New UA hopes to overcome past failures

The results of Wednesday night's Undergraduate Assembly Steering Committee elections were surprising to some, disappointing to others and uplifting to many. With Wharton sophomore Dan Debicella as chairperson and College sophomore Tamara Dubowitz as vice chairperson, the leadership of the UA will be quite different from the expectations many held only last week. At that time, only College junior Dan Schorr had announced his candidacy for chair. And College sophomore Lance Rogers was the only declared candidate for vice-chair. But neither candidate ran unopposed and neither candidate was successful in his run for the two top positions on the UA. Schorr was selected as a finalist for the position of University Council Steering Committee representative, but Rogers, who also ran for the position, was unsuccessful in that bid as well. It was obvious last night that the new UA members were hoping for a clean slate, after a divided and problematic previous term, with fresh faces and a new agenda. But it was also evident that they were hoping for experienced and impartial leaders, with much of the questioning centering around those two issues. Schorr, for instance, was attacked several times about his views ranging from minorities on campus to his ability to be impartial. United Minorities Council Chairperson Jun Bang, a College senior, and Stephen Houghton, co-chairperson of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance, accused Schorr of referring to the UMC as the "balkanization of Penn." Schorr denied saying the comment. Houghton, a College junior and Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, strongly denounced Schorr's ability to "work with people" impartially. "I've only seen you talk at people," he said. " You don't listen and listening is a very important job of the UA chair." Schorr said his strong advocacy of free speech contradicted their ideas. "I believe that all ideas must be heard," he said. "How can you call me close minded? That's the antithesis of everything I've ever said." Schorr added that as a UA member, he was supposed to express his own views. As chair, however, he said he would remain objective and act simply as the body's leader and facilitator. College sophomore Eden Jacobowitz said the attack was inappropriate. "It's very ironic that the people who talk most about racial sensitivity have forgotten about basic human sensitivity when they attacked Dan on a personal basis," he said. The impartiality issue also filtered down to both Debicella and the third candidate for chair, Engineering freshman Manuel Calero. And the selection of Debicella indicates to many that UA members think he will be unbiased and fair as chair. Experience was another key factor in the decision making process. Calero ran for the positions of chairperson and treasurer and lost both due to his youth and inexperience on the UA. UA members also showed a desire to lessen bureaucratic red tape and philosophical debating, while increasing action and communication. Debicella and Dubowitz both stressed these ideas in their statements. At the same time, the winning candidates often did not outline concrete plans or specific goals, indicating that they hoped to accomplish what the general UA body hoped to accomplish. "I do think it's really unrealistic to put 20 issues in front of our faces and say we'll accomplish them," Dubowitz said, after Rogers had outlined his top 10 goals for the new year. Attendance was the final issue that proved to be a downfall for some candidates, especially Wharton sophomore Quang O, who ran for treasurer. Former UA Chairperson Seth Hamalian, a College junior, criticized O's failure to attend the body's March 20th budget meeting, along with his "very poor" attendance record at general meetings. "A person needs his sleep," O responded. "When meetings go until one or two in the morning, and I've left, that's why." Though definitive ideological and practical differences were apparent amongst the candidates, most appeared to be advocating the same goal of change and improvement. This same call for change happens year after year, and was especially prevalent last year when Hamalian, who was considered the darkhorse candidate, was elected chair because the body wanted a fresh start. Despite Hamalian's hopes, however, the term of the previous UA was marked with divisiveness and a lack of consensus on most issues. While the new UA voted with thoughtfulness and careful consideration, that does not mean it will successfully change into a forceful, instrumental, influential body within the University. If all works according to the new UA's plans, the body may be on the road to real improvements in communication, administration and action. But, when using past UAs as examples, it seems possible that a new UA may be installed a year from now advocating the same principles of change, advocacy, involvement and action.