Each year, the Technique editorial board identifies a ticket in Tech’s Undergraduate Student Government Association (SGA) race that we feel is best suited to represent the student body in the next academic year. We carefully considered each one of the three — Hunter Richardson and Noah Pastula, Dhruv Kulkarni and Kyra Stillwagon, and Sultan Ziyad and Xiomara Salinas — based on the debate and their platforms to make our endorsement.
For the first ticket, the feature that underlies much of Richardson and Pastula’s campaign is their collective experience in SGA leadership. Richardson currently serves as the Vice President of Academic Affairs for the Undergraduate SGA, a position he has held for the past three years, and Pastula is currently serving as Speaker of the Undergraduate House of Representatives. They assert that their experience best prepares them to achieve the goals outlined in their 47-page platform. Richardson and Pastula’s platform is comprehensive, yet tempered with the knowledge that comes from years of service in SGA. In the debate, Richardson highlighted the candidates’ connections to administration as a powerful tool that they will leverage to fix many issues facing the student body. In particular, we commend the platform for recognizing issues important to the student body, including class registration issues and campus housing access.
However, Richardson and Pastula’s greatest strength may hinder them. With a combined 7 years of experience in SGA, students are concerned the candidates will uphold the status quo instead of bringing about real change. Richardson and Pastula’s “TL;DR” of 100 different goals for the administration is an excellent example of our greatest concern with their candidacy. While there are no doubt good ideas within their campaign, Richardson and Pastula needed to find a way to connect with voters, cut unnecessary jargon and refine their platform by narrowing their focus to the most impactful and achievable goals.
If experience was the greatest strength of the Richardson Pastula campaign, lack of experience is the unique centerpiece of Kulkarni and Stilwagon’s candidacies. The pair is not shy about admitting they are SGA outsiders, but they proudly tout their experience within Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) at Tech. Kulkarni and Stillwagon provide a fresh perspective with valuable commentary on the struggles student organizations face in communicating with SGA. The pair’s focus on RSOs is the strongest point of their campaign. They recognize the important work of clubs and organizations on Tech’s campus and argue that SGA should be primarily supportive.
While we applaud Kulkarni and Stilwagon for highlighting often-overlooked issues, simply noting challenges affecting the student body is not enough. The ticket does not present solutions and actionable goals to address the concerns that they raise. Unfortunately, their crunch for time given the ticket’s late entry into the race is evident in their platform. Despite this, Kulkarni and Stilwagon’s passion speaks volumes, and they will no doubt continue to do good for our campus.
One thing is certain about the Ziyad and Salinas campaign — it has drive. Change is at the heart of their platform. They highlighted issues like campus sustainability and accessibility while ensuring they engaged all students. Beyond their plans, Ziyad and Salinas connect with the issues personally. A perfect example was during the SGA debate when asked about the changing policy toward DEI programs; instead of giving a perfunctory reply supporting DEI, Ziyad connected with the audience. He shared his experience within those programs, acknowledged he did not have all the answers and assured us he would fight for the programs because he was genuinely passionate about supporting inclusive initiatives on campus.
The biggest criticism of the Ziyad and Salinas platform is the unattainability of some of their platform goals. Neither are strangers to SGA. Ziyad co-led the 2024 Wreck the Vote initiative, and Salinas is currently serving as infrastructure chair. However, their lack of executive experience leaves some questions about their knowledge of the limitations of SGA. An example of this is their plan “to create an SGA fund to assist international students with semesterly healthcare insurance costs through a need-based application system.” While a laudable goal, regulations surrounding the SGA endowment and Institute policy may block actions like these. Though part of their strength is their creativity and fresh perspectives, experience would afford them the knowledge of what is within their influence.
At the Technique, we recognize the host of challenges students face, from dining and housing struggles to the frustrations of class registration and construction. Addressing these Institute-wide issues will require strong, decisive leadership — leaders who not only advocate for students but also adapt to the evolving landscape of higher education. As policies shift and new challenges emerge, it is essential that the new SGA leaders not only acknowledge student voices but actively incorporate them into decision-making. While the decision is close, we feel that Ziyad and Salinas’s platform is best suited to lead the student body through these uncertainties. Now is the time for new voices to usher in creative solutions to issues facing Tech.
Ziyad and Salinas stand firm in their beliefs and offer a platform that feels relatable and genuine. Despite their imperfections, we are confident that they will be strong advocates for the student body moving forward.