14 Harvard Undergraduate Association presidential candidates clashed Sunday over the organization’s finances, political role, and institutional power, offering competing visions for a student government many said lacks both authority and campus engagement.

The event — which was hosted by The Crimson — featured seven presidential campaigns: Zachary Berg ’28 and Daniel Zhao ’28, Dillon A. Dukes ’28 and Ahmed T. Eldeeb ’28, Isaac K. Delaney ’27 and Tobias Elbs ’27, Amira I. Abugararah ’28 and Jackson C. Sennott ’26, Joshua T. Eneji ’28 and Gabrielle L. Demuren ’28, Isabelle G. Agarwal ’28 and Hyunsoo Lee ’28, and Manuel Fernandez ’28 and Ali Sediqe ’28.

The debate was moderated by Crimson Editorial Chairs Heidi S. Enger ’27 and Zakiriya H. Gladney ’27.

Increased Budget and Financial Independence

In a year where incoming co-presidents will inherit a significantly increased budget — driven by a nearly doubled Student Activities Fee and a new alumni donation gift account — finances dominated much of the debate.

Several candidates framed the influx of funding as an opportunity to increase spending and to rethink the HUA’s relationship with the College itself.

Sediqe, among others, argued that the HUA’s reliance on Harvard funding limits its ability to advocate independently for students.

“If we want to take independent stances that really, truly support the students, we should be as financially independent and separate from the College as possible,” he said, calling that dependence a “big hindrance.”

Candidates broadly backed expanding the alumni gift account established by current co-presidents Caleb N. Thompson ’27 and Abdullah Shahid Sial ’27, which launched in September with a $10,000 donation.

But they differed in how aggressively they would pursue alumni fundraising and what that money should fund.

Berg and Zhao proposed the most ambitious target, pledging to raise $2.1 million from alumni through direct outreach.

Dukes and Eldeeb emphasized using the HUA’s expanded budget to improve communication and accountability, pointing to their proposal for a weekly “HUA in a Week” update to keep students informed on how funds are being used.

Agarwal and Lee argued that increased funding should support both student organizations and HUA-run initiatives, pointing to community-based programs like international care packages and an expanded MBTA pilot.

Repeated delays in club funding disbursements also made the mechanics of HUA finance a major focus. Asked about the continued delays in student organization funding by the HUA Finance Team, several tickets proposed expanding the finance team, including through paid student roles or interns, to reduce the burden on co-treasurers.

Elbs, the co-treasurer under the 2024-2025 administration, referenced prior efforts to bring in an independent consultant to assist with reviewing funding requests.

“I think it’s very important for HUA to advocate for an independent reviewer that has been already in the discussions with the DSO in the past,” he said.

Zhao, the current co-treasurer, instead blamed outdated infrastructure and proposed moving away from the Harvard Financial Credit Union, which currently handles disbursements.

“We’re going to work to switch to more modern financial infrastructure so disbursements can happen the exact same day decisions are announced,” Zhao said.

Independent Political Stance

Candidates also debated whether — and how — the HUA should engage in political issues, following a shift under Sial and Thompson toward public advocacy on national issues affecting students on campus.

Most tickets supported maintaining that approach, arguing that many political decisions directly affect student life and fall squarely within the HUA’s mandate.

“We serve the students, each and every one of you,” Eldeeb said. “We should take a position on the international issues that we’re dealing with, as well as dealing with the Trump administration and how they affect student life.”

Others tied that argument to recent changes on campus, including cuts to diversity-related programming, the closure of spaces like the Women’s Center and QuOffice, and the pressure on affinity organizations.

“We’ve gotten rid of the Women’s Center, we’ve gotten rid of the QuOffice, and we’ve gotten rid of a variety of things due to anti-DEI policies,” Agarwal said. “I think we need to make a space where students feel safe on campus. And if this is by taking a political stance, that is something we need to do.”

“This year, there was extreme amounts of cuts,” Zhao said, particularly affecting affinity groups in the wake of “anti-DEI” policies.

Some candidates argued the HUA should go further, using its budget to support students affected by those changes.

Abugararah and Sennott, Agarwal and Lee, Demuren and Eneji argued the HUA should fund the creation of physical spaces on campus for affinity groups.

