Conservative students and alumni may be upset upon hearing the announcement of Cory Booker as 2013 convocation speaker.

Booker is mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Notably, he acted as an Obama campaign surrogate during the 2012 re election. During Booker’s first term in office, he was responsible for one of the city’s largest property tax increases: a 8.3% increase. He has appeared in three documentaries, Street Fight, Brick City, and Miss Representation. Currently, he serves on the board of advisers of the PAC “Democrats for Education Reform”. Booker is also a proponent of gun control. In a policy discussion, when asked if he wants to ban guns, he replied “I would, if I had the power to do so, I would.”

Booker received his B.A. in political science and M.A. in sociology from Stanford University. Afterwards, he went on to become a Rhodes Scholar and studied at the University of Oxford and later, Yale Law School.

Smith, right, is the newly-elected Student Assembly President

The wait is over. The Student Assembly Elections Committee announced this morning that Ulysses Smith, ’14, will be the next president of the Assembly.

With the ruling, the Committee has entered unprecedented waters, for the results of the election were swayed by the disqualification of candidate Stephen Breedon. Breedon was charged with violating the Election Rules, and the delay this past week was the result of this challenge and the following appeal process.

With the public release of the Committee’s ruling this morning came reports that Smith had been the one to file the challenge. These reports were confirmed by Smith this afternoon.

“Anytime a candidate feels that another candidate has violated an election rule, he can challenge,” stated Smith.

Per election rules, once Breedon was disqualified, the votes were reallocated to either Smith or Jay Lee, depending on which candidate students selected as their second choice for president. (So apparently there was a reason for us to vote for more than one candidate.)

Smith won with a total of 2227 votes, surpassing Lee’s 2074.

Due to the nature of campaign rules, the student body will never know how the vote tally would have looked had Breedon not been disqualified.

Smith’ challenge noted that Breedon “organized a campaign rally that violated the Code of Conduct on March 4^th at 1:30 PM.”

The challenge accused Breedon and his supporters of using “amplified sound” during the event, giving him an unfair advantage on voting day. Smith provided photographic and video evidence that Breedon and his supporters were using a megaphone during the aforementioned event.

“The Elections Committee recognizes that the Noise Ordinance policy itself is not in the text of the Elections Rules,” the report states. “However, it is very clearly stated in text of the Elections Rules – and was stated in person multiple times – that a violation of any University policy is a violation of Elections Rules.”

In order to find the rule being referred to, one must look through the Student Activity Organizations Handbook Policy on Registration of Events. The rule states that individuals are only allowed to use amplified sound on Ho Plaza between noon and 1 p.m., and only after acquiring the necessary permits. Breedon’s event occurred thirty minutes out of that time frame and lacked permits.

This thirty minute time difference, as well as the fact that Breedon’s event moved away from Ho Plaza for a brief period of time, led to the Committee’s decision that Breedon had an unfair advantage worthy of disqualification.

It has been five days since polls closed in the Student Assembly elections, and no results on the Presidential race have been announced. Latest reports indicate that the Elections committee will announce the winners by Tuesday morning.

This delay comes amidst reports that candidates have been challenged for violating campaign rules. The number of challenges on the table and their severity are currently undisclosed. Such information is confidential, and the Committee and the candidates have kept their lips sealed since word spread Thursday afternoon.

According to Article III, Section D of the campaign rules, any member of the Cornell community may submit a challenge against a candidate for breaking a campaign rule. These rules can range from postering and chalking violations to campaign financing violations. All candidates were required to attend a two-hour information session before the start of campaign season, at which Director of Elections Jon Weinberg shared these rules.

That being said, it has been four days since word of the challenges was shared with the student body. Based upon the strict deadlines publicly outlined in the campaign rules, this suggests that the challenge(s) have advanced to the appeal and reconsideration phases. Again, all details are confidential at this time.

