This past year has seen its share of controversy: the passage of the sexual health referendum, the commotion surrounding the cancellation of Bill Ayers’ lecture, and the Forbes feature that ranked Boston College the 17th worst school for interaction across racial and socioeconomic lines. UGBC leaders have a responsibility to work through such challenges, but this cycle’s candidates took only cursory steps to address them. Despite such shortcomings, The Gavel endorses Charlie Witmer and Courtney Dower for UGBC president and vice president because ultimately, they will be stronger representatives for the student body than opponents Micaela Mabida and Patrick Raab.

Witmer and Dower ran a strong, well oiled operation that placed importance on outreach to students. Their Web site invited comments and suggestions and their door-to-door campaign asked students for input — strengths that are indicative of a positive, open relationship with students if elected. Their complementary problem-solving styles are highlighted both by Witmer’s position as UGBC chief of staff, which provides the experience necessary to implement change, and Dower’s newcomer status, which brings a fresh perspective. The Witmer-Dower platform focuses on a number of achievable goals, such as establishing CabShare and BikeShare programs. Their Spring Weekend plan will help entrench a sense of tradition and cohesiveness of student spirit that any university would find valuable.

We also commend Mabida and Raab for the passion they brought to the election. Their campaign’s greatest strength was its focus on building a connection with freshman and AHANA students. Despite these advantages, they did not reach out to the GLBTQ Leadership Council president or vice president until after the primaries, neglecting to acknowledge an important constituency. They also failed to include any stance at all on the testing of sexually transmitted infections and sexual health at large in their platform. While Mabida acknowledged that their campaign failed to adequately research the issue prior to developing their platform, we feel that a commanding knowledge of the problem is essential to leading UGBC.

Mabida and Raab’s silence on sexual health is symptomatic of the lack of a strong stance in significant areas of concern on both tickets. The referendum that passed last year, with 89 percent of the vote, called not only for affordable STI testing, but also open access on campus to condoms and other contraceptives for students. The student body issued a resounding mandate that has been ignored by the current UGBC administration, and this election presents an opportunity for candidates to finally capitalize on the hard work of BC Students for Sexual Health.

While Witmer and Dower’s approach of incremental implementation of the referendum is preferable to no position at all, the short-term successes they hope to forge should not come at the expense of sustained pressure for progress. For example, although it may be unreasonable to ask the BC administration to provide students with condoms, because such a policy would be in direct conflict with Catholic ideology, it is not an unreasonable goal to fight to decriminalize the on-campus distribution of condoms by BC Students for Sexual Health, who do not ask for university funding. We are disappointed by the lack of interest shown by both campaigns to an issue with such significant student support, especially because it is directly related to physical health. Moreover, without a much stronger showing of solidarity from UGBC, students’ commitment to this initiative will have been in vain.

The campaigns also need to more substantially address academic freedom. The candidates acknowledged that the University’s speaker policy needed revision after last year’s botched Bill Ayers visit, without outlining any specific ways of addressing it. But there is a further failure on both sides to understand that academic freedom is more than guest lecturers — it is the ability of students to explore intellectual curiosities. Freedom to test convictions in the marketplace of ideas is crucial for both a private research university and a functioning, participatory democracy. UGBC’s current push for academic advising is functionally meaningless if university policy precludes a frank and open exchange of ideas between professors and students.

Witmer-Dower and Mabida-Raab did not adequately acknowledge the burden with which many BC students are currently struggling. They expressed support for the Montserrat Coalition, which provides affordable access to campus events for students of lower income, but this is not enough. If the candidates are serious about inclusion, they should work with the University on prioritizing students’ economic concerns.

We realize that reaching these goals will be neither immediate nor easy. They will require years of arduous negotiations and difficult compromises. We fear that because of the enormous obstacles standing in the way of progress, significant policy problems are being shelved for the next generation of students. Generic platitudes in the platforms should not preclude progress on these big picture problems. We caution students against complacency and apathy in light of significant status quo issues – talk to the candidates about your concerns. We endorse Charlie Witmer and Courtney Dower for their energy, genuine desire to connect with and include student voices, and realistically attainable initiatives. We hope that our endorsement will encourage them to stand resolved to fight for meaningful improvements.