining consists of t wo highly feasible projects — encouraging the dining halls to continue to offer late lunch hours, and improv ing allerg y and dietar y labeling in the dining halls — and a third, highly infeasible plan to broaden the locations where students can pick up Grab ‘N’ Go meals. Working w ith Campus Dining can be a ver y slow process and, as the suggest locations

— the Huddle, Waddicks, a la Descartes and Cafe Commons — function to create their ow n revenue, it is highly unlikely that such venues would be in favor of the plan. Additionally, w ith t wo Grab ‘N’ Go locations already on campus, there does not seem to be as much of a need for this ser v ice as their other suggestions.

Bottom Line : Maintaining the status quo W hile Fonseca and Narimatsu bring a different kind of student government experience to the table against the other ticket and most of their platform appears to be highly achievable, ver y little of what they propose is truly progress.

Much of the platform focuses on reiterating the availabilit y of already-ex isting resources — both in and out of student government — and continuing relationships that student government already has. In particular, their lack of a plan to further address sexual assault on campus beyond what programming is already offered is disheartening.

W hile maintaining the ser v ices currently offered is realistically attainable and better than regressing, the hope of ever y election is to improve upon what already ex ists.

Candidates debate issues and initiatives

By LUCAS MASIN-MOYER News Writer

As Wednesday’s election for student body president and vice president rapidly approaches, the candidates were given their first and only chance to debate their platforms against one another Monday night. In the Carey Auditorium of the Hesburgh Library, student body presidential candidate — and current student body vice president — Becca Blais and her running mate, Sibonay Shewit, faced off against the opposing ticket of presidential candidate Rohit Fonseca and his running mate, Daniela Narimatsu, to begin the final push for votes before the election.

The candidates began the debate by discussing why they chose to run for office.

“When we decided to run for student government, we had one thing in mind — you guys, the students, our classmates, our friends, the people who mean the most to us and the Notre Dame family,” Fonseca said. “We have very different life experiences that we bring to the table, but you will find us united in our passion for Notre Dame.”

Blais said one of the key issues that motivated her to run was reforming sexual assault procedures, prompted by an experience at a sexual assault prevention meeting.

Both tickets had plans to tackle sexual assault. Fonseca and Narimatsu advocated for presenting anonymous testimonies to the student body via displays in the dining halls, an initiative that Fonseca had spearheaded in regards to mental health during his tenure as director of health and wellness for student government.

“You kind of understand that these people you walk by everyday ... might be dealing with sexual assault, might be dealing with domestic abuse, might be dealing with serious life issues that we pretend don’t exist here in our perfectionist culture here at Notre Dame,” Fonseca said.

One of the key policies Blais and Shewit said they hoped to enact in regards to sexual assault is the use of the sexual assault recording software Callisto. The software aims to “provides survivors with a confidential and secure way to create a time-stamped record of an assault, learn about reporting options and

support resources, or report electronically to campus authorities. It [als] gives survivors the option to report their assault only if someone else names the same assailant,” according to the software’s website.

“SpeakupND is a great reporting software for harassment; Callisto is an online software for sexual assault,” she said. “The unique thing about Callisto is that you can put in all of your information when it happens.”

Blais said the current system did not go far enough and more steps needed to be taken to prevent sexual assault. “[Sexual assault victims] are your classmates, those are your dormmates — those are your friends,” she said.

However, Fonseca argued that the technology already used by the University ought to be kept in place.

“We want to push what we already have,” he said. “We don’t need any new technology for online reporting of sexual assault. We already have speakup.nd.edu and we’re going to make that known.”

The candidates also discussed issues relating to inclusion and diversity on Notre Dame’s campus.

Narimatsu said one way to help students that feel left out, especially non-Catholics, become a part of the community is through service.

“It is really hard for [nonreligious] first years trying to navigate within the culture of Notre Dame and [be included]; we think service is going to be a part of that,” she said.

Fonseca added that another one of their campaign’s initiatives — a campus-wide prayer service — was also aimed at bringing students together.

The prayer would be held on Monday mornings to “start the week off right,” he said.

Shewit said in order to bring students together, greater dialogue about diversity and inclusion was necessary.

“We want students to know that it’s okay to celebrate their differences and talk about them and to ask questions about other students and their own celebrations and uniqueness,” she said.

“We want to foster a place where these conversations can happen.”

The candidates then transitioned to issues relating to greater student health.

Blais and Shewit said they wanted to provide free STD and STI testing and rape kit

testing to St. Liam’s. The duo also wants to bring in the JED Foundation — an organization that evaluates schools’ mental health programs in order to improve the programs — to help streamline the University Health Services’ care.

Fonseca said improving student health was important but that some of Blais and Shewit’s proposals weren’t feasible.

“We know that there are some things that we need to be realistic about,” Fonseca said. “We have talked directly to a director in St. Liam’s who says that it is impossible — not that it’s her opinion or she thinks that it’s impossible — it is impossible to get free STD and STI testing within a year.”

Blais said being told something is impossible isn’t the end.

“Sometimes when you hear that something is impossible, try anyway,” she said. “We were once told that a peer support group was impossible, yet we launched the firstever sexual assault survivors support group last fall.”