All signs indicate that the Elections Committee will be reconvening tonight to discuss the merit of the appeal(s). This group of seniors will objectively sort through the appeal(s) and, for all intents and purposes, determine the next Student Assembly President tonight.

The Student Assembly has announced the winners of this year’s election. After over a week of campaigning, three days of voting, and a two-day appeal process, the Elections Committee has finalized the majority of the results. However, the Presidential and Undesignated-at-Large winners have not been announced. According to the Elections Committee’s press release, this is due to unresolved challenges that the Committee will continue to address.

“The results of two races, President and Undesignated At-large, are to be released pending the final resolution of challenge(s),” remarked Jon Weinberg, Director of Elections, in the press release. “Challenges occur almost every election and are not out of the ordinary. The pending nature of some races is purely a matter of elections procedure.”

Stay tuned for updates.

THE 2013-2014 STUDENT ASSEMBLY:

(winners are in bold)

Executive Vice President:

• Sarah Balik

Agriculture and Life Sciences:

• Matt Henderson: 403
• Lindsay Wershaw: 391
• Rebecca Harrison: 372
• Kendrick Coq: 343

Architecture, Art, and Planning

• Todd Drucker

• Lisa Liu: 415
• Brandon Thopmson: 350
• Noah Tulsky: 346
• Amkita Naraparaju: 323
• Jacob Glick: 316
• Jin Han Kim: 289
• Stephen Masterson: 251
• Sam Kaplan: 227

• Adrienne Murphy: 196
• Francesco Jimenez: 113
• Pearl Somboonsong: 103
• Jake Michaels: 81

Human Ecology

•  Ian Harris

• Matthew Stafanko: 234
• Spencer Nord: 159

• Enrico Bonatti

• Juliana Batista: 2353
• Nicole Rosario: 1281

•  George Ruizcalderon

Breedon with Touchdown the Bear

The time has come to cast your vote in the Student Assembly election! Polls opened at 8am this morning, and Cornell students were immediately bombarded with Facebook messages and emails encouraging them to vote. At every position, candidates are looking to make the lasting impact that will compel students to click their names when students submit the online ballot.

For President, Stephen Breedon began publicizing last night a “surprise” on Ho Plaza at 1:30PM today. Rumors were that the Breedon team was planning a surprise campaign rally around campus, in order to demonstrate how Breedon is the most effective candidate for bridging communities. The rumors turned out to be true, and this afternoon’s parade featured a guest appearance from Touchdown the Bear. Meanwhile, Ulysses Smith released a video online titled “No Excuses,” in which he addresses many of the University’s “problems” that he looks to solve next year. Jay Lee also broke his silence (kind of) with a video Pulp Fiction parody. In the video, Lee can be seen briefly in the background and does not have a speaking role. After declining offers to participate in the three Presidential debates last week, this cameo was Lee’s most public appearance of the campaign season.

In the race for Executive Vice President, Melissa Lukasiewicz received a big boost this morning when she was featured as the Sun‘s lone endorsement of the election. “We believe [Melissa] can offer the best balance between advocacy and internal management of the S.A.” declared the Sun‘s new editorial board, which was also announced this morning.

While the President and Executive Vice President elections have garnered much of the attention this campaign season, other key seats on the Student Assembly will be filled in this week’s election. Many positions will be occupied by new faces, and, more importantly, these open slots could potentially play a significant role in the Assembly’s endeavors next year.

It was this time last year that Ulysses Smith and Stephen Breedon were elected to the Assembly with 118 and 229 votes, respectively. After being internally elected to their respective Vice President positions, both had more substantial experience to run upon. Their former seats will be occupied by new faces this spring.

The College of Arts and Sciences will see new representatives this year, as two of last year’s winners shoot for the Executive Vice President seat. Eight students are currently running for the three available seats. Candidate Brandon Thompson has included a firm stance against the potential Social Justice Requirement in his platform. (CALS candidate Matt Henderson has also taken a stance against the Requirement.)

