Harvard’s UC presidential election is about to reach its epic conclusion, at least for the people who know that it’s happening. The Crimson Crossfire debate took place in Harvard Hall on Sunday, and it was filled with great debate points, inquisitive questions, and circular reasoning. So for the majority of us who didn’t attend this event, what should we take away from it?
Finger snapping orgy
We get it, finger-snapping is the new way to clap, but hearing more snaps than direct replies from the candidates does get dreary. It’s comforting to know that a lot of the student body responds positively (read: by snapping) to “inclusive” and “together we can.”
This isn’t your average high school election where candidates promise better school spirit and less homework. The different platforms proposed significant budget proposals and no-strings-attached funds going into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let’s hope we can see the effect the big bucks have, eh?
Blame everything on the UC exec
When asked about certain controversies involving the UC and its relationship with the Harvard administration, the exec was mercilessly scapegoated. Failure of true integration of the Harvard community? Blame the exec. Appeals to the administration about issues that don’t represent the student body? Ditto. We would not want to be this person.
If PBHA’s Mission Hill After School program got a dollar every time this word was used, HCCG would be suing the administration for disportionate allocation of club funds. Seriously, this word should be banned during debates.
“I voted against it, but I certainly support this progressive initiative”
The statement says it all.