In a debate between two presidential campaigns built on similar platforms, candidates Harry Khanna and Daniel Watts resorted to more personal attacks.
Thurgood Marshall College Elections Manager Kate Pillon, middle, asks questions of Student Voice! presidential candidate Harry Khanna, left, and Tritons United! opponent Daniel Watts, who squared off on April 6 in an oft-bitter debate.
Overall, both candidates said they were committed to student power at UCSD. Khanna, the current A.S. vice president of academic affairs, said he was more apt to achieve the goals, and emphasized Watts’ lack of experience in the student government.
However, Watts, a fifth-year veteran of UCSD politics, touted himself as a reform candidate. His Tritons United! slate is based largely on fixing a “corrupt” A.S. Council, he said.
However, when it came to specific questions, the two candidates mostly had the same answers.
During the debate, Khanna’s opening statement highlighted three general principles of his slate: access to higher education, student government autonomy and an improvement of the campus climate.
“I’m going to get the ball rolling,” Khanna said of his drive to improve the campus.
Watts’ opening statement, however, focused largely on Khanna.
“In 2003, I ran for California governor while my opponent was still in high school,” he said. “Harry’s been in A.S. for nine months and nothing’s gotten done.”
A change of pace is needed for the council, Watts said, proudly adding that he has never been on the council.
The debate, moderated by Thurgood Marshall College Elections Manager and Senior Senator Kate Pillon, questioned the candidates about their priorities, especially if voters pass a new fee referendum that would boost the pot of student fees in the council budget.
Khanna said he would put a hefty amount of the money toward programming, which could help the office book top-tier bands for campus concerts.
While Watts said he would do the same, he attacked the councilmembers for the way they worded the referendum. Though the referendum could pump up the programming budget, the council would also be allowed to shift current programming funds to other areas.
“It’s an underhanded way for the student government to raise your fees in order to fund their own pet projects,” Watts told students during the debate.
In rebuttal, Khanna said Watts spends student funds on his own “pet projects,” specifically more than $900 on the Truth About UCSD, a newspaper Watts published slamming the A.S. Council for fiscal irresponsibility, among other charges.
“A lot of Watts’ promises ring really hollow when we look at the other things he’s done,” Khanna said.
To increase UCSD’s local presence, both candidates advocated increasing appreciation for campus athletics. Watts backed a plan to sell Triton apparel at local malls. Khanna, meanwhile, said he is pushing for on-campus space for a Triton Store, where discounted Triton gear would be sold to bolster school spirit.
Watts questioned the feasibility of funding the store, which forced Khanna to answer quickly: “Have you ever worked with people before?”
The presence of athletics is currently hinging on a campus scholarship plan, which could provide aid for every eligible athlete. Both Khanna and Watts heavily supported the plan, but got testy about each other’s statements. Khanna claimed that Watts’ answer implied that athletic grants and aid would hurt academics on campus.
Watts responded frankly: “Harry, listen to what I say. I said athletic grants and aid could damage our academic reputation, not that it would make academics suck … Get a thesaurus.”
While A.S. Council autonomy was the foundation of both Watts’ and Khanna’s platform, both agreed that independence of the council is a large hurdle.
Watts said that the council would go bankrupt, referring to the problems of UC Berkeley’s student government, if it was not financially supported by the administration.
“All we run is Soft Reserves and Lecture Notes,” he said. “If we are going to talk about autonomy we have to be self-sufficient.”
The final question focused on the candidates’ methods to improve the campus climate.
While both candidates agreed UCSD needs to better represent minority communities, a question on the subject was a catalyst for personal attacks.
Watts slammed Khanna’s Student Voice! slate for writing “racist and sexist” comments on online message boards about his slate members. Watts continued his assault on Khanna, asking, “Why haven’t you and A.S. done any of the things you said you were going to do when you were all elected?”
As vice president of academic affairs, Khanna said it was not his place to reform the council. He emphasized that he is now running to “get things done.”
The debate was split into three parts, in which each candidate answered questions created by the elections committee, from each other and those from the audience.
Readers can contact Dora Scheidlinger at [email protected].
