Wednesday, April 2, 2025, the Student Government Association (SGA) Elections Committee held an event titled a presidential/vice presidential debate. Unfortunately, once students arrived, instead of witnessing a real debate style (Lincoln Douglas, Presidential, Public Forum or Parliamentary) , the student body witnessed a simple question and answer session where the committee chair and co-chair asked the candidates questions and waited for their respective responses.
For the ‘presidential debate,’ there were three candidates: Marcellus Carpenter III, Amia Calandrea Carter, and Dejuan Trotman. The questions were relatively easy and the candidates appeared to answer some of the questions.
For a student government association that has been imperiled for the past few years (lack of participation by students, number of students voting, and student leaders not doing their constitutional requirements), the student government is rapidly becoming ineffective and irrelevant to many of the students who are enrolled.
Therefore, it is the opinion of The Hornet Tribune Editorial Board that the estimated 150 students who were in attendance, were either seeking a reason to support this year’s election or they were just there to support their respective candidate. Whatever their reasons, many were not ignited, excited or swayed by the answers that the candidates offered.
What was even more interesting is that none of the questions that the candidates received were questions regarding the SGA Constitution. The SGA Constitution lists their specific duties and responsibilities. This board was of the opinion that some of the questions would originate from the constitution regarding their respective job descriptions, and overall knowledge of the constitution, since that is the document that they swear to uphold and protect. However, they received no questions from the document.
There were questions regarding the housing portal that seemed to arouse student interest, maybe one question regarding student safety that students seemed to “zero” in on and one question regarding the on-campus dining in which Trotman expressed the thought of eliminating the current food service provider and finding one to meet the needs of the students.
Overall, the questions were mediocre at best, and resembled questions for candidates who were leading the student body for a high school student council rather than a university that has been around for almost 160 years. Where was the engagement? Where was the back-and-forth dialogue that typically characterizes a true debate, aside from the unscrupulous fiasco between the Vice President-Elect Joshua Davis and Carter.
Instead of witnessing presidential hopefuls challenging each others’ ideas, clarifying their platforms, and passionately defending their visions, the student body received vague responses to surface-level questions, many of which could have been answered with a quick Google search.
However, the professionalism of the event was almost placed in jeopardy as students were invited to get up and ask a question to the candidates. There is nothing wrong with the student body asking questions, but those questions should be screened long before they are presented to the candidates. When it is not handled in that way, the event can take a nasty turn, even though the committee chair, in all fairness, made it clear that the questions could not be disrespectful, but somehow it was taken to a level that made most onlookers question the professionalism of the event.
We must ask: how did we allow something this important to be handled so casually? With the university’s SGA already facing a crisis of relevance in the eyes of the student body, this event was a missed opportunity to reignite interest and reestablish credibility. For an organization meant to represent and advocate for students, this night did the opposite. It confirmed the doubts many already had, that our student government is operating more as a popularity contest than a professional body.
What was very apparent to most students in attendance is that all three presidential candidates needed some more preparation as their responses were often “delusions of grandeur” as opposed to reality and practicality. All three candidates should have been mandated to stand up when responding to the audience. If this was supposed to be a formal setting, as it seemed by looking at the way the candidates were dressed, why were the candidates seated when asked various questions? Can you imagine President Joe Biden or President Donald Trump sitting down to address a crowd? Unheard of. It should have been unheard of at this event also.
We do not want to say a lot about the candidates in this staff editorial, as we will reserve our comments for our next staff editorial. However, each of the candidates said that they had no problem with receiving constructive criticism, so with that freedom, we will say that the lack of experience and knowledge was quite evident during this debate. Of the four candidates, ALL OF THEM will need a great deal of assistance no matter who is chosen to represent the student body as the president and vice president.
We will give you brief examples.
Trotman said, “I think it’s time to get rid of Aramark. And as part of being student government association president, we do have that kind of power. And so if every student in here signs a petition for us to get rid of Aramark, we can have better dining options, we can have better cafeteria style.”
Now while this staff agrees that the food choices and food variety could be and should be much better, it was apparent that Trotman had not done his research on this topic. The university has a multi-million dollar contract with Aramark for several years to provide food for the entire campus. Does it seem practical that the university would breach the contract that they have already signed, and are presently adhering to, in order to pay Aramark thousands of dollars for a breach of contract and then turn around and bring another food service provider in and pay them thousands to provide food services to the university community? Of course not. Not only would that be a waste of taxpayers’ money, student money, that is not at all practical or prudent. If anything, it would make more sense to use student power to demand that the present food service provider do better, in fact, do a lot better with food choices, food variety, and food presentation.
Carter, who served as a White House Scholar this year, said, “For me, I have been mentored by the Department of Education for a whole year. I know all about the policies, how it works, and how I can actually connect with these people that are already in the government.” She also said, “If you want study abroad opportunities, scholarships with no essays, scholarships with no GPA requirements, all of that will be documented to where I have the statistics to present to higher ups.”
First of all, the word scholarship is taken from the root word “scholar.” A scholar is academically sound. Who in their right mind would give scholarships to students without checking their grade point averages or requiring some form of essay writing that would allow the donor to see what they are donating to? Now if she is talking about a grant, that is different, but a scholarship denotes academic excellence. Second, for the most part, the U.S. Department of Education is already dismantled. The money is going to be sent to the states. Therefore, national programs like the White House Initiative HBCU (historically Black colleges and universities) Scholar are most likely going to be wiped out since it is very apparent by now to most citizens that the Trump administration views those kinds of programs as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs. Therefore, any leverage that Carter may have had will soon disappear. And as far as study abroad is concerned, can we get our students to study here first?
Carpenter had some interesting ideas, but it did not take long for most to see that he does not have a lot of political experience. He said, “I’m going to say something. I want everybody to put up their left hand and say ‘character’. Take your right hand and say ‘integrity’. With a little bit of character and a little bit of integrity and a whole lot of Jesus, transformation is out of this world. So as far as me being a new face in SGA, someone that has no type experience, I’m getting into it. I’m pushing myself to learn the information before this. It’s important to be okay with new faces. It’s okay for new ideas. It’s okay for new things. It’s 2025, everything new. You know what I’m saying? Let’s give me a chance to be able to prove to y’all through my events and through a little bit of knowing me personally.”
The terms for these officers are only one year. The student body does not have time for students to learn on the job, as they have been doing in the past. Students want someone who is already experienced and knowledgeable so that they can deal with issues on the first day, not the 51st day.
This is not about attacking the students who had the courage to run, it is about accountability, something that has been lacking in many of the administrations that have come through. The lack of preparation was obvious, and frankly, disappointing. Presidential and vice presidential candidates should be required to study the constitution, understand university policies, and speak intelligently about student concerns backed by research, not hearsay or emotion. A mandatory exam on the constitution for all SGA hopefuls would not just be helpful, it should be required.
It is time we stop treating student government like grade 13 or a formality and start demanding it function like the serious institution it claims to be. Students deserve real representation. They deserve leaders who are informed, prepared, and capable of advocating for their needs with strategy and professionalism, not slogans and dreams. Because when student government is not taken seriously, students with real drive and vision are discouraged from stepping up. And when that happens, we all lose.
