Endorsement: Burse-Greos for USG office
Every spring, the candidates for Undergraduate Student Government president and vice president make the same promises.
To some extent, that’s not a bad thing. These promises, for the most part, reflect student concerns.
But there is value, too, in looking at the long-term development of the university and student life.
Small, achievable goals are important, but it is just as critical to acknowledge that many of USG’s goals cannot be accomplished in one year and to begin planning for the years to come.
That is why the Daily Trojan editorial board is endorsing Eric Burse and Andy Greos for USG president and vice president.
Burse and Greos intend to develop a 10-year plan outlining how USG should move forward in the long run.
They anticipate the plan will include goals such as adding a fall break to the calendar and introducing a Trojan Grounds to the west side of campus. Goals like these are traditionally passed from one USG administration to the next, but Burse and Greos don’t plan to just continue the conversation — they plan to lay out concrete steps for future administrations.
Burse and Greos also want to add a Community Service Assembly to Program Board, offer free LSAT and MCAT prep classes and guarantee funding annually for traditional events, like Dance Marathon. These goals are ambitious, but that ambition is refreshing.
The editorial board was also considerably impressed with the platform presented by Monish Tyagi and Logan Lachman. Tyagi and Lachman want to extend the hours of the Ronald Tutor Campus Center and get the shops at Tuscany and Gateway to accept discretionary dollars, among other goals. These are important, immediate issues, and Tyagi and Lachman are qualified to address them.
But Burse and Greos are the only candidates who are daring to look far beyond the immediate changes, and we would rather see an administration aim too high than not aim high enough.
We believe Burse and Greos have the ambition and the personalities necessary to achieve their goals, and though the results might not be as immediately evident, the long-term rewards will be great.
For more coverage on the 2011 USG elections, click here.
Mark,
I agree with some of what you’ve said. I generalized my entire comment to everyone who responded (which is never a good idea), particularly people who blatantly wrote uninformed, hostile comments towards Eric/Andy and ended their fragmented tirade with FADIL/MEHRA! without including their name.
But you know, you mentioned students, faculty, administrators, and staff all depend on the Daily Trojan (written by undergraduates) for their information on the election. I disagree. First of all, the only people who can vote in this election are undergrads so grad students, faculty, administrators, and staff are helpless in this election and more importantly (if i can generalize) don’t care. Ask any of your professors if they can name ONE candidate running for USG office.
Also, let’s keep in mind that the endorsement was written for the “Opinion” section of the DT. Not the news, which is the neutral reporting. The definition of opinion, is OPINION. You don’t have to agree with the DT, after all it is just their opinion. You seem to be well informed on the election as well as other public and national issues. You’re in the minority. A majority of this campus does not read the DT, and most especially not cover to cover. If they weren’t going to vote, an endorsement from a newspaper they don’t read isn’t going to swing the vote for them.
Not only that, I find it really difficult to believe that someone who is well-informed about how other national newspapers work can draw a distinction between the Daily Trojan’s endorsement of a candidate and multiple national newspaper’s BLATANT endorsement of Obama this past election. Yes the Daily Trojan is the main newspaper of USC, but it is NOT the only one. Give more credit to the students, just because the Daily Trojan says they like one candidate does not necessarily mean that’s who students are mindlessly going to vote for. I like to think voters are informed enough to make their own decisions based on what the candidates stand for. I think the DT has done a fine job of covering ALL of the candidates and presenting them in a good light (ON THE FRONT PAGE).
And by the way, I did fully read your comment. “A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” But it seems as though you didn’t read mine. Your comment does not address my argument of the unfair practice of this election through the sanctions Monish received, the right of ANY/EVERY newspaper to have an editorial section, and the irrelevancy of making anonymous hate comments on Daily Trojan articles.
Lauren,
You are no better than those who ended with “FADIL/MEHRA!” They mentioned that Eric/Andy’s answers were “naive” and “contradictory”. You flung back with how “Monish blatanly violating election rules” and how Eric/Andy’s signs were torn down. You are biased by your own viewpoints and clearly are not trying to stand on neutral ground and thus are no better than them.
I’m so glad that you brought up the fact that administrators, staff, grad students can’t vote. You know what I have to say to that? Who cares? That is not the point. The point is that MOST people on campus, students or faculty, read the Daily Trojan. My point was to show its prevalence on campus and how integral it is to our community.
