All seven Graduate Student Association candidates running for executive positions got the third degree from a frustrated audience at the association's official debate Monday night.
The GSA candidates met in front of a small but rowdy audience in Knox 20 to state their platforms for running for office and debate issues relevant to the future of the GSA. The debate was structured as a two-hour question-and-answer session mediated by members of the GSA election committee.
The candidates planned to field questions from the election committee, the audience and each other. The flow of the event was interrupted, however, by spectators who shouted their questions out of order. An audience member in the third row kicked the seats in front him after any mention of the graduate student fee.
Shortly after intermission, one audience member asked a question that another student thought was irrelevant to the debate. The two spectators turned on each other, and a yelling match ensued.
When election committee officials failed to bring order, Bernard Roddy, editor of the graduate student magazine The Quill and an adjunct professor of media studies, chastised the crowd.
"We need a more constructive dialogue," Roddy said. "Trying to nail the candidates, make them look like hypocrites, isn't going to give anyone a clear picture of their intentions."
Roddy said the audience should question the candidates about their plans for staffing or fiscal management, but most of the questions he suggested were lost in the ruckus, never asked in the first place or immediately transformed into backbiting among the candidates.
"Maybe someone should ask (Siddharth) Sirsikar how he's going to fulfill his GSA duties when he's finishing his program this May," said Vinay Balachandran, a candidate for GSA treasurer.
Siddharth, also a candidate for treasurer, said he was returning next semester to work on his doctorate.
Despite the ceaseless provocation from the audience and general tumult of the proceedings, each candidate presented his or her platform and distributed flyers that outlined the goals they hoped to accomplish if elected.
"We all know the lack of graduate student participation in GSA is partly due to the fact that students are skeptical of what GSA can accomplish," said vice presidential candidate Shaokang Wang. "They feel that their money is going to waste. We all can agree that no matter what approach is taken, it must solve that problem first."
Wang used a metaphor to describe his vision of GSA's future and its relationship with students.
"To me, the GSA is the trunk of a big tree, the clubs for students are the branches, the budding fruits and flowers are graduate students, and funding is the water," Wang said. "I want to distribute the water so the fruit becomes healthy and large."
If elected, presidential candidate Nagarajan Kannan, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering, said he wants to establish a think tank of volunteers to come up with new activities that "reflect the interests of the entire graduate community."
One of the events Kannan proposed is a three-day sports "extravaganza," which would be something like Olympics for graduate students.
"One of my campaign goals is to involve every graduate student in GSA, not just engineers," Kannan said. "The sports extravaganza will be a recreational event unlike anything in GSA history."
Kannan's statement answered what was one of the only coherent questions asked in the entire two hours.
"How will a GSA currently composed of male engineers reconfigure itself to represent other graduate students from other departments, and female graduate students?" asked Rebecca Fleming, a graduate student studying social work.
"I will cater to the interests of every graduate student, not just a segment of the population," Kannan said. "The extravaganza will have many different kind of sports; something for everyone."
Vice presidential candidate Shiva Kashyap, a graduate industrial engineering student, said implementing recreational activities, such as cricket, into the GSA budget is on his list of priorities.
"In addition to the recreation, I would also like upgrade the Web site for the purpose of gathering student feedback, and why not have a Spring Fest for graduate students?" Kashyap said. "The funds are there."
Although the debate was unorganized, Fleming said she was glad there was an open forum for the candidates to disseminate their platforms.
Joel Harris, a senior psychology major and prospective UB graduate student, referred to the debates as "revolting fluff."
"No one knew what they were talking about," said Harris. "The only mildly informative thing that came out of this meeting were the flyers, and they're really poorly written."
