FIYOU vs. Access FIU: A critical analysis

This year’s SGA Election has been given plenty of coverage and conversation without much substance, which this editorial board is also responsible for. However, now that much of the pettiness of the elections has drawn to a close, we’d like to take a look at the platforms of the two parties critically.

For starters, both parties have listed changes to the Sweetwater Trolley on their platform cards as a promise to students. While it’s great to want changes that benefit students, the Sweetwater Trolley is an entity of the City of Sweetwater. FIU and the SGA have no control over the routes, nor can they fund the increase in cost it would incur to make these changes. The trolley makes stops at Sweetwater hotspots, including Dolphin Mall which Access FIU adds to its list of stops promised. Walmart, however, is outside of the jurisdiction of Sweetwater.

Additionally, Access FIU promises to “give more student input on the 2020 Initiative.” While this lofty idea sounds great, it’s not possible. The FIU Beyond Possible 2020, as it’s properly named, is not only already set, it is an administrative plan detailing University goals. Students do not have this input because it’s based on standards the administration wants to have. Promising this to students is to give them false hope and furthers the idea that SGA candidates are self-serving and pandering for votes.

Access FIU also wants to give increased representation within SGA to African American students, disabled students, multi-faithed students and student athletes among others. FIU is a diverse space where the average students embodies the intersection of multiple identities. It’s only right that a student government meant to represent the best interest of students should be inclusive of students from the various communities it’s meant to assist. Especially after incidents such as the Nature Preserve, students have been left feeling like SGA represents the interests of administration rather than the interests of students.

Access FIU’s promise to protect and expand outdoor green spaces and study spots for students potentially addresses that issue.

Though, Access FIU will likely face the same problems the current SGA and administration are facing when trying to expand anything. It can only be hoped that green-space expansion is not limited to the relocation and expansion of the northern third of the Nature Preserve, as these spaces serve an important function. According to a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, green spaces are beneficial to people living in urban environments. It stands in other studies that these spaces are beneficial for the mental health of college students, as well.

Both parties seem interested in maintaining Panthers’ mental wellbeing. Access FIU hopes to “lower the suicidal idea” on campus with more resources for CAPS, while FIYOU plans to open a “sexual and mental health kiosk.”

Everglades Hall already has a consultation office in the building aimed at reaching out to housing students. It offers consultation and referrals, stress reduction programs, a behavioral sleep program and takes workshop requests. Further, CAPS accepts walk-ins for all students, no matter the issue, and already features many outreach programs that bring the office to the students.

CAPS also already has multiple programs in effect for suicide prevention, and clubs on campus like the Suicide Prevention Awareness Club, aim to provide resources for students having suicidal thoughts. Suicide prevention is not new to this campus – the systems both parties wish to implement are already in place here.

This editorial board writes in hopes that these critiques of Access FIU’s and FIYOU’s campaigning platforms will assist the student body in making a well informed decision.