Hilltopper, Crier Partner to Host Student Body Candidate Forum

Pictured from left to right: Gina Gagliardi ‘22, Madison Hediger ‘22, Joey Francis ‘21, Julie Sullivan ‘21, Rit Flandreau ‘22, Kevin Chrisom ‘22

On Sunday, candidates for Student Body President and Vice President gathered in the Jean Center Auditorium for the first-ever Student Body Candidate Forum, presented by the Saint Anselm Crier and The Hilltopper. The candidates participated in an hour of spirited, if sometimes redundant, discussion about diversity, leadership, and campus issues. 

The three tickets were each seated at their respective tables in the Melucci theater, with the Crier’s Alex Dooley, and the Hilltopper’s Jackson Peck moderating. The event was well attended, with an audience of thirty to forty spectators, comprised of current SGA members, candidate’s supporters, undecided voters, and Dean of Students Alicia Finn. Questions were directed to either presidential or vice-presidential candidates, with certain questions being directed at specific candidates. The forum was broken up into five main segments: diversity and inclusion, campus activities, campus issues, leadership, and audience Q&A. Two segments were strictly devoted to vice-presidential questions.

The forum began with questions for individual candidates regarding diversity and inclusion at Saint Anselm College. Much like in speeches on Thursday, candidates struggled to provide specifics on how they would foster inclusivity, mostly speaking in generalities. Presidential candidate Gina Gagliardi ‘22, when asked how she would support the visibility of minority communities on campus, reiterated her point from Thursday regarding “an approach on mental health as a whole.” Presidential candidate Rit Flandreau ‘22 briefly mentioned SGA collaboration with the Intercultural Center’s Wayne Currie, stressing; “two organizations are better than one.” For her part, vice-presidential candidate Julie Sullivan stressed the importance of “accessibility for all Anselmians” to her and her running mate Joey Francis’ ‘21 campaign, saying, “we would start resolutions right away.”

The vice-presidential candidates, in particular, were asked what they believed made them best qualified to lead the Senate. Vice-presidential candidate Kevin Chrisom ‘22, emphasized his background as the only politics major on stage saying, “That knowledge is gonna be a huge boon,” adding, “I’m able to talk to all students here of any race, color, or creed.” Vice-presidential candidates Julie Sullivan ‘21 and Madison Hediger ‘22 both stressed their SGA experience and the importance of upholding the constitution. Hediger added that “we need someone…who can make sure that all voices are being heard in Senate, not just the loudest voices.”

Mr. Chrisom concluded the segment by beginning a major theme of the night. Namely, arguing that he and his running mate Rit Flandreau understood the importance of  “not promising things that we know cannot be accomplished.” Ms. Gagliardi agreed about the importance of being realistic but added that it was crucial to “dream of what can be accomplished” as well. 

Mr. Flandreau, in one of the few specific proposals of the night, suggested improving the printing system on campus. He called for printers in dorms, saying, “I’d like to do a trial run in a dorm, so possibly LLC.” He added that he believed this to be a “low cost, attainable goal.” 

The candidates were then asked perhaps the night’s most profound question: In your opinion, what is the biggest issue facing Saint Anselm College? “You gave me a hard one,” said Ms. Gagliardi, who paused to consider the question. “I think if we had more parking, closer parking, that would be fabulous,” she said. “Again I don’t know what the role of SGA is as far as actually creating a parking lot, but I know that this building we’re all sitting in,” referring to the student center, “is actually an SGA resolution, so I’m not gonna say that it’s out of the picture, I would say it would be a long term goal.” 

Later, during audience Q&A, Sean Bentley ‘22 seized on Ms. Gagliardi’s frequent doubts about SGA’s purview. “You’ve mentioned multiple times you’re not sure what SGA’s role is on specific issues such as parking, so how can you run for president if you don’t know about SGA’s role in these issues?” Ms. Gagliardi agreed that she and all of the candidates would have a lot to learn, but clarified that she was referring to being realistic and taking things step by step. 

Ms. Gagliardi’s running mate Ms. Hediger, added that the second biggest issue is food. “We have all been in Dave at twelve-thirty, and it is a long wait,” she said. Hediger stressed that improving food options, variety, and health should be a long term SGA goal. 

Mr. Francis, on the other hand, argued: “the biggest problem facing Saint Anselm College today is the physical accessibility to all areas of campus for people of all abilities.” He went on to describe the experience of witnessing a relative of a student struggle to enter a building with no ramp. Ms. Sullivan echoed her running mate, adding that as leader of the Senate, she would change the language used in relevant Senate resolutions to “accessibility for all Anselmians.” 

