For the 2012-13 ASSU Executive, the Editorial Board unanimously endorses Robbie Zimbroff ’12 and William Wagstaff ’12, a pair of co-terms that we feel will best represent the student body in the upcoming year. To reach this conclusion, the Board held forty minute interviews this past Friday with all three slates still in contention: Zimbroff-Wagstaff, MacGregor-Dennis & Druthi, and Open Source Candidates, the joke slate fielded by the Stanford Chaparral. On Sunday, we spent an additional hour discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the two sincere slates, Zimbroff-Wagstaff and MacGregor-Dennis & Druthi. Our ideal ASSU Executive would have a nuanced understanding of the position, broad experiences with which to give context to their work, a coherent platform with concrete, relevant, and realizable initiatives, and a strong ability to connect with students, faculty, and administrators. On all but the first qualification – a strong knowledge of the ASSU – we felt Zimbroff-Wagstaff was the strongest slate.
Zimbroff and Wagstaff began the interview by stating a desire to not “reinvent the wheel,” alluding to the common-sense approach that informs their platform. They understand that there are student and administrative groups already committed to improving public service, student health, dining and other areas of campus life. Rather than create ASSU policies that overlap with or oppose the missions of these groups, Zimbroff and Wagstaff would work to fill in the gaps. One of their many concrete ideas that resonated with us was giving freshman resident assistants monetary incentives to plan events with community centers. In addition, we found their objectivity commendable. They recognized, for instance, that Vaden provides valuable services and, rather than wholly criticize Vaden, they viewed student dissatisfaction as an outgrowth of an unnecessary communication gap.
With that in mind, the slate of Stewart MacGregor-Dennis ’13 and Druthi Ghanta ’14 demonstrated a superior knowledge of the ASSU and the ways with which to leverage the powers of the Executive, which is not surprising given MacGregor-Dennis’ role as ASSU vice president this year. But although Zimbroff and Wagstaff are ASSU outsiders, they appear to be working diligently to catch up, whether through reading administrative documents going back many years, attending ASSU Senate meetings, or talking with current and former ASSU leaders and campus administrators. We are confident, then, that Zimbroff and Wagstaff would acquaint themselves quickly with the ins and outs of the office if elected, and their diverse academic and extracurricular experiences over a combined eight years at Stanford will surely be beneficial in the adjustment.
Perhaps Zimbroff and Wagstaff’s most distinctive strength, though, is that they are highly personable. This quality is even more important given the current state of general student apathy, if not distrust, surrounding the ASSU. They were both intelligible, straightforward speakers who spoke in substance rather than buzzwords. The two also possess a synergy that will make for a highly cohesive executive unit. In addition, when asked questions to which they hadn’t prepared an answer, their thought process was calm and deliberate. This is contrasted with MacGregor-Dennis’ self-identified approach to dive-in, evaluate and then iterate. Although the latter philosophy may be valuable in the start-up world, we have doubts over its efficacy in student government, where one wrong remark can instantly alienate students and administrators. In short, we have more reason to believe that Zimbroff and Wagstaff would effectively communicate and forge relationships with the administration, Faculty Senate, student groups and other ASSU bodies.
On many issues, ranging from reimbursements by Stanford Student Enterprises (SSE) to graduate student involvement, both slates offered similar responses. However, the two slates were vastly different in the scope of their platforms. While Zimbroff-Wagstaff presented a focused and coherent vision for next year, we ultimately felt that MacGregor-Dennis & Druthi would offer more of the same as Stanford 2.0: a highly bureaucratic student government that does little to inspire students and administrators. Their 40-page platform, which offers something for everybody, is often lacking in details. For instance, the proposed “Academic Action Unit” is defined as “representatives from each school [that] work specifically on academic issues.” What that means is beyond us, and many of their other platform points are similarly vague. Of their more concrete suggestions, many would do little to improve student life and/or would conflict with services already offered; they pledge, for instance, to offer nutrition consulting services, which are already provided through Vaden.
Although we endorse Zimbroff-Wagstaff, we were impressed with MacGregor-Dennis’ passion for student government and Ghanta’s commitment to learning the intricacies of the ASSU. The two worked well as a team, and MacGregor-Dennis spoke sincerely of a commitment to become more pluralistic after criticisms this past year of his focus on entrepreneurship. Furthermore, MacGregor-Dennis’ intensity would be a welcome departure from ASSU Senators who want to end their terms early. Ultimately, though, we worry that much of their platform will not be realized; in addition, there seems to be no priority structure in place to ensure that their most pressing initiatives are effectively pursued. Zimbroff and Wagstaff, on the other hand, have for the moment narrowed their focus to a select number of pragmatic reforms that would improve almost everyone’s Stanford experience. This, along with their approachable personalities and diverse experiences, would go a long way in restoring credibility to the ASSU.
The Stanford Daily Editorial Board is chaired by Adam Johnson ’13. He is joined by four members: Mitul Bhat ’12, Rebecca Johnson ’11, Peter Johnston ’14 and Meredith Wheeler ’14. All members participated in the process, as none had affiliations with other endorsing bodies.