By
Cardinal presents candidates unfairly
To say that I am disappointed with a single blurb as “Hoffman’s opponent” would be a gross understatement. Perhaps I misunderstood an email stating an interview could not be rescheduled, but my survey responses would be printed.
The survey contained much more than an “important point” section.
The inference that I am not responsible because I couldn’t make the meeting and this in turn “weighed heavily” against me, is simply ridiculous.
I made every attempt to reschedule the interview when I was informed that I had one opportunity to take an exam I missed while attending a national student leadership conference in Nashville. This time conflicted with our interview appointment and left me little choice as academics take priority. The lack of a picture or at the least my name in the main candidate box merely adds insult to injury as they say. You were provided several pictures that more than met the requirements you set forth and yet you still omitted them. You claim to be “impartial”, but I find this hard to believe given the complete lack of consideration my slate has received from the Cardinal. Contrary to an asserting that I would “scrap” current projects, I believe these projects need to be advanced to completion in the next administration.
Your tag line reads that “voters must look at issues, experience to make choices”, but you failed to meet the burden you’ve assumed as a journalist to inform the public with all the facts. To a casual reader it would seem as though there are only two candidates for SGA President, and this should be corrected so that voters are fully aware of all those seeking this office.
-Mark Glickman
SGA Presidential Candidate
Outside experience important as well
I appreciate the Cardinal’s objectivity during the endorsing process.