The candidates for vice president were then pressed for similar detail when they were asked which resolutions they would like to see the Senate pass under their leadership. Ms. Hediger called for getting rid of straws in Davison Hall saying, “I don’t understand why we’ve gotten rid of straws in C-shop but not in Dave.” Ms. Sullivan highlighted plans for an accessible ramp connecting Saint Benedict Court to the rest of the campus and continued support for the “Respect the Nest” campaign. Mr. Chrisom suggested a renewed focus on recycling as a centerpiece of a Flandreau-Chrisom administration. 

When the presidential candidates were asked what differentiates them from their opponents, each ticket explained what they believed made them the best choice. Mr. Flandreau stressed his running mate’s experience as an active member of SGA and his own experience as an outsider. Mr. Francis explained that both he, and his running mate Ms. Sullivan were both “very bubbly” individuals and that he was “not above walking up to strangers in Dave and striking up a conversation.” Ms. Gagliardi explained that she would strive towards “an open door policy” and added that as a nursing major, she’ll take the time to listen. “I will care about you, I will care what you have to say,” she said. 

In his speech on Thursday, Mr. Francis claimed that the best approach to passing Senate resolutions was “slow and steady.” However, the Senate passed just three resolutions in the previous academic year. When asked to clarify if he still believed slow and steady was the best approach in light of this slow progress, Mr. Francis doubled down. “I think that as opposed to rushing through resolutions that might not be up to par, I’d rather see resolutions that are 100% going to benefit all Anselmians,” he said. 

The night ended with an unexpected display of unity between all three tickets. The candidates were asked about the ongoing legal dispute between the monastic community and the Board of Trustees, and whether they thought that the college’s Catholic identity was under threat, or that certain changes needed to be made. While it is possible that candidates were uninformed about the details of the legal proceedings, each of them nonetheless maintained an explicitly neutral position in the conflict. “I know that the SGA Executive Board has taken a neutral position, which I think is probably the best idea,” said Mr. Flandreau. “The important thing to keep in mind at the end of the day,” said Mr. Francis, “is that both the Board and the Monks do have our best interest at heart.” 

Throughout the forum, candidates largely kept true to the platforms they outlined in their speeches on Thursday, even when challenged. That said, there was often universal difficulty in describing specific policy proposals, particularly when it came to issues of diversity and inclusivity on campus. Nonetheless, each ticket outlined a unique case for their candidacy and held strong under both moderator and student questioning. 

Saint Anselm College Students are encouraged to vote Monday 2/17 or Tuesday 2/18, either at Davison Hall or the Coffee Shop. A valid student ID is required to vote. 

College President and Abbot Discuss Tensions

Near the end of last year, Abbot Mark Cooper, Chancellor of Saint Anselm College filed a declaratory judgement suit against the Saint Anselm College Board of Trustees. What this suit meant, what its consequences were, and what started the dispute in the first place, were all questions that were left largely unanswered to the student body. The news threw the whole of campus into confusion just before their month-long winter break, without an opportunity to respond, react, or inquire upon this news. Students resorted to discussing the bombshell over break through instagram, where one particular meme page had the students going “nutty”. 

Despite this entertaining vector of communication, the student body remained in the dark on the topic. Statements released from President Favazza and the Board of Trustees, and Abbot Mark Cooper have provided some clarification, but much was left to be learned. How did we get here? Why did Abbot Mark do this now? What caused the suit? Down what path does this lead us, the Saint Anselm College community? We had the opportunity to answer these questions by sitting down with representatives from both camps: Abbot Cooper and President Favazza.

Earlier in 2019, according to Abbot Mark, the Board of Trustees and the Members (the monks in solemn vows, seven of whom are also voting members on the Board) began the discussion of “sufficient independence” with regard to amending power for the bylaws of the college. Sufficient independence is one thing the school’s accreditation process relies upon, and the BOT believes that they do not have sufficient independence, thereby endangering the College’s accreditation. This discussion was a continuation of the 2009 accreditation process that officially separated the monastery from the college, creating two separate entities. During this process, the New England Commission on Higher Education (NECHE) accredited the school, but said that more work was left to be done in the future with regards to this benchmark of “sufficient independence”. President Favazza, however, did say definitively that “The college will be accredited”, as well as that “sufficient independence is not total independence” from the Members.