The seat of Representative Peter Scelfo (Undesignated-at-Large) is also up for grabs. Scelfo will be participating in a credit internship for one semester next year, and is barred from running for re-election. Infamous for his ELF campaign freshman year, Scelfo served on the Assembly for two years. During his tenure, he was often the lone voice attempting to curb the growth of the SA, including the Gender-Neutral Housing Resolution.

These new faces could be tapped for leadership opportunities in the Student Assembly’s internal elections this spring.

Other players on this year’s Assembly are not seeking reelection, amidst rumors that they are eyeing a run in the Student Trustee election. Campaigning for that election will begin in a few weeks.

Tonight was the first political debate that I have had the privilege of moderating. As many on campus call for increased student engagement, it was great to be part of that discussion tonight.

The Cornell Review and Class Councils co-sponsored the debate between two Student Assembly presidential candidates, Stephen Breedon and Ulysses Smith. In the debate titled “The Role of the Student Assembly,” the candidates addressed questions regarding the Assembly’s place on campus, relevant campus issues, and their individual platforms.

Moderating part of the debate was a great experience, and one can only hopes that the campus will benefit from an increased discussion between the candidates that hope to set the tone for next year’s Assembly. It is important for students to know who & what they are voting for, in order to hold their representatives accountable as they call upon them to represent students’ rights at the table with the administration.

Cornell students did not have the opportunity to take part in such a debate last year, as the Assembly candidacy race for president was uncontested.

This year, the student body benefited from having three debates between the presidential candidates. Breedon and Smith fielded questions from ALANA on Saturday, the Student Assembly on Tuesday, and the Cornell Review tonight. This was the first time in Assembly history that there were three presidential debates.

Other Assembly races have also seen more transparency this year, as the individual colleges held forums for candidates to discuss platforms with their constituencies. Although early reports suggest that these forums saw minimal attendance, it is a step in the right direction – a direction in which students and the media hold Assembly members accountable.

The Student Assembly Debate, sponsored by the Cornell Review, will ask each of the incumbents questions regarding their positions and goals.  The hope is to stir some controversy and differentiate each of the candidate’s positions. The members are Ulysses Smith and Stephen Breedon Stay tuned, as there will be a live-blog for all the action.

5:07 PM: The introduction of the debate is explaining who is participating and what the Cornell Review is.  ”We are halfway through campaign week.”  The rules of the debate are meant to engage as much debate as possible.  There will be opening statements by both Candidates.  The incumbents attending are Ulysses Smith and Stephen Breedon.  Stephen will Start.

5:10 PM: Stephen is explaining his platform.  He wants safer walks home and making more unbiased byline funding.  He also wants to tighten the communities of Cornell.  He as mentioned his personal characteristics as well.  He is an African American and part of the Greek system.  In his words, he is “your champion  and will “put students back in student government.” 

Ulysses has been apart of SA for 5 years now.  He wants to express the needs of the community in general.  He believes the mission of the SA is to represent all students and their voice.  But he doesn’t think we have done that.  He wants to bridge the community and tied his work with “diversity” to prove his credentials.  He wants to send the message to the Assembly and wants to make sure the SA actually does something.

5:15 PM: Ulysses says that SA is meant to share the voice of the diverse community.  He clearly wants more interaction with the student body, so that the SA can do more.  He brings up the fact that his opponent has not done enough reaching out to the student body.  Clearly being critical.

Breedon responds with how incorrect Ulysses has been.  He says that the goal of SA is to pass important resolutions.  He wants to make student government more proactive but also effective.  His speech is about focusing the SA to meet the students’ interest.  It seems both members are very similar in their goals.

5:20 PM: They both mention that student involvement does not have to be limited to specific official channels.  Both people have quoted their records to differentiate themselves.  But Breedon wants more proactive measures to make the SA have more “on the ground” efforts.

5:23 PM: How they conduct the meetings is the next issue.  Breedon has said he wants effective, but selective, participation.  Ulysses wants the SA to empower individuals to get more involved during the meetings.  Ulysses says that he won’t talk in circles.

