The Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) Presidential Debate between WSA Vice President Mari Jarris ’14, Student Affairs Committee Chair Nicole Updegrove ’14, and Keith Conway ’16 took place in Usdan on Sunday, April 21. In the debate, Jarris highlighted her emphasis on financial accessibility and student rights and options, Updegrove discussed her collaborative work with University administrators, and Conway emphasized the fresh ideas he could bring from his position as a freshman and non-WSA member.

Moderated by WSA President Zachary Malter ’13, the debate began with opening statements in which the candidates outlined their platforms and goals for the future of the WSA.

Updegrove highlighted her motivation for running, as well as her work ethic.

“The reason I’m running is the same reason I do the work I do now,” Updegrove said during her opening statement. “I’m here because I have a lot of issues I want to work on. I can’t promise that I’m going to accomplish everything that will make this campus perfect. What I can promise is that I will work incredibly hard because we invest a lot in [the University].”

In addition, Updegrove spoke about her work within the WSA, which includes working with the administration to lessen penalties for participants of Tour de Franzia as well as introducing a January term, beginning next year.

“[With a January term] you don’t just graduate Wesleyan with a piece of paper,” Updegrove explained. “You get to talk to alumni during January. You get to talk about your summer plans and make sure you’re going somewhere. You have a vision of where you’re going and you have a plan of how to get there.”

Jarris outlined the two issues she wants to focus on in the election: financial aid and affordability, and student rights and student options.

“For the first [issue], that means building on some of the work we’ve done, introducing student oversight to the admissions process, and start[ing] up an organization fundraising for financial aid, and ultimately working towards a non-discriminatory admissions policy,” Jarris said. “For the second [issue], we want to introduce academic minors, get reduced fire safety fines for first-time offenses, and do things like get the chalking ban lifted and changing the role of RAs so they don’t have a disciplinary obligation.”

Jarris cited her leadership style as one of her strongest assets.

“[My running mate and I] really want to make the WSA a collaborative institution that empowers each representative to do productive work so that everyone has something passionate they are doing,” she said. “Our style is to talk to students, identify what they want, and fight for it. With our leadership, the WSA will be more representative and more effective than ever before.”

Conway expressed his sincerity in running, and delineated a platform primarily focused on his outsider perspective.

“I see real changes that need to happen in the WSA and Wesleyan as a whole,” Conway said. “I see no better way to make those changes [than] with an outside voice. [My] being a part of the WSA would make Wesleyan a better place, even a better place than it already is today.”

Following the opening statements, each candidate responded to a series of questions generated by the WSA, online submissions, and audience members. Among the topics discussed were the candidates’ most meaningful accomplishments within the WSA, their response to a hypothetical situation in which President Roth cancels Spring Fling, their stance on need blind, diversity issues, chalking, and what differentiates them from the other candidates.

On some issues, the candidates shared common sentiments. All three acknowledged their opposition to the chalking ban and their emphasized importance of need-blind admissions and diversity. However, answers differed for more open-ended questions. When asked to identify the most pressing issue, Conway responded with the administration’s efforts to curb the Tour de Franzia, Jarris cited sexual assault and violence, and Updegrove spoke about the administration’s failure to treat students as adults.

Throughout the debate, Jarris and Updegrove referred back to their experience on the WSA.

“[Chloe and I] have both been on the WSA for our entire time at Wes,” Jarris said in her closing statement. “We have a concrete vision of the WSA and how we can empower each member of the WSA to be a productive and representative member.”

Updegrove also focused on her experience and achievements as a member of the WSA.

“What sets me apart is the amount of work that I put in and what comes out of it,” Updegrove said. “What we’ve gotten is free STD testing for next year, [and] January term for next year. It’s that Buddhist House wouldn’t be sold this year. It’s that Tour de Franiza participants aren’t automatically going to be suspended. It’s that there’s a quiet lunchroom for students with disabilities who can’t go up the stairs. That’s what I’ve done all year, that’s what I’ll do next year.”

Conway meanwhile made some creative proposals during the debate.

“I actually have not started any initiatives here, which I think makes me an even better choice,” Conway said. “I can bring new ideas, ideas no one has ever seen before, none of the same groupthink [present in the WSA]. I think we should have printers in every dorm building. It’s too hard for students to walk all the way to SciLi. With seven cents per paper printed, the University could make the money spent on printers really quickly. Also, I think there should be more music rooms on campus.”

After the debate ended, all three candidates expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

“It was a really great opportunity to finally hear from all three candidates,” Updegrove said. “What I hope for is increased visibility on campus because you should care.”

Conway indicated confidence in his performance.

“I think I did pretty well,” Conway said. “I stayed true to myself, and it will be interesting because it’s the first time anyone has heard me speak.”

Jarris expressed hope that the debate will affect high-information voters.

“Also I hope that in doing this we are already fostering relationships with the student body,” she said.

Attendees indicated their enjoyment in watching the debate and praised the candidates’ performances.

“I thought it was really entertaining,” commented attendee Tal Levran ’15. “Keith’s humor really kept it going [more] than in previous years.”

Some students, such as Emily Sannini ’14, did not declare a winner.

“Everyone did very well,” Sannini said.

Voting began on Monday, April 22 and will end at 11:59 p.m. on Friday, April 26.