Abbot Cooper anticipated a potential difference of opinion between the jurisdiction of the BOT and the Members, and proposed earlier in 2019 that the Board and the Members create a “file” where all issues of jurisdiction and amending power be filed. At the end of eighteen months, Cooper suggested, the file would be reopened and depending on the amount of issues inside of it, the issue could be revisited or not. Such a proposal was rejected at that time by Board leadership.

From the summer of  2019, to the BOT meeting in October of 2019, the two parties had two different understandings of how amendments should be made in the Saint Anselm College bylaws. At the October 2019 meeting of the Board of Trustees, “They (the board) brought a lawyer to the meeting, who said ‘here’s the way we read Law 292:6’ in New Hampshire Law, we have the power to amend, and by the way, here’s some amendments” according to Abbot Cooper. He continued, “One of their amendments was to extend their own terms. Some of the people who are most interested in this are those who are rolling off (meeting the end of their term) on June 30th, so they said we will extend our terms up to another few years”

New Hampshire Law 292:6 is focused on the governance of voluntary member non-profit institutions and specifically on which body has the authority to amend the bylaws of such institutions, according to the office of President Favazza in his letter to alumni in response to the petition for declaratory judgement.

In order to veto the amendments at this October meeting of the Board of Trustees, according to the Board’s interpretation of 292:6, the Members had to amass a ⅔ vote to veto the amendments. There was a lack of clarity as to how the ⅔ of the Members would be counted as well. There are twenty-three Members, however, only 18 can make meetings. Three Members are in our California monastery, one is in a nursing home and cannot make it to meetings, and one is in Boston doing work for the Archdiocese. The veto passed 17-1, passing any threshold the board could have.

When asked, Abbot Cooper indicated that this interaction with the BOT was the flashpoint for his much-criticized decision to file his petition for declaratory judgement, and go public with the dispute.

That brings us to November 27th, when Abbot Cooper filed his Petition for Declaratory Judgement to the Hillsborough-Northern District court, asking the presiding judge to make a judgement on the interpretation of NH 292:6: the lawsuit in question. That’s the backstory: what does this mean for the college now?

Both Abbot Cooper and President Favazza were optimistic in the belief that this court battle would not in any way affect life for students on the hilltop. Favazza’s statement to alumni, released shortly after Abbot Cooper filed the lawsuit on November 27, emphasized this point: “What does this mean for students? I want to be clear: it continues to be business as usual here on campus. Students continue to learn, faculty to teach and research, and staff to continue with their roles of coaching, mentoring, and supporting the mission of the College. We continue to do all the things that make Saint Anselm College strong, vibrant, and transformative.”

Abbot Cooper was similarly positive on how this would affect students, saying, “I certainly think the school is strong enough to handle this, I don’t think it’s that serious or even that exciting a lawsuit/petition”. He later continued, “It doesn’t affect our curriculum, it doesn’t affect the student experience, the college will go on”.

The petition that was filed, often called a lawsuit (which is technically correct), is a petition for declaratory judgement, which asks the court of New Hampshire to make a ruling on 292:6, and affirm the interpretations of that law by either the Members (the Monks in solemn vows), or the Board of Trustees. This need was emphasized by Abbot Cooper: “We can’t have two sets of bylaws, we can’t have two groups thinking they have the ultimate power to amend”.

Both President Favazza and Abbot Cooper were careful to characterize the decision to file the petition as one that was forward-looking. “Why I am interested in this is not for today, but for the future…I trust the trustees we have right now with our catholic identity…I am interested in the amending power for the monks, not for today, but for some day in the future where they need it”, explained Abbot Cooper.

One of the biggest unanswered questions that remains is: What happens when all of this is done? Because the suit will leave a definite “winner” and “loser”, what are the worries that there will be a period of bad relations between the BOT and the Monastery?

Both Abbot Cooper and President Favazza expressed optimism with regards to these worries. President Favazza characterized the conflict as a “family squabble”, indicating that the two sides have very different interpretations of NH 292:6, but they share the common goals for the college and their mutual love for the college would prevail in mending any bad feelings between the two parties. Favazza shared his unique position, being a new President to the college: “I’m new, right, been here six months…but I have gone to board meetings, and I have witnessed that discussions are very…direct, but at the end of meetings, even after very direct conversations about this…92% of the board are alums, they love this place, they love the monks, and so even after a hard conversation, you see people hugging, saying ‘see you, Father’…There’s this really close commitment to the place that will prevail in the end”

Abbot Cooper also believes that the issue has been rife with myth and misunderstanding, saying “this isn’t a simple issue, it cannot be solved nor outlined easily with one sentence. It isn’t a Catholic issue, these are Members of the college working on behalf of the college, not on behalf of the monastery”.

