Gabriella MenezesThird forum down, only two to go after the International Students’ Association (ISA) forum on February 27. For the University of Alberta Students’ Union (SU) presidential candidates, this means they have less opportunities to prove themselves. After this forum, Pedro Almeida and Sophie Martel have already been proving themselves fit to be president. However, Ofure Eigbe and Joseph Sesek aren’t in the same boat.
It wasn’t a complete loss for Eigbe. Her experience as an international student representative at Augustana and an Augustana representative for the ISA came in handy. She made some strong points about mental health supports and the barriers to accessing them. Particularly when it comes to different cultures’ attitudes towards mental health that may create stigma for individuals when accessing support. This acknowledgement was great. But her idea of events to destigmatize mental health might not be the best solution. If someone isn’t comfortable talking about their mental health with a trained professional, they likely won’t want to go to a public event about mental health either.
Almeida mentioned taking a trauma-informed approach in responding to mental health incidents. Additionally, he noted community support as being important, which the SU could help facilitate. While not a bad ideas, it felt like they didn’t fully address mental health resources for international students specifically. Martel, on the other hand, specifically mentioned trying to add multi-lingual options to the Peer Support Centre. Seeing as language barriers can be a big factor in accessibility, this was great to see brought up. And if she were to follow-through on that promise, it could have tangible effects on students across campus.
Unfortunately for Sesek, it was his lack of knowledge and sensitivity that stood out. When responding to a question about mental health supports, he rather vaguely said he wants more diverse supports. Whether he just doesn’t know or hasn’t thought of more specific ways to address the issue, both would be concerning.
Additionally, I asked the presidential candidates about the bureaucracy in adding an international student representative to any governing body at the university. This was something Sesek specifically talked about during the forum. Yet, he said in answer to my question that he didn’t know much about the bureaucracy to adding seats. But, if elected, he said he’d lean on more experienced executives on his team. As was the case in the last forums, it seems Sesek says things or makes promises without actually having done his research.
Almeida’s answer, however, stood out from other candidates. His past experience with the SU meant he was realistic in how he wants to include international students in important conversations. Rather than adding an additional seat, Almeida suggested reducing barriers for international students who want to run for existing faculty representative positions.
But the disappointment with Sesek didn’t end there. His comments about harassment on public transit caused some concerns for me. He spoke of a time when a “vagrant” harassed some international friends of his. The word vagrant refers to unhoused folks and is simply insulting and stigmatizing to use. While I can understand the frustration with the person who harassed them, calling them a “vagrant” was troubling. Especially since Sesk is vying to be the spokesperson for the SU.
And the cherry on top is that his ideas for improving safety lacked substance. He specified adding security cameras on campus and more security. Cameras can only do so much — and they aren’t necessarily cheap to install. And for someone so worried about cutting costs, this made little sense. Additionally, as Martel mentioned in the forum, some students have bad experience with security or police services. Increasing security or police presence doesn’t necessarily make all students feel safer.
Almeida’s points on safety were far better. He specifically talked about expanding OneCard access to buildings after hours. This would mean students could walk inside a secure building instead of outside at night. While this wouldn’t be the end-all-be-all of addressing safety concerns, it is a tangible idea.
Martel’s approach to safety concerns was slightly different. Leading up to the assault of a student in the Indigenous Students’ Union (ISU) lounge, the university had failed to address safety concerns raised by the ISU. As president of the ISU, it’s unsurprising that Martel’s approach seemed to be influenced by that. Martel focused more on giving students a direct line of communication with the university to see these concerns be addressed. While expanding OneCard access, as Almeida proposed, is a good idea, Martel’s idea would provide more long-term solutions.
Ofure, on the other hand, missed the mark. For starters, she continually talked about Augustana when that clearly wasn’t the focus. Additionally, she said she believed in not “racially-profiling students based on who commits the crimes.” Instead, Eigbe suggested focusing on when and where the crime happened. This came off as suggesting the SU and university shouldn’t consider race in addressing safety concerns. But that makes little sense as people of colour disproportionately experience violence. On top of that, the assault in the ISU lounge showed that Indigenous people’s concerns about safety have been ignored. Whether it’s an unawareness of these issues or a miscommunication, Eigbe should be clearer about addressing safety concerns.
Ultimately, Sesek lacks leadership in both ideas and his choice of words. And while Eigbe showed some growth, gaps remain. At this point, it’s really a race between Almeida and Martel. Almedia offers experience and small, but tangible ideas, though there’s still room for improvement. Martel, however, presents a strong vision for not just immediate solutions, but long-term changes.
