Inside and Out: Thoughts on the USC VP Debates

microphone bankAlthough “Let the #uscgames begin!” flashed on screen before opening remarks at Tuesday’s VP debate, any spectacle-starved voter would have been disappointed. The usual Twitter feed projection floating above candidates’ heads was put to rest while candidates for the slate-based USC positions of VP External and VP Internal debated key portfolio issues. Aside from moderator Andrew Shaw’s virtually celebrated #sass, a few tense questions from audience members, and one uncomfortable reference to “pulling out or staying in,” the event left sensationalism to the Super Bowl.

VP External Candidate Debate
External candidates’ opening statements were all loyal to the debate that followed. Sojnocki, Wood, and Eftekharpour were each consistent enough to earn a keyword for the purpose of this article. I don’t pretend to represent any candidate’s whole approach with a single concept, but each word is a useful starting point for discussion.

Jordan Sojnocki

Jordan Sojnocki’s word is “experience” (as in “Best Student”). He was a cog in the larger Team McGuire machine made to regurgitate Western’s branding material for campaign fuel. Sojnocki opened by reminding students, “this is your Western,” and his stances often seemed neutral or poorly researched. His main initiative is to “bring businesses into the student bubble,” in part to give students better employment opportunities post-grad. Taking a business approach himself, Sojnocki also proposed that high tuition fees are necessary for motivating students to value their degrees.

Amy Wood

Amy Wood’s word is “advocacy.” Her opening statement, while spoken as though scripted, highlighted a need for change. Wood’s intention to lower tuition is clear and admirable, however her plan of action remains unspecific. Team Prabhu’s External candidate plans to “build community relations” in London through volunteer opportunities and by better showcasing students’ involvement in the city. Making particular mention of Montreal’s student action, Wood hinted at a flavour of advocacy outside the sanitary realm of Purple Papers and policy. She also proved adept at challenging other candidates as she gained confidence throughout the debate.

Amir EftekharpourAmir Eftekharpour’s word is “dialogue” (with students, with the aboriginal community, with non-profits in London and with Premier Life). Despite the Team Whelan slate member’s repeated use of such vague political phrasing, Eftekharpour’s genuine passion for the USC shone through at this debate. His approach to municipal engagement seemed antagonistic, however, including the assertion that “the only thing for students here is Western.” He is also concerned with students being systematically targeted by London Police’s Project L.E.A.R.N., which he plans to replace with a Good Neighbour campaign.

VP Internal Candidate Debate

Blake BarkleyMuch of Blake Barkley’s rhetoric dripped with disdain for other candidates’ initiatives. Running on McGuire’s slate, Barkley served as the voice of administrative reason in Tuesday’s debate. He seemed wary of change and often cited the University’s existing bureaucratic framework as a barrier. Barkley self-identified as the only Internal candidate with extensive lobbying experience. Evidently, he is also the most worn down by previous frustrations with the system; he understands the limitations of the USC’s role and proposed no major initiatives, clearly preferring to work toward small improvements through policy revision and better relationships with the deans.

Dan BainDan Bain’s delivery was unremarkable, masking several good ideas. His plans to provide better downtown study space for students and to appoint a USC commissioner in charge of international student relations are productive and achievable. However, the Team Prabhu candidate also spoke of more vague initiatives, such as “raising awareness” about USC senators and providing “better service for first year students,” which were not as strong.


Sam KrishnapillaiOf the three Internal candidates, Team Whelan’s Sam Krishnapillai inspired the most confidence. She took a definite stance on several issues that Barkley and Bain only prodded at. While presenting overly simplistic views on topics such as per-credit tuition and academic counseling (it “sucks”), her strong opinions demonstrated a determination for improvement. Krishnapillai proposed online systems as solutions to internal issues such as academic counseling and study space. She also traced her ideas back to those of Eftekharpour and Team Whelan generally, showing off some slate synergy.

Closing Remarks With the Slates

In her final remark, McGuire urged students to focus their votes on feasibility. Much of what Sojnocki and Barkley said demonstrated their confidence in the way the university currently operates, and the team seems to lack larger goals for the USC. While the effort to make students feel “at home” at Western is commendable, it’s also a weak vision for a student government.

Prabhu’s closing statement, a book-end to Wood’s opening, once again emphasized a need for change. Shifts toward an increased presence for academia and clubs during O-Week, more advocacy for lower tuition fees, and an increased student presence in downtown London will appeal to voters who are hungry for change. However, the team’s campus credit card initiative was exposed as irresponsible, and Prabhu himself failed to inspire at Tuesday’s debate.

Whelan’s final remark grounded his slate members; while Eftekharpour and Krishnapillai are clearly both passionate and experienced, it is the presidential candidate’s insight and diplomacy that may ultimately sway voters. Still, FIMS students are well-equipped to question Team Whelan’s techno-optimism, and its focus on catering to the existing USC community through such initiatives as a Soph Association may isolate other voters.


Elizabeth Sarjeant is OPENWIDE’s Managing Editor. It’s a wonder she has any time to attend debates, seeing as how she is also a fourth-year Hon. Spec. MIT student, FIMSSC VP Academic, and has a life besides!

3 thoughts on “Inside and Out: Thoughts on the USC VP Debates

  1. In the final paragraph it should not say Eftekharpour and Sojnocki rather Eftekharpour and Krishnapillai

  2. Hi, I enjoyed reading this article. However, I do have a couple of concerns.

    I think that some of the major ideas are not well-represented, and not given credence. I think this undermines a critical analysis of those ideas. When engaging with an idea, especially with the intent of criticizing it, you must represent the idea in its entirety, as stated during the debate. Otherwise, it’s a ‘straw man’ and the analysis cannot stick.

    For example, Dan spoke broadly about the need to engage students with their representatives. ‘Raising awareness’ was the not where he stopped, but that is where the representation of his argument ends, in the article.

    My own point, that ‘there is nothing for students but Western,’ was part of a far broader debate argument that identified a problem and discussed how we could engage with the mayor’s office, city staff, and community groups to address the obstacles to student engagement in London. Without a full representation of my argument, my stance might indeed seem antagonistic.

    Sam, as well, did not just say that academic counselling ‘sucks.’ She expressed a far more nuanced view of the matter, including an analysis of where the shortfalls are, and what we should do in the long-term and short-term. However, only reporting that she said it ‘sucked’ would indeed make her argument sound simplistic.

    I think this article is informative, but it does not give proper credence to many of the arguments posed. A critical analysis of what is being said needs to do just that, if the arguments are to be properly analyzed.

    Thank you for your time, and your coverage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s