Contact Lucas Masin-Moyer at lmasinmo@nd.edu

4

IN Focus

The observer | tuesday, february 7, 2017 | ndsmcobserver.com

The Observer endorses Blais-Shewit W hen polls open Wednesday morning, the Notre Dame student body will be faced with a difficult decision between two highly qualified student government tickets — juniors Becca Blais and Sibonay Shewit and juniors Rohit Fonseca and Daniela Narimatsu. Both teams developed thoughtful and considerate platforms that addressed the concerns and needs of the student body.

The Observer Editorial Board interviewed each ticket over the weekend and — having considered the priorities and plans of each ticket — voted to endorse Blais-Shewit.

The Blais-Shewit platform dreams big — perhaps too big at points — but overall has done an excellent job of assessing the current needs of the Notre Dame student body. Their commitment to the notion of “f lipping the model” of student government — that is, bringing student government to the students instead of requiring students to come to student government with their concerns — is clear, as much of their platform is derived from ideas they have received from the student body itself. They pledge to “represent every student,” and while this sometimes leads to too many unattainable ideas, they demonstrate a passion for understanding the student body. The Blais-Shewit ticket also boasts a remarkable and prominent amount of student government experience — particularly as Blais currently serves as student body vice president and Shewit served as secretary and later chief of staff for the RickettsRuelas administration — and it is evident they have a concrete grasp on its inner workings. The focus on clear and tangible goals is a large part of what makes the Blais-Shewit ticket stand out, and while the two have ambitious plans for the coming year, the fact that they have a wide range of well-defined and formulated ideas is encouraging.

However, our endorsement comes with several reservations about the ticket. W hile Blais and Shewit have a thorough platform addressing the varied needs of the student body, we have some concerns about its feasibility. Although most individual items on the ticket’s platform are achievable in their own right, the more than 100

individual goals Blais and Shewit put forward on their platform present perhaps too gargantuan a task to accomplish in one term. We are concerned the team may be taking on too much, which could distract and detract from some of their larger goals. More to the point, we fear this ambition could lead to should-be achievable objectives failing due to resources being spread too thin.

Additionally, some ideas on the Blais-Shewit platform — for example, “ensuring all campus buildings are 100 percent handicap accessible, and fight for necessary changes for those that are not” — are simply not attainable. Last spring, The Observer found nearly half of all dorms on campus were not wheelchair accessible, and fixing all of them would require significant funding and construction to add elevators and ramps.

Likewise, decreasing the number of tests given between Thanksgiving and finals week, and extending Flex Points to Eddy Street stores seem both unlikely and beyond the scope of what student government can reasonably achieve. W hile we appreciate the ticket’s attempt to address a wide variety of issues, we found the scope of the ticket’s platform misleading in terms of what they could realistically expect to accomplish.

A few ideas have also made a repeat appearance from Blais’s campaign last year with current student body president Corey Robinson, leading us to question why they weren’t achieved this year and whether it is feasible to achieve them in the coming year. Specifically, part of Blais’ platform last year focused especially on getting Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) in St. Liam’s. However, it has yet to be achieved and has landed back on the Blais-Shewit agenda this year. W hile Robinson and Blais made progress on implementing this initiative in the past year, we still have doubts about whether it will come to fruition this time around.

On the other hand, the Fonseca-Narimatsu ticket takes the opposite approach of focusing almost exclusively on what they can reasonably hope to accomplish in one year with existing resources and shying away from offering many new ideas — ultimately limiting themselves in their goals and plans. For example, in addressing sexual assault — a key issue on campus — they failed to provide any new ideas to tackle the problem, and pledged to work with the University to make public the

results of the Campus Climate Survey — results which are already made public. Other initiatives put forward by the ticket focus solely on education about available resources, which is certainly helpful, but left us wondering what more could be done.

We did appreciate the team’s commitment to improving mental health awareness on campus: Their plans to work with the McDonald Center for Student Well-Being and to promote Irish State of Mind Week demonstrated a dedication to the mental health of the student body, an issue we take seriously. Further, their combined experience throughout a variety of student government committees and other organizations is an asset to their understanding of the Notre Dame student body, but we felt it did not stack up against that of the Blais-Shewit ticket.

W hile the Fonseca-Narimatsu ticket proposes an interesting idea with the concept of RouND Tables — a regular campus event giving students from different perspectives and groups a forum to discuss divisive tops — we had concerns about both its implementation and the ultimate goal.

The plan as is does not address how the ticket plans to attract active participants, particularly those who are not already politically active and vocal on campus, and a large-group discussion may not be the best forum for discussing some of the issues they had in mind.

Finally, we also took notice of each ticket’s priorities. Blais and Shewit made it clear both in their platform and the student body debate Monday night that sexual assault and student safety are their primary concerns, whereas Fonseca and Narimatsu, though they do address both safety and sexual assault in their platforms, chose the need for civil discourse as the campaign’s primary pillar. W hile we as a newspaper staff appreciate the need for civil discourse as well, we consider student safety and sexual assault issues that need immediate attention and focus.

So, despite our reservations, the Editorial Board felt most of Blais and Shewit’s ideas were sound, pertinent and likely to have a positive impact on the student body. Furthermore, the Blais-Shewit ticket attempts to truly make progress on issues that matter to students, instead of just accepting things as they are.

LINDSEY MEYERS | The Observer