On Monday, the three presidential candidates for the Modesto Maidique Campus’ Student Government Council met in the Graham Center for a debate,which had been scheduled with its moderators—The Beacon’s Editor in Chief Alexandra Camejo and the MMC Elections Commissioner Alessa Torres—at least one week in advance.
Just as the debate kicked off, presidential candidate Laura Farinas, avoiding the first question, said that she wanted to share the definition of the word, “partisan” (a demonstration of bias), from her iPad.
She and presidential candidate Samir Patel went on to agree that, given The Beacon’s April 2 recommendation of the Sanjeev Udhnani and Connor Mautner ticket, neither of them felt comfortable answering questions from a biased moderator; namely Camejo. Leaving the room abruptly, Patel and Farinas, along with their respective running mates Andres Wu and Alex Castro, held a question-and-answer session outside of G.C.—mostly to a crowd of supporters (as evidenced by their t-shirt endorsements).
While one could recognize the candidates’ concern about Camejo’s participation, we feel that communication—an aspect of governing both Farinas and Patel have strongly campaigned for—could have avoided this unnecessary drama.
By not voicing their issue with this alleged “bias” to the Elections Commission beforehand, it appeared as though Farinas, Patel, and their running mates were more concerned with marching out of a debate than actually participating in one.
As members of Student Media, our number one concern is that students are informed on issues that affect them. We had hoped that the candidates felt the same. We would have much rather seen a change in moderator than a flat-out avoidance of any real discussion—involving all of the candidates. As presidential candidates—especially ones that call for transparency—we suggest that they practice what they preach. By dodging any confrontation on the points brought against them, Patel and Farinas reemphasized our hesitation towards their tickets.
Their inability to understand the concept of an opinion or how to address those against them provokes the need of another definition. Apparently we must clarify that opinions expressed in the Opinion section are, in fact, opinions. Opinions, by nature, demonstrate a bias. That the section was headlined with the title “The Beacon Recommends” implies a recommendation, which implies an opinion, which—we can safely assume—implies a bias.
And shall we make reference to the hypocrisy of candidates leaving a formalized debate, afraid of fielding questions from a biased audience, so that they could go outside and answer questions from a crowd of people wearing shirts with their name on them?
Disastrous, embarrassing, petty as this debate turned out, it has, on the bright side, drastically simplified the voter’s decision-making process. A candidate’s immaturity, so fundamental in matters of leadership, renders their platform irrelevant, as no plan, however wise or well-intentioned, can be carried out efficiently if the president does not know how to behave.
About Post Author