5:25 PM: For some reason people keep snapping.  Its kinda weird.

5:27 PM: Ulysses has been very critical now.  He claims that Breedon has focused more on his campaign then his constituents.  Ulysses wants to be more representative a member. Breedon responds with the fact that he has relevant experience and has done the best of his job.  He has left it ambiguous as to  how well Ulysses has done.  Ulysses responded with the fact that the recent legislation that he has pushed is relevant.

5:30 PM: Ulysses would entertain diversity measures in regards to academics but SA has no authority in this manner.  The debate has changed from the role of SA to specific issues about students.  Ulysses has pushed the diversity initiative onto the colleges to downplay any of his action.

5:32 PM: Both members have said that all they have done is entertain diversity options.  They both need more student input.  But like Ulysses, they have not given a real stance on this issue.  They both claim they would only take on this issue if more people join in.

5:34 PM: There are a lot of statements like “I believe it in principle not in practice” from Breedon.  He believes in diversity but not some of the specific measures?  Ulysses seems to agree, but thinks specific diversity measures are necessary though not optimal.

5:36 PM: “Diversity does not mean equal minority.”  According to Ulysses its about engagement?

5:39 PM: Ulysses thinks that the administration has not done enough to communicate effectively their programs to SA.  Ulysses wants to bring a administrative consultation to increase the conversation of SA agenda.

Breedon responds that academic change is a long process.  He wants to put in student input into the Diversity council that deals with the administration.  But he qualifies that any changes in academics wont be visible so we should go through channels that are already being developed.

5:43 PM: Ulysses believes that the students can create changes, sometimes even overnight.  It is a more progressive ideology.

5:44 PM: Breedon thinks that academic changes take a long time.  Such as changing courses required.

5:47 PM: Ulysses wants to make a more transparent process for byline funding.  He wants to set a standard set of criteria in which people evaluate appeals for funding.  Ulysses thinks the SA pre-determines parts of the funding process.

Breedon states his position.  He has been apart of the funding decision.  He says that his experience with different programs and thus can better relate to appeals.  He believes he can be more objective than his opponent when creating protocol.  He wants to create more transparency within all parts of the byline funding process in SA.  Their positions are very similar.

4:48 PM: Breedon is really focusing on his relevant experience.  Ulysses, though he has not served on appropriations committee, has been in the process for three years.  Ulysses has been apart of the appeals process as well.

4:51 PM:  The conversation switches to the candidates’ platforms. Ulysses thinks Breedon is only focusing on trendy topics.  Instead, Ulysses has issues that have more general policy goals.  He wants the other members of SA to come up with specific policies.  This suggests a more passive role as President.  He claims to be the ultimate representative.

Breedon responds.  He has chosen issues that benefit every student on campus and are very important.  He claims that these issues come back each year.

5:53 PM: Both want to create accountability but Ulysses thinks the committees do a decent job, but that SA can do more.

5:56 PM: The moderators field questions from the audience. The first asks what their biggest failures have been this year and how they will correct that next year.

Ulysses’ biggest failure last year, according to him, is that he hasn’t engage the students enough.  He has passed a lot of resolutions, but he thinks the legislation could have been more relevant to students.  This is what he is looking to change next year.

Breedon also thinks he failed in connecting to students.  He doesn’t think he got to show enough people what SA is doing.  His recent activities, however, are improvements in this failing.

Both candidates gave a typical politicians response.

5:59: Conversely, Breedon’s greatest strength is building strong bonds to students.  In regards to Ulysses, he thinks that SA wont get one voice but rather a multitude of voices.  Ulysses strength seems to be garnering a diverse voice on SA.