You claim that, “Yes the Daily Trojan is the main newspaper of USC, but it is NOT the only one.” By all means, try your very best to come up with a school publication that can rival Daily Trojan’s influence as a information source on campus. Yes, there are other publications on campus but most of these focus on a certain part of the campus life and do not have the breadth that the Daily Trojan offers. So, no, an opinion article written in those publications will not reach the eyes of the majority of USC students. There is absolutely no comparison to be made regarding the readership of the Daily Trojan and any other publication we have.
Next you make the assumption that, “A majority of this campus does not read the DT, and most especially not cover to cover.” I certainly hope you are not a writer for the Daily Trojan because that is a sad declaration on your part. Take your own advice and “Give more credit to the students” whom you now claim don’t even bother to read the article. So which is it? Are the students “informed enough to make their own decisions based on what the candidates stand for” or are they part of the majority that does not read the Daily Trojan’s coverage of the elections? How can you say the voters are informed when you already claimed they don’t read the Daily Trojan?
The fact that you use the excuse that most people don’t read the opinion section of the Daily Trojan and therefore, won’t even have the opportunity to be swayed by the endorsement is quite ridiculous. That is insulting to the Daily Trojan itself to claim that the majority of the student population don’t read what they write. You are just making uneducated assumptions about the student body and clearly underestimating us as well as the Daily Trojan.
Once again, stop bringing in real newspaper publications into this argument. I have already told you that the Daily Trojan has more influence on the information flow on this campus than any real major newspaper can ever hope for over the general population in the country. For every “liberal” publications that may have endorsed Obama, there are many “conservative” publications that would have vehemently denounced him. The fact of the matter is, USC does not have the same opportunities of a diverse display of opinions as the real world does.
And lastly, I DID read your comment about the “unfair practice of this election through the sanctions Monish received” and disregarded it completely. That is why my comment did not address it. I am arguing for impartiality in the USG election coverage by the Daily Trojan because of its undeniable influence it has on our campus and on its voters. Whether or not Monish should have received a harsher punishment from USG is of no significance in this argument.
Please take the time to actually think about the issue being discussed. Let me give you a clue, it is not about which candidate is better or who torn down whose poster or who wore his campaign shirt where. It’s a little bigger than that.
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” Mark Twain
Why its so hard to carry a neutral, intelligent discussion? Discussion here going to have no bearings on the current campaign. Its sort of lesson learned, or the observations from current election and discussing how it should be in future. But, like always some one who cant even understand the topic of discussion jumps in and try to mud the waters. Before you write (Lauren), try to read and more try to understand what some one is saying and what is the intent.
Mark, I think this discussion need to be continued even after elections, hopefully that would help next year and future election candidates. Daily Trojan is not in position of endorsing a campus student… period. If they do so, they are unduly influencing uninformed students.
Lauren,
I am FULLY aware that major newspapers such as New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. all endorse candidates. But as I said, “I realize that REAL newspapers do it too; however, in the real world, there are a multitude of news sources so we can seek a balanced viewpoint. At USC, we just have YOU, Daily Trojan.”
Students, faculty, administrators and staff all rely on the Daily Trojan as the main, and oftentimes ONLY, comprehensive source of information on the happenings of our campus. This monopoly means that it cannot be compared to that of a real publication in the real world. I can read the editorial of the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle and get two opposing viewpoints. However, at USC, I can only read the Daily Trojan.
By endorsing a candidate ticket, I feel as though Daily Trojan is playing a significant role in shifting the votes of the student body. I believe it should only serve as another medium through which candidates can reach out to their voters. I am not claiming that the Daily Trojan has not done a good job reporting on the election. However, but now that I know it endorsed Eric/Andy, I cannot help but think about what the Daily Trojan is choosing to focus on and what it is choosing to leave out.
My comments do not have anything to do with the actions of the candidates, but rather, the actions of Daily Trojan. I actually have read all of the candidates’ platforms and the question/ answer portion for each ticket posted on the Daily Trojan website before posting my viewpoint. But once again, what the candidates stand for is completely irrelevant when it comes to this issue of Daily Trojan’s endorsement of any candidate. Please, Lauren, don’t confuse the two.
Lauren, did you even bother to read my comments? I understand that you are very passionate about the Eric/Andy ticket and rightfully so. I am part of USG and Program Board and understand the benefit of having experience in these two organizations for a presidential candidate. However, before you accuse me of being a “upset, biased Monish & Fahill supporter”, do realize I actually support Eric/Andy. Please, when you are making an argument, read through the other person’s words before you attack her. It only allows people to not take your comments seriously and makes ” it really hard not to laugh while reading”.
