Personal attacks and ignorance rule round three of AMS debates
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
VP Administration
Ekaterina Dovjenko and Michael Haack sparred off against each other in a seemingly good-spirited and well-mannered VP Administration debate on Thursday afternoon.
Both candidates touted their previous experiences in sustainability and leadership in their attempts to sway the present public, which consisted mostly of other candidates and press.
As they were questioned on the problems of student housing, the new SUB project and how they would deal with rogue executives, not a lot of difference showed between the platforms of both candidates as they both agreed with each other most of the time. The main difference dealt with the importance they attached to the issues.
Dovjenko focused much more on the SUB renewal project and her plans for both the new and the old building, even questioning her opponent on his plans, while Haack used every opportunity he got to illuminate his plans for building and supporting better clubs.
Board of Governors
While the VP Admin race was a nice example of a collegial debate, the Board of Governors (BoG) debate quickly turned vicious as both questioners and the other candidates (Guillaume Houle, Ahmed Azim Wazeer and Sean Heisler’s campaign manager—who represented Heisler in person while Heisler was present in cardboard form), attacked Blake Frederick and his role in the UN debacle of last December.
Most of the candidates agreed with audience members that damage had been done to the relationship between the university and the AMS, although Houle clarified by saying that the relationship with the AMS was fine and that it was the relationship with individuals that had suffered. He went further to say that the two student representatives on the BoG should be able to work together, adding that he couldn’t work with Frederick anymore.
Frederick was the only one who tried to convince the public not to “buy into the notion” that any damage was done between the AMS–UBC relationship, even though he also confessed to making many mistakes and constantly struggling between personal principles and the will of the AMS.
Heisler’s campaign manager mostly reiterated talking points that had been provided to him, and frequently had to field questions with a promise to get back to the audience after he had talked to the candidate.
Wazeer, on the other hand, refused to go into personal attacks, and said that he would and could work together with whomever would be elected. He focused on the future and on building good relationships with the university and making sure that he had the support of the student body.
VP Academic
After the contentious BoG debate, the VP Academic debate between Rodrigo Ferrari-Nunes and Ben Cappellacci was marked with the ignorance of both candidates about the issues they would have to deal with.
Both candidates fielded questions and tried to focus on their past experiences, be it on Friends of the Farm in the case of Ferrari-Nunes, and Safewalk in the case of Cappellacci. As such, Cappellacci kept focusing on safety on campus, even though he acknowledged that this would no longer fall under his jurisdiction, and Ferrari-Nunes also fielded questions by constantly referring to the need for more research and his plans to build an AMS research institute.
Another embarrassing moment came when neither candidate could properly explain what the UBC Campus Plan entailed, nor what they thought about commercial construction—even though campus development is a large part of the VP Academic portfolio.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
Rodrigo Ferrari-Nunes Jan 21
I find this posting disturbing because it personally attacks students, and it does so viciously. It does not even try to quote them. I have written extensively on the issue of development on campus, and if you take the time to read the thorough presentation on my website about my platform and campaign, you would have noticed that I was a member of the Vancouver Campus Plan Steering Committee. You did not even mentioned that me and Ben were asked to answer a complex question within 30 seconds. Calling us ‘ignorant’ for not being able to please you is a bit much, don’t you think? We are students, and we are constantly learning.
I find it saddening that instead of trying to understand our arguments and read through our platforms and provide an actual analytical look into our ideas, that the UBC is keen on openly attacking students. Why put students down more? What is your explanation about what is the Campus Plan, and how would you deliver it in 30 seconds? Take a deep breath, and reflect before you write. The Ubyssey should be more ethical. I believe that this is forgivable, but it sure does not serve students well. The VFMs have done by far a better job than the Ubyssey so far in the elections coverage. Yet, how much does the Ubyssey cost students?
Thank you very much,
Rodrigo Ferrari-Nunes
M.A. (UBC 2010), B.A. (UBC 2006).
Reply
Rodrigo Ferrari-Nunes Jan 21
correction: I meant “UBYSSEY”, not ‘UBC’ in the first phrase of the second paragraph.
Reply
Lowell Steves Jan 21
BOG candidates have been caricatured in this piece into the point of non-recognition, and I would like to read what they think. Heisler’s campaign manager did an incredible job, and it got my vote. You are also being unfair to Azim – you contradict yourself by adding him in the list of people attacking Frederick, then by saying he did not engage in personal attacks…
Also, you have absolutely misrepresented the questions that were asked by the audience or by the people who designed the debate, and transformed them somehow into ‘the issues that the Vp Ac candidates will have to “deal with”. This is a hilarious distortion of the truth! Just read the vp ac portfolio, maybe, so that you cannot make such mistakes, and confuse a ‘question asked’ with the actual ‘issues’ at stake. You did not even provide the actual questions that were asked in the debate. You mentioned a single one, and use that to attack the candidates… sad
Reply
James Michael Anderssen Jan 21
Ubyssey, beware that you might be liable in court for damaging individual’s reputations in public without credible data, and through caricaturing. You should be aware of people’s rights before publishing such a piece.