Still, one ticket drew a clearer line against political advocacy.

“Politics is not really an HUA thing,” Elbs said. “If the HUA gets involved in political things, it will cause separation on campus.”

Grade Inflation Policy

Candidates also clashed over the HUA’s role in influencing academic policy, particularly ahead of an upcoming May faculty vote on a controversial grading proposal that has become one of the defining issues of the race.

The proposal, which would cap the number of A grades awarded, has drawn sustained opposition from the HUA since last semester. During the debate, candidates agreed broadly in opposing the measure — but differed sharply on what the HUA could realistically do about it.

Some emphasized the limits of the HUA’s power.

“Anyone who tells you that the HUA co-president ticket can decide the result of the grade inflation vote is lying to you,” Delaney said, adding that he and Elbs would work to have the administration “understand the student position.”

Others argued that advocacy was the right course of action.

“I’ve emailed over 30 faculty, 20 administrators about this issue,” said Lee, the current HUA academic officer. “And no matter if I get the co-president or not, I plan on working tirelessly until the main faculty vote.”

Berg also stressed that opposing the policy requires more than campaign rhetoric, pointing to his own efforts outside the HUA structure.

“We’ve written an op-ed about it. You’ve probably heard me debate Dean Claybaugh about it. We constantly pushed against it.” Berg said. “Even though I’m not on the HUA, I have still done it.”

Eneji and Demuren framed the grading proposal as a student well-being issue, arguing that health officials from Harvard University Health Services and Counseling and Mental Health Services should be part of the discussion.

“This is going to be so negative on student mental health,” Eneji added.

Some candidates said the grading fight illustrated the broader weaknesses of student representation. If students oppose a major academic policy but still have little formal say in the process, they argued, the problem is larger than this one vote.

Sennott rejected the idea that the HUA should accept marginal influence over decisions that shape student life.

“I think that if we can’t look at student government as the place to change policies for student life, then what are we doing here?” Sennott said. “I don’t think anyone here should be running for office if we don’t think that we at least have a chance to have a role in determining the destiny of the school.

Student Engagement and Administrative Power

Beyond individual issues, candidates repeatedly returned to a larger question: whether the HUA has — or can build — meaningful institutional power at all.

Abugararah and Sennott argued that disengagement stems directly from a lack of influence.

“We think the reason why people have checked out of the student government is because it has no power,” Sennott said. “It has no real institutional power.”

Dukes and Eldeeb, meanwhile, framed the problem as one of visibility, arguing that many students remain unfamiliar with the HUA and its work.

“Sometimes I’ll ask a student, ‘hey, do you know about the HUA?’ and they say, ‘what is the HUA?’” Dukes said. “To me, having a student government that that’s even a question is a huge problem.”

Fernandez and Sediqe pointed to the absence of a formal mechanism for student input, arguing that existing engagement efforts lack real impact.

“We can go to cities and town halls and say all that we want, but reality is that we don’t have protocols put in place for actual voting of the students,” Fernandez said.

Eneji and Demuren, meanwhile, claimed that student engagement depends on increasing the number of roles within the HUA.

“We believe that the HUA can make more leadership positions for students to actually gain real skills,” Eneji said. “It’s not about building stuff from the ground up, but making sure what we already have is bolstered.”

Tickets also diverged on how to build administrative leverage. Abugararah and Sennott proposed adding student seats to decision-making bodies, including the Administrative Board and the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body.

Berg and Zhao offered a more incremental approach, proposing a “student observer” role on the Corporation instead.

“We can give students an ability to hear what is going on without making the administration feel that they have to give something up in return,” he said.

Candidates with experience inside the HUA pointed to existing avenues for influence.

Agarwal, the current residential life officer, highlighted her role in restarting the HUDS standing committee and pointed to student representation on the Council on Undergraduate Education.

“There are plenty of places where we can put students as long as we are active about doing it,” she added.

—Staff writer Alma T. Barak can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at almabk.54. Follow her on X @almabk_.

—Staff writer Theresa F. Bartelme can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at theresabartelme.15. Follow her on X @theresabartelme.