Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor
Forget about Bernie and Warren, this week’s hottest debate concerned the upcoming SBA 2020-2021 elections. The election for SBA Treasurer features a cross-class battle between Josh Short ’21 and Chance Maginness ’22, both of whom were unfortunately unable to attend Tuesday afternoon’s debate. In prepared statements read by the moderator, Will Palmer ’21, Short emphasized his appreciation for the UVA Law community and desire to give back, while Maginness wrote of his intentions to prioritize the budget and his experience dating back to his undergraduate years.
The main event of the afternoon, however, was the debate between SBA presidential candidates Katharine Janes ’21 and Daniel Seidita ’21. In a nutshell, it came down to whether institutional experience and knowledge trump the fresh eyes and energy of an outsider with admittedly little experience in SBA. Seidita’s platform turns on the idea that such an outsider is necessary to invigorate and provide transparency to what many view as an inaccessible SBA—one that, according to Seidita, erroneously told him he could not run for President due to the bylaws. He called for a greater SBA social media presence to effectively reach students and hear their concerns, while emphasizing that his free time would enable him to devote himself entirely to his potential presidency.
Janes, on the other hand, is a student government veteran, previously serving on FYC in her 1L year and currently serving as SBA Secretary. Her platform turns on her experience in and passion for student government, dating back to her undergraduate years. She highlighted the experience of organizing large events such as Foxfield and Fauxfield, working to help form new student organizations like Heartland ’Hoos, and launching initiatives like the Roots lunch delivery service and Diversity Week as key experiential facets from her time on SBA that would allow her to succeed as President.
When it came to the most pressing issues facing the student body, Seidita asserted the perceived lack of transparency and accessibility that many students feel toward SBA—specifically the notion that if one misses the FYC train in the first days of 1L, then he or she has permanently missed the option to get involved in student government. He seeks to rewrite this narrative through his presidency, relying on his outgoing and approachable demeanor, as well as direct social media outreach strategies, to rid the student body of its apathy toward the SBA’s bureaucratic processes and to encourage the possibility of actual change.
Janes agreed that transparency may be an issue, but countered that SBA features feedback forms at the bottom of every email, analyzes transition documents for each event from year to year to see what can be improved, and that the minutes to every weekly SBA meeting are published and provided to students in emails as well. She further addressed the inaccessibility issue by pointing toward the existence of SBA office hours, freedom of students to attend meetings, and the general approachability of herself and other executive members. Notwithstanding, Seidita asserts that more direct and effective student involvement and outreach is still needed, something a social media presence on Instagram or another more popular platform besides Facebook and emails could provide. Janes then opined that class unity, particularly the potential alienation that 1Ls feel with the rest of the community, is a more pressing issue—another issue that Seidita believes could be remedied with more direct outreach and publicization of events like SBA Socials.
Student social events also proved to be another hot button issue, from the busing at Foxfield to the steep price and scarcity of Barrister’s tickets. Seidita would combat these issues with better organization and communication, calling for bigger buses and immediate feedback after the events to voice concerns. He also would see a decrease in the cost of non-drinking tickets and a rise in the price of drinking ones to encourage students to buy the former, along with a search for a bigger venue to accommodate more students, though he knows Charlottesville provides limited options. Indeed, Janes urged students not to underestimate the effort that goes into these events, citing the inside logistical struggles of hiring big enough buses in advance and the balancing act of finding a venue and agreeable price point: “Ticket pricing is done per head by the venue beforehand, so SBA is already discounting non-drinking tickets and operating at a loss each time one is sold. Capacity this year at Barrister’s was also pigeonholed since there’s only so many spaces that we can use while taking into account price [the Boar’s Head is too pricey] and risk of being prevented from future usage [the Omni has previously revoked PILA’s ability to use the venue based on rowdy Barrister’s behavior].”
The debate became candid when an array of questions from the audience were taken. Seidita was directly asked to respond to his lack of experience in student government and whether he had spoken with any former presidents or current president, Jasmine Lee ’20, about what the role and responsibilities of SBA president exactly entailed. He admitted he had not, but was undeterred by this and confident in his assertions that an outsider with a fresh set of eyes could energize and inspire more participation with students when it comes to SBA and its events. Janes, too, faced some heat as she was directly asked about the accessibility of student government and whether she thought she would be running were it not for being elected to FYC during her 1L, running unopposed for her current position as Secretary, and Lee being her 1L PA. Janes confidently replied in the affirmative, pointing to her undergraduate student government record as proof that she would want to run regardless and attesting that Lee is as open and accessible to her as to anyone. Janes also spoke of the perceived lack of accessibility as a “sad rhetoric” and less an issue of accessibility and more an issue of letting students know the methods through which accessibility already exists.
All in all, both candidates are clearly passionate and eager to improve UVA Law for the student body. “I want to ensure every student and faculty member walks into the school each morning with the same stupid grin on their face as I do every day,” Seidita said, in response to a question about why he is running. Janes, too, emphasized that she wants everyone to have a place here and that she believes she can facilitate it via her experience. She also recognized and appreciated the energy and interest that Seidita and a contested election has brought to the student body and their relationship to SBA. She reminded students that the election is not a zero-sum game and that SBA can and will incorporate ideas and suggestions that best serve the student body, be them new social media outreach strategies or others. The debate ended with a friendly hug between the candidates, underscoring their respect and collegiality toward one another in what is shaping up to be an exciting election.
Voting opens Saturday, February 22, and will remain open until Tuesday, February 25, at 11:59 p.m.
---
bes4cf@virginia.edu