Thank You,
J.M., Law Student
Reply
James Michael Anderssen Jan 21
and beware we have in record every single comment you have removed so far.
Reply
serious reporter Jan 21
Wow – this does not represent what happened at all! There’s probably nobody looking over and no peer review involved in this paper. A post about ‘personal attacks’ that engages in ‘personal attacks’ – talk about hypocrisy!
Get Serious
Reply
Mike D Jan 21
Ubyssey, would you please stop deleting comments? Our screenshot list is getting embarrassingly large. Censorship of free speech is something that makes you look very bad, and makes you look like authoritarian regimes of the past. I will refrain to give you examples, but you should know your history.
Reply
Johnney C Jan 21
I wonder how much proof we need that Ubyssey is suppressing opinions… Keep on deleting, so we keep on recording. You should write a letter to the public explaining that your policies are exclusive and that you do not accept criticism, even using student money, and that you are afraid of transparency and ethical responsibility! You can still retract this terrible article and write one that actually informs students instead of putting them down!
Reply
BIASED MEDIA GUIDE Jan 21
WOW – Write a critical comment at the Ubyssey and watch it disappear after you post it! it’s Gestapo at work! OR is it the Patriot act? Of fear of accountability, or all of the above?
Reply
WATCH UBYSSEY DELETE YOUR COMMENT Jan 21
JUST DISAGREE AND PUFF! Your comment is immediately erased! It’s fun to collect screenshots though…
Reply
John Williams Jan 21
I am glad that the Ubyssey will have a Board of Directors. Maybe we’ll see actual reporting soon. This article is impossible to take seriously.
Reply
Anonymous Jan 21
What’s really embarrassing is the Ubyssey’s ability to accurately cover the event today. As a viewer of the discussion today, I am appalled by Roel’s piece here. Both candidates for VP Academic were well versed in their area of expertise. The questions were tough at times but they held their own in responding. The debates overall were not attacks (that insinuate both non-physical and physical violence) but rather were respectful sharing of dialogue for the enhancement of the the student body.
This piece makes me wonder is roel’s sees AMS politics as defunct and something that we should all ignore due to the inability of candidates take on such a position. Is he trying to kill the participation of student activism and politics? Why? Perhaps, he has mirrored our mass media and writes only sensational newsstories to gain more readers.
I think he completely misrepresented the VP Academic and most of the rest of the debates as well. And thus, the Ubyssey has failed to competently cover the debates. Perhaps this is because the best news writers on-campus refuse to write for them and prefer other outlets of newsprint.
Reply
Billie Jean Jan 22
I thought Bijan was going to come to set the pace of the BOG debate – we missed him!
Reply
Pedro Jan 22
This is riddiculous. Someone please fire someone from the ubyssey!! This is student funded (my money) and you produce such a bogus sensationalist report, you should go work for FOX News.. I was there at the debate, and this article is a far distortion of the truth. and posting deletions? WTF?!
Reply
admin Jan 22
Hi all, this is a message from the Coordinating Editor, Paul Bucci. If you believe your comment was deleted, send us a copy at feedback@ubyssey.ca, and I will personally post it in the story so that it circumvents our automatic spam filter. We only delete comments in which foul or violent language is used. The Ubyssey is in favour of a dynamic and active debate on campus as we strongly believe that opposing viewpoints are necessary for a viable democracy.
Reply
Cappellacci Jan 23
To all those supporting the VP Academics position it is very much appreciated. As students both Rodrigo and I strive to use our knowledge and skills to best serve the students of UBC. While The Ubyssey has the right to express its opinion on the debates it is clear that in this case, other forms of media may be taking a less biased approach reporting as they are not trying to sensationalize issues. I invite any student who has questions for me or Rodrigo to address us, or better yet come out to the next debate this Monday and ask us questions yourselves.
Reply
Kommander Keg Feb 3
The Ubyssey has a history of terrible website functioning, and it was only recently that it started allowing comments again at all, and those comments that are not showing up are actually not making it to the final approval frame on the site, so please submit all comments that you believe were deleted to the editor by email. This website is a crapshoot, comments applauding their writing (though unlikely) have also gone missing.
Keep fighting the good fight!
-KK
Reply