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” Mark Twain
It seems pretty clear to me that all of these screams about bias are comments are from upset, biased Monish & Fahill supporters.
It is not just the Daily Trojan, but all major newspapers that have editorial sections that comment on a newspaper’s official opinion about any subject. Don’t believe me? Open the New York Times and read the Editorial section. (Is there a name next to that piece “Mark Twain”? Or do you need to look up what an “Editorial” is? Just reiterating, one person writes it and it is representative of the whole newspaper’s opinion.)
Please don’t undercut the Daily Trojan’s ability to gauge candidates. After all, I’m sure they’re the only one out of all of us who have done extensive interviews with all the candidates.
And if we want to talk about a change in a corrupt system, why don’t we talk about how all of Burse/Greos’s signs were ripped down by the 3rd day of campaigning while Monish & Fadil’s signs stayed pristine? Or why don’t we talk about the “punishment” for Monish blatanly violating election rules?
I wish I could take these comments seriously, but it’s really hard not to laugh while reading about how the only two candidates who have experience on Program Board and directly in student life are “naive” and “contradictory”. Why don’t you re-read platforms and comment back with your real name?
First of all, learn how to spell the candidates names if you want anyone to take you seriously. Alex FADIL is running, not Fahill. And Monish & Logan’s signs were also destroyed last week, in case you were unaware. They had to come to campus early to salvage what was left. It’s a fact that Burse/Greos actually cheated by beginning their online campaign before midnight when the election period began, and the times were POSTED in the DT, but no one filed against them.
No one is undermining DT’s ability to gauge candidates; people are just disappointed in the biased nature of the election coverage.
Oh, Lauren, I can’t forget the quote for you…
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” Mark Twain
I completely agree Mark’s comments. USC need to reconsider this practice of Daily Trojan endorsing election candidates. To a normal USC student, Daily Trojan is the voice of USC. Now for that student, if Daily Trojan endorses a candidate, then what is the point of having an election? Why even bother to vote?
Is this what USC wants to practice? Remember this is the single news place where a student turns to learn about the campus activities.
Besides endorsing, wish Daily Trojan could had stayed more neutral while reporting about the election events. But like i said at other place, in reporting Mehra’s complaint against Tyagi, Daily Trojan failed to keep its neutral stand…. (Just read the first paragraph)…
A sad moment for the USC Press !!
The Daily Trojan is supposed to be the main source of information about the USG Elections. It makes no sense to me that they would even endorse a candidate ticket. How can I trust that the Daily Trojan’s coverage of the debate and election happenings won’t be slated? How can you claim to fairly give all sides of the candidates’ goals and platforms to the student body for us to decide on one page but then publicly endorse a ticket on the next? I realize that there are tons of other endorsements flying around by many student organizations. However, Daily Trojan is not just ANY student organization. It is the only organization that has the power to influence the knowledge of the ENTIRE student body. If it were just an opinion article with a writer’s name signed to it, it could be recognized as just one person’s point of view. But since it is published as an official endorsement by Daily Trojan, does it not equate as political propaganda? I realize that REAL newspapers do it too; however, in the real world, there are a multitude of news sources so we can seek a balanced viewpoint. At USC, we just have YOU, Daily Trojan. I also realize that this is in the opinion section. However, this was still written by the editors of Daily Trojan and implies that everyone beneath them (even the people reporting the news) agrees with this endorsement. At the end of the day, I feel that this unnecessarily undermines Daily Trojan’s credibility.
“If you do not read the paper, you are not informed. If you do read the paper you will be misinformed.” Mark Twain
After thinking about thi even further, I now realize that this is exactly the type of internal bureaucracy that Fadil and Mehra are working against. It has become obvious to me that USG needs a change and that will come with the external ticket.
Fadil/ Mehra 2011!!!
Really? Andy and Eric are by far the least appropriate candidates. Their presentation at the debate was unprepared and contradictory and their platform points are essentially unachieveable. He promised subway taking USCard, but didn’t even talk to subway about making that happen? Fadil and Tyagi’s platforms are based on extensive research and planning while Eric’s is nothing more than the result of a simple brainstorming session based on naive assumptions. I used to trust the DT’s endorsement, but this discredits a normally reliable source of information for me so much. I’m extremely disappointed.