Abbot Cooper’s disagreement with the Board over the interpretation of this one New Hampshire law has shined a not-so-flattering light on the college, especially considering the media coverage of the issue in the weeks following the suit. However, it is clear that this issue is, to quote both sides, “Not life-threatening (to the college)”. 

Saint Anselm can and will continue to be a beacon for fraternity, public service, and intrinsic altruism that makes this campus so special. A disagreement between two sides of the ivory tower cannot bring that down. The students, the lifeblood of Saint Anselm College, have and will continue to demonstrate exemplary academic ability, selfless community dedication, and an Anselmian love of neighbor that has persisted since 1889, and will persist for years to come. Perhaps, after these events, it is time the college injected some of that lifeblood into the Board of Trustees, and represent the student body that makes this college so special. Perhaps then the college could avoid another internal fiasco like the one in which we currently find ourselves.

Senate Announces Election Timeline, Discusses Trash On Campus

The fourteenth meeting of the 2019-2020 Senate began with the swearing-in of Spencer Dias as the Secretary of Internal Procedures. After a brief consideration of his nomination, Mr. Dias was welcomed back into the Senate Room of the student center and met with rapturous applause from members. 

With the meeting called to order, classes began their reports; which mostly concerned the fundraisers being led by each class. In particular, Freshman Senator Merrick Bilodeau reported a successful “Super Bowl Squares” fundraiser. However, with presidential primary events bearing down on campus this week, the most common refrain during both class and committee reporting periods was, “nothing to report”. 

With Student Body Presidential and Vice Presidential elections around the corner, Vice President Jake Ethier announced that candidate speeches in the 2020 elections will be given next Thursday, February 13th, at 6 p.m. in the Melucci auditorium. 

“It’s shaping up to be one of the biggest elections in St. Anselm History. Right now I think we’re looking at a potential three, four tickets,” said Ethier, who added that in recent elections, the greatest number of tickets had been three. 

SGA held two information nights on February 3rd and 4th concerning the election, which were both well attended. Students considering running for office must be full-time registered students, maintain a minimum 2.0 cumulative GPA and agree to and sign an “Elections Regulations Waiver”. Students must also collect thirty signatures per class in support of their candidacy. Signatures are due by noon on the 13th, with campaigning beginning after speeches that evening. The election itself will be held from February 17th to 18th, with polling places located in Davison Hall and the Coffee Shop. 

“The role entails a lot,” said VP Ethier. “You work with students, staff, faculty, administration. You really get a behind the scenes look at the college and get to affect it in a lot of different ways, to really try and affect change.” 

Later, a resolution was introduced seeking to install a trash can in Saint Benedict court. This prompted a lengthy debate about how trash is handled on campus. Vice President Farid Mawanda went so far as to point out that in recent months, trash and recycling leaving campus haven’t even been sorted. Some Senators suggested pushing for the addition of trash cans in Father Bernard Court as well. Ultimately, however, discussion of this resolution was tabled. 

By far the most discussed subject, however, was the idea of forming a pep band on campus. Various issues surrounding the formation of such a group were considered, including space, equipment, funding, and oversight. 

“It’s a great idea,” said Internal Procedures Secretary Dias. “Especially as another feature for the music/theater on campus,” which, “might be lacking as opposed to athletics.” 

Like the resolution in support of a new trash can in Saint Benedict Court, the pep band idea is in its earliest stages. Referencing how the Senate initially got the ball rolling on renovations to the Student Center, Academic Committee Chair Tyler Viger suggested that the idea would likely need to be resolved by current Freshmen over the next four years, and beyond. “It’s gonna be a long endeavor,” he lamented. 

The State of the Union: Trump’s Vision for the Nation

On the evening of February 4, 2020, President Donald J. Trump addressed the nation in his third State of the Union address since he ascended to the presidency in 2016. This address focused on many key factors that the President has actively been working towards since he was elected. He claimed that “The state of our union is stronger than ever before.” These are three major takeaways from the evening’s speech that should be taken into consideration in the upcoming weeks, months, and even year:

1. President Trump Kept His Campaign Promises

Throughout his speech to the nation, Trump made many remarks about how he has been successful in completing many of the promises he vowed to work towards during his Presidency. He spoke of how the border wall he promised in 2016 is being erected, bragging that over 100 miles of new wall has been built and over 500 miles will soon be constructed. This border wall was a key platform piece of his campaign in 2016, and remains to be in 2020. He is reassuring the American people that he has kept his promise and will continue to do so if elected in 2020.

