By Dan Hurwitz
The presidential election between President Bill Durkin and Sen. Mike Benson began innocently enough, with each candidate giving a four-minute opening statement. After the candidates answered a series of pre-submitted questions, the stage was set for the real fireworks to begin. It came time for senators and students to ask questions directly to the candidates.
The question time consisted of a number of students, many of whom could be identified as a part of Benson’s clique, launching a barrage of questions that seemed in some way to challenge Durkin’s leadership. Sen. Molly Simpson scolded Durkin for neglecting co-op students. Even former Sen. George Gottschalk and former VP Allyson Savin made rare and brief appearances to take pot shots at the current president.
Soon I began to notice a disturbing pattern. Many of the questions being asked were not really questions at all. The overwhelming majority were personal attacks in an effort to misrepresent Durkin’s character.
This went on for what seemed like hours, and included a mix of actual senators and Benson’s old e-board chums.
Those of you who are not senators may not be aware there is a time to make personal attacks, and that is after questions. At this point in the debate, both candidates leave the room and up to three people can speak for or against each candidate. It was obvious at this point, however, that Benson’s goons had been, through attacks poorly guised as questions, speaking against Durkin the entire night.
The personal attacks against Durkin kept voters distracted from the actual debate by presenting a vicious sideshow. What had been emblazoned in the mind of the voter was a seemingly despised president having to continuously defend himself from what amounted to baseless and vicious personal attacks.
I have been a senator now for just over a year, and I truly believe SGA does great things. Never have I been embarrassed to be a senator or to claim SGA as one of my clubs on The Facebook. Never, until now.
The display put on by VP Nicole Martino, Savin and about a dozen others was disgraceful. I felt ashamed to be a part of a once-proud organization, which had lowered itself to personal attacks and mudslinging.
Durkin is not perfect. SGA is not perfect. I find it difficult, however, to respect a group of people whose only plan for ensuring a Benson presidency involved circumventing the rules and procedures of the senate and turning the question section of the debate into nothing more than a coordinated ambush.
Durkin did not lose the election Monday night. The students lost. The students deserved an honest and genuine discussion, but got nothing more than a group of bitter students choosing election night as the proper venue to air their own petty, personal grievances.
As a friend and supporter of Durkin, I am proud to say that neither he, nor any of his supporters, lowered themselves to the level of Benson’s desperate clique. Durkin was able to walk out of the election with dignity, knowing he had run a fair, classy race. Any fair-minded person who attended the election could not say the same for Benson or his group.
– Dan Hurwitz is a middler political science major and a senator in SGA.
