A big vision is better than playing it safe.
In a 12-0 vote with four abstentions, the Journal Editorial Board elected to endorse Team CSG for this year’s AMS Executive.
Team LWT’s platform describes a decline in the Queen’s experience and offers improvements to the AMS and its services as a solution. Though smaller in scope, LWT’s platform has a greater degree of feasibility than CSG’s platform promises.
However, while LWT’s promises are achievable, the Journal Board considers CSG’s objectives to better address the realities of campus life.
While LWT’s objectives seek to reestablish the AMS as the center of student life, CSG’s vision sees the AMS operate more as a support for the rich student life that takes place outside the AMS.
CSG’s attention to combating a culture of homogeneity and exclusivity in the student body in general, not just in the internal structure of the AMS, is promising. Their overly-ambitious platform is too large an undertaking for them to deliver all points in their term alone, but it aims in the right direction.
CSG’s candidates — Colin Zarzour, Sarah Anderson and Greg Radisic — are collectively far more suited to each of the roles they’re running for than their counterparts on LWT.
Presidential candidate Zarzour shows the ability to be a leader with a vision and passion for student life. Vice-President (Operations)candidate Anderson displays the drive and diligence needed to succeed in a detail-oriented and exacting position, and her experience working in marketing in the AMS will prove valuable. Vice-President (University Affairs) candidate Radisic — who’s currently the president of the Residence Society and deals a great deal with first years — appears approachable and in touch with the concerns of students.
CSG has a level of sincerity and cohesion that’s somewhat lacking in the makeup of their opponent’s dynamic. VP (University Affairs) candidate Carolyn Thompson is knowledgeable and approachable, and, in the belief of the Journal Editorial Board, would make an excellent president.
In the question period with The Journal and in the debate, LWT struggled to appear as a cohesive unit, especially in comparison to the other team.
Presidential candidate Tyler Lively has more knowledge of the internal workings of the AMS than any of the other candidates. However, based on the direction of LWT’s platform, as president Lively will operate the same way the AMS usually does — often out of touch with students’ concerns.
As for VP (Operations) candidate Dave Walker, his limited input during the campaign implies that he’s ill-equipped to handle the demands of the position he’s running for.
CSG’s individual strengths, on the other hand, will better equip the team to handle internal conflict or disagreements.
Their attention to data collection, especially in the area of sexual assault policy development, will serve the team well. When serious issues arise, having an AMS team whose tendency is to seek the opinions of students will make them more accountable to their constituents.
CSG’s focus on equity and their acknowledgement of their own privilege is a promising sign of their ability to do what both teams are pledging by opening up the AMS to a greater diversity of students.
While LWT looks good on paper, CSG’s vision and passion will carry them through the demands of an AMS executive position.
But CSG should be careful that they don’t fall into the trap of promising too much and succeeding in little. Without prioritization and tangible goals, they will not be able to accomplish everything they’re promising. Moreover, it will be damaging to the student body if they fall into the pattern of tossing out everything their predecessors did and starting over.
In the end, CSG will bring valuable change, so long as they aren’t doing it just for the sake of change.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to email@example.com.