Trump also praised many border officials and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers during his speech. This section of the address received audible booing from many Democrats in attendance and an eruption of cheers from Republicans. President Trump offered condolences to Jony Jones, a man whose brother was attacked and killed by an illegal immigrant. He also praised Deputy Chief Raul Ortiz, a Border Patrol Officer whom the President claimed has been vital in protecting our Southern border from immigrants attempting to illegally cross into the country. The president wants the American people to know he has and always will keep his promises.

2. Impeachment was Never Mentioned

In what was an unexpected contrast to the perceived social media buzz, Donald Trump did not acknowledge his own impeachment even in the midst of a likely vote the following day. Sitting in the audience were the seven House impeachment managers deliberately together to the President’s right. This may be because Donald Trump’s main goal of this address was to prove to the American public that he is worthy of another term in office. Republican colleagues in the audience even began a “four more years” chant as the President entered the House Chamber. 

3. The 2020 Election will Boil Down to the Economy

The President opened his address by mounting what he claimed to be the “Great American Comeback”. As many have assumed, President Trump is very proud of where the United States’ economy lies. He noted that “The unemployment rate for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans has reached the lowest levels in history.” Donald Trump continues to tell the American people how successful he has been in helping the middle class as well. He claimed that the nation was in the midst of a “blue-collar boom,” and that wages were increasing. This is true, but the increase isn’t nearly as dramatic as he may have made it sound. Wages on average have risen faster than inflation; however, wage gains have fallen stagnant in recent months.    

Trump also discussed how 7 million new jobs have been created under his presidency and how drastically that counters the “failed growth of the past administration.” The president is avoiding the truth but not explicitly lying. It’s true the rate of job creation and active working fell during Obama’s two terms in office, partly because the population was aging. It has since rebounded this year, but the economy created 11.6 million jobs during Obama’s two terms, and job creation under Trump has increased at a slightly slower rate than Obama’s administration. The President is likely trying to woo voters in the upcoming election.

One thing is for certain, Donald Trump and the Republicans are not necessarily looking to work with the Democrats in the future to get things done. At the beginning of the address, Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a handshake to the President prior to his speech which he subtly ignored. Pelosi then ripped the copy of the address she had been given. Both sides seemed to belittle the other regarding how they handled this interaction. Party polarization is on the rise, and the State of the Union Address showcased just how poor the situation has become.

No Labels: Problem Solver Convention

MANCHESTER – On Sunday, November 3, individuals from across the country gathered at the DoubleTree in Manchester for the No Labels: Problem Solver Convention. No Labels, a political organization whose mission is to combat partisan dysfunction in Congress, hosted the event that headlined multiple presidential candidates, members of the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, as well as current and former senators. 

Former Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) spoke early on in the program regarding the importance of the ideals and attitudes of No Labels. He discussed the widening partisan divide in the U.S. Congress, and how in many ways “it seems like the extremes are driving the train and the rest of us are along for the ride”. Lieberman warned of the dangers of polarization, anger, and resentment of those we disagree with. He argued that the growing number of registered independents, the problem-solvers, represented the new silent majority. Lieberman said, “America needs a little rebellion now [sic] a nonpartisan rebellion”.

Inspired by the ideals Senator Lieberman described, the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus began its work 10 years ago in the House of Representatives looking for bipartisan solutions where they can be found in order to break the gridlock. The Caucus is comprised of 24 Democratic members and 24 Republican members, and it is currently co-chaired by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Tom Reed (R-NY). Members of the caucus were present at the convention and held a panel where they discussed their work in Congress coming to bipartisan solutions. In addition to Gottheimer and Reed, the panel included: U.S. Representatives Max Rose (D-NY); Tom Suozzi (D-NY); Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA); Dan Meuser (R-PA); Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM); and Steve Watkins (R-KS).

No Labels’ Get In The Room Campaign is centered around encouraging congressional leaders to “get in the room” through constituent letters, calls, and emails in order to negotiate solutions for contentious issues. Convention organizers encouraged attendees to participate in the campaign in order to accomplish the goals of the organization.

