By Samuel Klar

In his April 13 letter to the editor, “Elections only fun if your name was Benson”, Student Government Association Sen. Dan Hurwitz chided us “old guard” senators, claiming that the proper time to speak for or against a candidate was only after the candidates left the room and three speakers were taken “for” and “against” each candidate. I found this argument to be ill-founded and illogical. Though Sen. Hurwitz might have been upset that his friend, current President Bill Durkin, had to respond to tough questions regarding his performance as president, at least he had the opportunity to personally address these issues and defend his position.

To suggest Durkin would have been better off if he had not been in the room and able to address these statements when they were made is preposterous, as it would have denied him the opportunity to clarify his position on certain issues and face his detractors. I don’t see how critiquing Durkin while he was out of the room, as Hurwitz suggests, is proper, would have improved his chances against President-elect Michael Benson, or resulted in a “fairer” election. If certain individuals are going to critique your job performance or personal character, the least you can ask for is the opportunity to respond.

In regards to the comments made about several questions asked, including my own, I will say I didn’t intend to frame my question as an attack per se, but simply voiced my opinion regarding the effectiveness of each candidate in dealing with an issue that affects me and every other student on campus: tuition increases.

My assertion was the tuition increase placed upon students this year hurt me more than those in the previous two years when then-VP Benson was involved in the process. This was not a personal attack on Durkin, but a critique of his effectiveness in dealing with this issue. I posed my question to both candidates because I wanted each to have a chance to respond to, and in Durkin’s case, potentially refute my critique. The SGA president receives a complimentary tuition and a monthly cash stipend from the university (our tuition dollars at work), and it is my unwavering belief that an individual running for such a well-compensated position should be willing to answer any question about his previous performance in the position. Shouldn’t the student body, whose name was repeatedly invoked in the arguments of those critiquing the comments made by myself and other individuals, have the opportunity to hear a candidate explain his job performance? To imply the president of our student body shouldn’t be forced to defend his positions if he doesn’t like the tone of his questioners is to discount the power and prestige of the office of the SGA president.

The SGA presidential debate should not be denounced by those who didn’t win as a reason for everything wrong with Northeastern, but praised as a unique opportunity to see everything Northeastern can be. Despite what some have said, these debates were truly about the student body, if for no other reason than they gave even students who aren’t current senators the chance to question the individual who will lead our student body in the future. For both candidates, I implore you to take the results of this election not as the end of an era but as the beginning of one.

– Samuel Klar is a junior business major and a former SGA senator. He also ran unsuccessfully for SGA president in 2003.