I am writing in response to the article in the Friday, April 4th 2014 publication of the Technique. The piece was reviewed by an Editorial Board that made their evaluation on a single, hot-button issue, with pre-determined biases towards the way the Roseen-Banner ticket approached that issue. Make no mistake: there is nothing more damaging to the integrity of our student life than sexual assault. However, an approach that includes hearing sexual assault cases in front of the Undergraduate Judiciary Cabinet is no less insensitive than an approach which puts these hearings in front of a different judicial body. It is simply a matter of competing views on how to best serve the men and women who are affected by this tragedy. I am friends with Dillon and know Brandie well; Yvonne and I share exactly the same goals as their team does when it comes to assault. Our differences lie solely in how best to achieve those goals, not the degree to which they damage our community. The Board neglects to recognize this distinction entirely, and crassly describes our position as “insensitive.”

The writers also demonstrate a blatant failure to evaluate my team’s experience while waxing poetical about the achievements of our competition. I have been the Class President my freshman, sophomore, and junior years. I currently serve as the Undergraduate Treasurer in SGA and I have served as the Institute-Wide Committees chair my sophomore year, responsible for overseeing the 30+ campus committees that represent student opinion to the administration on select campus issues.  Yvonne has been involved with Model United Nations, Nothin’ But Treble, Omicron Delta Kappa, Freshman Activities Board, President’s Council Governing Board, GT Ambassadors, Ivan Allen Ambassadors, and Executive Round Table. Have I mentioned that she was also an intern for Senator Saxby Chambliss, bringing our team’s experience far beyond the boundaries of Tech’s campus? There is no doubt that Dillon and Brandie are accomplished members of our student body as well, but any fair evaluation would reveal that the Bandes-Ploder team’s experience is far more extensive.

The Technique clearly began their assessment of this race with a pre-determined favorite. I am unclear on the composition of the board’s staff or the individual(s) biases that may have been held before the piece was written. But any fair evaluation would’ve included an analysis of all of the issues on the table, including faculty-student relations, campus cuisine, mental health, a Student Center renovation, and our innovative approach to Roadmap for Success, which would affect the lives of every single student who enters our campus gates. Apparently, none of these issues are flashy enough to gain the respect of a Board, who would prefer to sensationalize a single issue at the expense of a more robust, comprehensive analysis of the teams’ qualifications. A visit to our respective teams’ web pages will give a better overview of the choices in front of this year’s student voters than the quickly-written analysis done by the leaders of our student paper.

Sincerely,

Alex Bandes

Junior Class President & Treasurer

Student Government Association