The Stanford Daily Editorial Board unanimously endorses the slate of Angelina Cardona ’11 and Kelsei Wharton ’12 for the ASSU executive position in the April 8 student body election. Of the three slates interviewed, the Editorial Board felt that Cardona and Wharton best embodied the combination of broad vision and practical experience necessary to effectively head the ASSU executive.

On Saturday, April 3, the Editorial Board met with the three executive slates that were seeking our endorsement in the coming election–Cardona and Wharton, Peacock/Bakke and the No Rain Campaign. While the Editorial Board found positive qualities in each of the three slates, our final support easily went to Cardona and Wharton, who presented the clearest and most feasible set of goals for next year’s executive. While the Peacock/Bakke slate showed a strong level of experience and leadership, their platform was shaky on specific details; and while the No Rain Campaign’s platform contained a clear set of goals for the executive, they themselves did not convey a sufficient degree of experience or understanding of the ASSU. Cardona and Wharton, however, presented both a well-outlined set of goals and the experience necessary to accomplish them.

With regards to the specifics of Cardona and Wharton’s platform, the Board was thoroughly impressed with their commitment to sexual assault prevention, transparency and working with the new ASSU Senate to forge a more united ASSU. Whereas this year’s Senate and executive have been consistently at odds with each other, Cardona and Wharton–both seasoned veterans in the ASSU–have already opened lines of dialogue with the future ASSU Senate, interacting with each Senate candidate in advance of Thursday’s election. With this year’s Senate due for replacement, the Editorial Board believes that Cardona and Wharton, if elected, would make great strides towards ending the divisiveness and partisanship of the ASSU.

Furthermore, in the course of the interview, Cardona and Wharton both showed a level of humility and openness that we believe would be an asset to the executive office. In response to our concerns with Cardona’s role in the founding of the Wellness Room, Cardona acknowledged the negative conception many students have for the Wellness Room, and promised that the projects she and Wharton undertake as executive officers will reflect the needs and concerns of the campus community.

In a controversial move, the slate of Thom and Stephanie chose at the last minute not to be interviewed by the Editorial Board, and to withdraw themselves from consideration for the Editorial Board endorsement. Despite the precautions the Editorial Board took to publicly explain the endorsement process and eliminate potential conflicts of interest, the Thom and Stephanie slate still found the presence of one of our board members unacceptable. They took issue with the fact that the newest member of the Editorial Board, Ana Diaz-Hernandez ’11, was endorsed by Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) while serving as a senator. Despite the fact that she no longer participates in any SOCC activities, including their endorsement, Thom and Stephanie remained convinced that Diaz-Hernandez was biased simply because she remained listed as a fan of SOCC on Facebook.

The irony of this unfortunate situation is that, prior to Thom and Stephanie’s refusal of our interview, the Editorial Board believed, based solely on the content of their platform, that theirs was one of the strongest slates in the executive race. But actions speak louder than words, and their refusal to be interviewed by an Editorial Board with one member who has former SOCC affiliations reveals a level of petty vindictiveness that we believe is unbecoming of student body leaders. If the Editorial Board were to consider all former affiliations as conflicts of interest, then the whole endorsement process would be made impossible–Stephanie Werner ’11 herself is a former Stanford Daily staff member, while both Katherine Heflin ’11 and Dan Leifer ’10 of the No Rain Campaign are former Daily Editorial Board members. If Thom and Stephanie refuse to be involved with the Editorial Board because one of its members was once a SOCC-endorsed senator, then we have major concerns with how well Thom and Stephanie, if elected, would work with, or not work with, senators and other ASSU officials with SOCC affiliations.

Here again, the Editorial Board finds cause for hope in the Cardona and Wharton slate. Their commitment to communication with students, to bringing together the diverse cultures and organizations of Stanford for broad collaboration, is precisely what the Stanford community needs in this time of division, suspicion and alienation. In Cardona and Wharton’s words, the Editorial Board found a message of inclusiveness that seeks to bring together the whole Stanford community–graduate and undergrad, SOCC and Students United Now (SUN), man and woman–to accomplish realistic goals for the betterment of the whole community. For this reason, we extend our full support to the Cardona and Wharton slate in this Thursday’s election.