On GUSA Election 2016

First, congratulations to Team Crenushe on the win.  

You were basically running unopposed and your main competition was two chicken sandwiches which only started campaigning during the latter half of the election period, but you were organized, ruthlessly eliminated your competition beforehand, and did some impressive reaching out to a wide variety of groups while maintaining a positive attitude during the race, and that's all to be commended.  

And like we said before, you're basically decent people (assuming neither of you are the individual referred to in a certain unverified Georgetown Confession post which has since been deleted by the page's administrators).

Second, great job to Hot Chick and Chicken Madness.  You took what could have just been a joke ticket and turned it into a referendum on GUSA.  You're essentially dead pieces of chicken meat grilled to perfection and smothered with mayo, spices and other condiments, ensconced within a warm hoagie roll with a pickle and a side of chips, and yet you managed to capture 30% of the initial vote.  That went up to 39% of the vote in the final round and ultimately you placed second out of four tickets.  And this was with only a week of campaigning and without being able to shake hands or the ability to offer spoils or fancy titles to anyone.  Perhaps if given a little more time and some better get out the vote and voter education efforts, you would have succeeded.  

Sadly, each year there will be a new crop of bright-eyed and optimistic freshmen who don't know any better and who GUSA candidates will go after with their sales pitch and false promises, so perhaps it's never to be, especially since future races will likely have multiple tickets vying for the prize.  But you can still be proud since you did get more votes than any Chicken Madness ticket in GUSA history.  Congratulations to your campaign team and bravo.  You fought the good fight.

Round 1 Election Results Source: GUSA election commission

Round 1 Election Results

Source: GUSA election commission

Third, only 33% of the studentry voted in this election.  GUSA should pay close attention to this because it suggests two-thirds of the studentry don't consider GUSA important enough to spend sixty seconds on, which is about the time it takes to log-in and vote.   

Even more concerning: when you ignore those who voted for the Wisemiller sandwiches and eliminate the 58 friends who voted for Moore-Lowder, and then consider the University reports 7595 undergraduates, that means only 21%, or about one-fifth of all students, actually voted for real candidates, and only 15% of Georgetown's entire undergraduate student population voted in the first round for the ultimate winner.  

Another way to put it might be that 85% of the student body, if given a choice between Crenushe and another ticket, or no ticket at all, initially chose the latter two options.

This is not a good sign and one the administration will remember in student meetings.

Fourth, we're still waiting on the full data set to be released.  In the interests of transparency and integrity, this should be available to the studentry and both The Hoya and The Voice should examine them to verify the election was above board.  Our concern here is ensuring all votes were counted and that even if there were minor spelling or formatting errors for write-ins, the intent of voters was registered.

Fifth, the best way for legitimacy to return to GUSA is for GUSA to start doing things which appeal to ALL STUDENTS and not just the professional victims constantly calling for more gimmes. The administration doesn't take GUSA seriously because students don't take GUSA seriously, and the reason why is because GUSA doesn't tackle concerns that apply to the studentry as a whole, and therefore can't mobilize everyone in battles with Healy.   

Sixth, this means calling for an immediate end to tuition increases.  Reed and Chris are clones of each other complete with the same clownish behavior and exaggerated face-making, not to mention the virtue-signaling on "diversity," but the one thing Reed got right was demanding an immediate stop to the continued increases in tuition which just keeps going up and up and up.  Such an initiative would appeal to all students, regardless of background, and make GUSA relevant again.  Not even the rich Hoyas we know enjoy wasting large sums to pay for useless administrators whose main job in life is trying to control student behavior or coddle the professional victims taking part in grievance industry activism. 

Seventh, this also means an end to the yearly hiring of new administrators and a push to reduce the existing number of administrators at Georgetown and reduce or at least halt what is likely a yearly increase in already bloated administrator salaries.  

This begins with the realization that college isn't supposed to be a four-year spa visit where your every desire and neurosis needs to be addressed.  It's about the search for truth and the attainment of knowledge, learning how to live life well (by which we mean a purposeful and joyful life), and the development of professional skills so that you can be productive and ensure your time and money on the Hilltop isn't wasted.  We have a whole essay on it in our Ratio Studiorum.  All you really need at Georgetown are professors, books, computers, and classrooms.  The special centers and institutes and ancillary programs are really just window-dressing which distracts from Georgetown's true mission and costs us all lots and lots of money with very little given in return.

Hiring yet another administrator which, let's face it, is just there to placate another subset of the identity group mafia playing the Oppression Olympics, does nothing to further the purposes of a University and only hinders education and unity because it creates division and animosity among the studentry.  Not only do more administrators unnecessarily raise the cost of tuition, but far too many fail to add commensurate value for the large amounts of money they’re paid.  Perhaps worse of all, a significant number continually foster a grievance culture by promoting an entitlement and victim mindset among each new generation of students who don't realize they're being played by hustlers who profit in various ways by keeping them feeling as if they are continually oppressed.  

Eighth, GUSA should actually defend free speech and promote diversity of ideas.  This can start with a clear statement either by the GUSA Executive, or a resolution out of the Senate, defending freedom of speech at Georgetown and stressing the importance of ensuring all views are allowed to be heard without the threat of punishment or coercive action on the part of the administration or other students.  This includes ideas which some people vehemently disagree with or which make them uncomfortable or feel offended.  The resolution should also call for an end to trigger warnings and "safe spaces" since these are for those who are either emotionally-weak or inclined to suppress speech, and such people should be invited to leave college until they are mature enough to return.

