The Student Government Association (SGA) of Smith College held its first presidential debate in several years on Tuesday, April 16. Three pairs of students were seeking election: Ehle Cameron DeVaughn ‘25 for president and Piper Corey ‘25 for vice president; Mary Virginia Huffaker ‘25 for president and Amelie Horn ‘25 for vice president; and Madelyn Halperin ‘26J for president and Mia Bautista Bernal ‘25 for vice president. Huffaker and Horn joined on Zoom, as they are both currently abroad.
“This semester we’ve really wanted to rethink the way we hold our campus elections, to make sure that students have the information they need to choose a candidate who will actually represent their interests,” said Riley Austin ‘26, who is one of the students running the elections.
Samantha Sondik ‘26 also helped to manage the election. “[We’ve] noted in the past few years that voter turnout in SGA Elections has been way too low, and we think the insular, clique-y nature of the SGA is a big culprit for this phenomenon,” she said. “We believe that making elections, especially between presidential candidates, more competitive means that we’ll get better turnout and better representation in the SGA.”
Over 60 students gathered in the Campus Center’s Carroll Room to watch the debate. All of the candidates were invited to make opening statements and summarize their platforms. Their statements were characterized by themes of transparency, collaboration, diversity and amplifying student voices, with candidates stressing the importance of a more representative SGA and more student engagement.
The moderators asked questions about a variety of issues that are important to the student body, such as the initiative to create a required course on race. The candidates all promised more transparency about the process, which is a major concern amongst students.
“After serving as chair of the Curriculum Committee last year, I kind of came to the realization that there are several important missing pieces to really ethical and purposeful work in this conversation, the first being the lack of transparency from the administration,” said Huffaker. She detailed her plan, which includes more conversations with administration, reopening the discussion about the 2021 working group proposal with Loretta Ross and reinstating the recent graduate position on the Board of Trustees.
DeVaughn, who is on the Curriculum Committee, plans to continue the work that is already being done. “The student consensus and student recommendations have been sent out,” she said. “And the clear next step will happen next semester when we’ll be creating a proposal that implements these suggestions.”
Bautista Bercal also plans to build on the report sent out by the Curriculum Committee this year. “We want to make sure that that report doesn’t get lost and that a new committee chair gets to work on it,” she said. “But we also want to make sure that we get the trust in our committee chairs in cabinet to let them do their work — to not step over their work and try to lead when they know what their job is. And we just want to be able to make sure that we’re supporting them in any way that they may need, and know that they have our full support with the work that they’re doing. But letting them do it themselves.”
Divestment is a pertinent topic on campus, and this issue was addressed during the debate as well. A referendum on whether or not SGA should support divesting from weapons manufacturers is on the presidential election ballot. The candidates were asked about how they will support student activism on campus, including the movement for divestment. All of the candidates expressed their support for divestment in their responses and pledged to continue promoting student activism.
“It is SGA’s role to uplift student voices and advocacy groups with our keen understanding of the campus bureaucracy,” said DeVaughn. “We would use our position at SGA to uplift the voices of the student body by furthering the spread of the conversation surrounding the ceasefire resolution … Having this symbiotic relationship with admin is so essential. Our job is to represent and protect. And once again, divestment is automatically a commitment to ethical investment from now on.”
Halperin agreed with DeVaughn about SGA’s role in student activism. “We don’t need to bow down to what admin wants, and we don’t need to sacrifice activism on student campus to please the Smith administration,” she said. “We all have power as students and SGA has a responsibility to share that power in any way we can … We can and we should use our voices to stand up for what’s right in Smith and what’s right in the world, and divestment is one of those issues.”
“We are both pro-divestment. One of our main priorities is supporting SJP’s demands. Our goal as SGA isn’t to take over, it’s to let students work and work alongside them,” Horn said of her and Huffaker’s platform. “After this divestment happens, we also want to push for more transparent investment practices going forward … [Smith’s endowment] is $2.5 billion, which is a huge ethical responsibility for our institution, and the students deserve to know that they are meeting that responsibility.”
One of the major goals of this election cycle is “making the SGA more reflective of the student body and their voices,” said Austin. To promote equity and inclusion, the candidates mentioned plans of reaching out to Unity organizations, and Horn and Huffaker put forth a plan to introduce a work-study position on SGA.
Horn and Huffaker’s proposal received pushback from Halperin. “My thought on this is that SGA is no better and no different from any other organization on campus. So if we’re going to pay members of SGA, then we should absolutely be paying board members of Unity orgs, club sports and any other organization on campus,” she said in her rebuttal.
“Increasing diversity in any org on campus is important. Increasing diversity at Smith is important. But it’s especially important in SGA, where we’re representing the student population. But I don’t think that salaries or work study is the answer,” Halperin continued. “We’ve seen an increase in diversity in SGA without pay. And I think this is because of an increased connection between SGA and students on campus.”
After fielding student questions, candidates were allowed to give closing statements. “In summary, our main goal is transparency and accountability from the administration,” said Huffaker. “One of our biggest setbacks has been [administration’s] reluctance to work with SGA … Meaningful change cannot be made without transparency and accountability, especially from those in power.”
“It’s great that we’re all in this space to bounce ideas off of each other – I’m going to steal some of your ideas —– and I am just so excited to even be considered for SGA president, and I know Mia is excited to be considered for VP,” said Halperin. “We want to do the work with you guys, we want to be here for you, we want to serve you as leaders on this campus, and we want to make a change here at Smith.”
DeVaughn concluded by repeating her main initiatives. “First is resource expansion; we want to create more resources for international students and also gain more access … We also value ethical investment, so although we have been talking about divestment, it’s really important to think about where that money is going and what it is being put into. Then there is SGA accessibility; we need to bridge the gap between the student government and the student body.”
With the debate, said Sondik, “we wanted to encourage candidates to actually have deliverables and sound ideas, and we think we accomplished exactly that.”
The results of the election were sent out to the student body on Saturday, April 20. DeVaughn and Corey won SGA President and SGA Vice President, respectively, with 50.14% of the vote. Halperin and Bautista Bernal earned 30.53% of the vote, and Huffaker and Horn 20.22%.