6:05 PM: Ulysses’s closing statement:  Ulysses has great experience.  He doesn’t deny Breedon’s character but claims to have been more productive in regards to his credentials.  Ulysses claims that he puts students first and has a strong diverse group of allegiance.  He is all about putting diversity first in the SA.  Of course, he doesn’t like selling himself, which is probably a response to Breedon’s campaign.

Breedon’s closing statement:  Breedon has more experience in representing people on the ground and representing people.  Like Ulysses, he is here to represent a diverse group of people.  Its not just about his platform but pushing the students initiatives.  He wants to put initiatives that affect everyone.  He wants you to believe in Breedon.

With reference to the Campus Liberty Project’s campaign against a proposed mandatory Social Justice Requirement at Cornell, here are 10 compelling arguments to sign the petition:

1. People who are interested in the concept of social justice have plenty of classes to choose from across departments ranging from philosophy to economics. There is no need for any compulsory general requirement. 
2. What is Social Justice? Who gets to define it? One of the definitions I received from an advocate of the new requirement was this: ” When a society is committed to the pursuit of fairness, redress of grievances, inclusion, human rights and humanism.” But something seems wrong when to define one loaded word, one has to use five more loaded words. Besides, if freedom is seen as an integral component of justice, then it is an inherent contradiction to force students to take a course.
3. Social Justice should not be interpreted as political correctness. It should not degenerate to silence on controversial issues. The idea of justice is itself complex and dates back to Plato who defined it as the harmonious reconciliation of different parts of the whole.
4. The SJ requirement is reactionary in the sense that it rests on the presumption that prejudice is simply a product of ignorance and that people can be forced to overcome their deep seated beliefs by mandating a class. Searching for an instant solution to “hate crimes” should itself be seen as simplistic and unfair.
5. What are the actual logistics of this class? Who would teach it and in what department? Would it be big enough to accommodate the entire student population? Would colleges be allowed to design their own social justice curriculum? How would it affect inter-college relations within the University?
6. If the central purpose of education is to enable people to engage in free and critical thinking, what impact would such a requirement have on their analytical abilities?
7. Technical proficiency and academic success are often compatible with the existence of bias. How would coursework allow people to overcome the perceived social problems on Cornell Campus?
8. There is a crucial difference between other science and liberal arts requirements and a specific SJ requirement. Other general requirements still allow students to choose their courses of interest. But the SJ requirement would be a direct attack on the students’ choice in designing their own unique academic experience.
9. It would hurt those who are really interested in exploring the concept of social justice. Do you want to be in a class full of people sighing and complaining while you’re actually interested in the material? A class where the vast majority of people happen to be there because they couldn’t do otherwise would descend into boredom and drudgery.
10. It should be seen as another attempt to replace personal responsibility with bureaucratic administration. People would be absolved of their responsibility to select courses because some of those decisions would have already been made for them by those in the positions of authority.

Recently the Student Assembly proposed a social justice requirement for all colleges to adopt at Cornell.  This proposal would either require an additional course or replace an existing course with a class on social justice.  Why is this bad? First off, additional requirements increase the burdens on every student.  Imagine having to take another course that is completely irrelevant to your major or interests.  However, the more disturbing reason is that Student Assembly is purposefully or inadvertently forcing their liberal ideology on students.  The fact of the matter is that social justice is a highly controversial philosophical argument, not an objective truth.  Many scholars and conservative thinkers alike even argue social justice does not even exist.  So why should Cornell students be forced to learn about a biased liberal ideology?  Because the Student Assembly in their “infinite wisdom” thinks it is appropriate to socialize students into their own beliefs. While most of the Student Assembly seems to believe that the Cornell administration should force students to accept social justice, many students are acting against this biased agenda.  A petition is currently in circulation to oppose such an intrusive requirement.  This petition is meant to counter act the clearly isolated and radical members of the Student Assembly by highlighting dissenting opinions of such an action.  By presenting the administration with a petition signed by the student population, Cornell students can directly voice their opinion against an out of touch student body. It’s time to stand up and voice your opinion.

The Petition can be found on iPetition.com.