One of our supporters is friends with British provocateur and free speech advocate Milo Yiannopoulous who has been touring American university campuses this semester to great acclaim and has really brought the crazies out of the woodwork.  Our contact tells us Milo is willing to come to Georgetown and speak for free to the studentry in late April or early May.  We are offering to GUSA and Team Crenushe the opportunity to bring him to campus and recommend they officially sponsor his visit as a demonstration of their commitment to free speech and as a sign of leadership.  Let us know if you're interested.

Additionally, GUSA should find someone unbiased and fair-minded to take over the position of Secretary of Free Speech.  The current occupant has utterly failed to defend free speech except when it has been speech he's agreed with.  When a bunch of social justice warriors went after Dylan or when feminist crybabies went after the College Republicans, he remained silent, and as is evident by his recent editorial in The Hoya, he is clearly ignorant about the issue and unsuited for the responsibilities of the position.

We believe a good choice would be Hunter Estes.  Not only does Hunter have extensive experience in media affairs, and hence free speech issues, but he's also well-liked among the freshmen (who let's face it, Crenushe owes the election to, since the majority of juniors and seniors who understand GUSA sure as hell didn't vote to elect anyone other than chicken sandwiches).  The fact is left-wing ideas and their proponents are not under attack at Georgetown, so there's no point in having yet another left-wing social justice warrior in the position.  What you should have instead is someone in the middle or who leans right, since those are the people and ideas under assault.

Ninth, it's past time to eliminate University involvement in adjudicating sexual assault complaints.  The fact is administrators have no business overseeing what is essentially a criminal and legal matter.  While it makes sense to have counseling and other resources available to alleged victims and preventive training for both potential victims and potential perpetrators, the fact is that if someone claims to have experienced a sexual assault, then they must do their best to preserve the evidence and immediately go to the police and let the legal system handle the matter.  

This should be official Georgetown policy.  

Difficult as it may be, the most effective way to stop rapists (most of whom are repeat offenders) is for alleged victims to identify their alleged assailants to the police and get the criminal justice system involved so actual perpetrators are prosecuted and locked away.  

Posting rumors on Georgetown Confessions or writing op-eds in The Hoya about alleged rapes more than a year after the fact and only when you're about to be dismissed from the University because you failed to maintain basic academic standards just makes it harder to end the problem of sexual assault and hold people accountable, or for victims to be taken seriously when they do come forward. 

Sadly, it appears is the University administration is aligned feminists on this issue because both groups have incentives in having the University handle sexual assault accusations.

The University prefers to adjudicate cases because then it can quietly deal with an alleged sexual assault without the negative press attention that comes with a student being arrested and prosecuted, and it can then also report a lower tally in regards to the number of sexual assaults occurring either on campus or being perpetuated by students.  Feminists also support having the administration adjudicate cases because the University eliminates due process rights of alleged perpetrators and because the Georgetown uses a lower evidentiary standard than the legal system does, meaning it's easier to find a student guilty and have him removed from campus or punished in another manner.  

What this ultimately means is those who actually commit sexual assaults avoid the punishment they deserve and are free to rape again, and that if you're falsely accused of sexual assault, not only are you prevented from mounting a legal defense, but the burden of proof your accuser has to meet is lower than that found in the justice system and you may be kicked out of the University after a secret hearing in which a few professors and students vote on your future despite lacking appropriate qualifications to do so.

GUSA must press for meaningful change on this issue.  More stickers in bathrooms, yet another administrator, and still more training will not properly address the problem.   

Tenth, and finally, GUSA representatives should continually keep in the back of their minds that GUSA is only as powerful as the studentry allows it to be.  When you can't get two-thirds of students to even vote, then you can't legitimately say the organization represents the voice of the studentry.  And when you run a ticket with 23 policy areas and hundreds of promises and initiatives, it's hard to be taken seriously and believe you're doing anything other than just casting a wide net for votes, especially when the reality is GUSA is only able to, at best, accomplish a few meaningful things each year.  

In addition to the above listed recommendations, perhaps the most pressing task of GUSA is to rebuild its image so it may be taken seriously again.  The fact a satirical ticket won last year and two chicken sandwiches placed second this year despite only one week of campaigning suggests GUSA's reputation is broken and in need of serious repair.  

Based on the reported election data, the ultimate vote breakdown in the last round of the election was 1383 votes for Enushe & Chris with 878 votes for Hot Chick & Chicken Madness.  As we noted earlier, the University reports 7595 undergraduate students at Georgetown.  


When you do the math, the candidates taking office ultimately received only 18% of votes from the studentry as whole once instant runoff voting was completed.  To put it another way, Team Crenushe will be taking office with 82% of students having not voted for them. 

One could plausibly argue they're not the voice of the entire student body so much as they are the voice of a club with some serious image problems and which has only one-third of the studentry as members.  

Perhaps the greatest legacy Enushe and Chris can leave is making sure next year the winners' final tally gets as close as possible to 50% plus 1 of the total student population.  

When this happens, it can truly be said that GUSA represents the students of Georgetown.