Much of the convention was punctuated by a growing generational divide. The vast majority of the crowd was at or close to the retirement age, and such a difference was apparent. The older attendees, which comprised the majority of the audience, raised concerns about social security, partisan divide, term limits, and campaign finance reform; however, there was little mention of issues like wealth inequality and education reform.

A Connecticut resident, aged 28, mentioned that the exuberant cost of living in states like Connecticut meant that he was without much hope that he would ever own a home. This showed that younger generations focus on distinctly different issues from older generations. In fact, when one voter, aged 84, expressed a desire to make community colleges free in order to bring down the rising cost of education, another retirement-aged audience member cried out, asking how that could be done when pensions and the social security net was in jeopardy.

Increasing the political activism of younger generations was mentioned by Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, who is currently challenging President Trump for the Republican nomination. He outlined a plan to increase the younger vote by making it possible to vote on your phone, where the voter would take a picture of themselves to verify their identity then email their vote to a government database. He made no mention of potential security and privacy issues that would come with this. Weld also suggested that Climate Change could be addressed by simply instituting a tax on carbon emissions of various corporations and businesses, but he offered little else on that front. To a younger audience member, both ideas seemed like yet another example of a 20th-century solution for 21st-century problems.

In addition to Weld, there were also three contenders for the Democratic Presidential Nomination present at the event: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI); Congressman John Delany (D-MD); and author and activist Marianne Williamson. Gabbard was the first candidate to speak, and she also came into the audience to conduct an audience question and answer session. At one point she said that a president should focus on “not serving the needs of one party over another, but actually serving the needs of the American people”. Delaney echoed this sentiment, quoting President John F. Kennedy as saying, “let us not seek the Democratic answer, or the Republican answer, but the right answer.” Williamson called on the “people to step in” and reclaim their government. She also called for a “World War 2 sized mobilization” to address the threat of climate change.

Near the end of the convention, the organizers conducted a straw poll, asking voters “If you had to vote today, who would you vote for?” The end tally of the near 1500 audience members resulted in a “victory” for South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 18.5% of the vote, followed by Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) with 17.5% and former Maryland Rep. John Delaney with 14.2%. The three current leaders in national polling for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders each received 6.9%, 5%, and 3.6% of the vote, respectively. The divergence from the national polling results could be due to the presence of supporters of the candidates speaking at the event, as well as the similar ideals of bipartisanship and cooperation amongst participants.

* This article was written collaboratively by Editor In Chief Jackson Peck and Administrative Correspondent Aidan Pierce. Edited in part by Off-Campus News Coordinator Bryan Lavoie.

Special thanks to Chloe Cincotta, Madison Mangels, and the rest of New Hampshire No Labels for inviting the Hilltopper to this convention and providing us with press access.

Change Is Ahead: Favazza Takes Office

It isn’t often that a student body takes a sincerely invested interest in the formation of their school’s administration. Students largely concern themselves with their day-to-day lives: their classes, their social experiences, paying for tuition, et cetera. This isn’t to say that the average student is wholly apathetic towards their school admin, which would be untrue. If you are preoccupied with daily tasks, why concern yourself with someone you rarely see?

As I have been consistently reminded of, Saint Anselm College is not an average college, and does not produce average citizens. Its students are acutely and equally aware of what happens around the world as they are in their own backyard. And, as far as many Saint Anselm students were concerned, their backyard had seen better days.

Mass layoffs. Inadequate housing . Rising costs. Where was the administration last year when we raised our concerns? We still don’t know-the word on the tongues of Saint Anselm students with reference to the previous administration was invisible. Inaccessible. Untransparent. Frustrating. This bevy of words and more were used by students to express a simple reality: President Stephen DiSalvo wasn’t there for us when we needed him. 

This is not an article about the previous administration, but rather, the new one. It’s only fair to know, first, what is new about the new administration. If a lack of transparency and accessibility concerned you last year, as it did this author, have faith in this: change is ahead.

When I reached out to President Favazza to schedule an interview, I expected to wait a few days for a response. Understandably so-the beginning of the year is easily the busiest time of year, especially for a brand new executive. I received my response within 24 hours. This was my first indication that change was on the horizon. 

President Favazza has never been the president of a higher learning institution, but this does not mean he is without administrative experience. He was previously the Provost as well as the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Stonehill College. It was during his oversight that Stonehill undertook the official division of its academic programming into two schools, the May School of Arts and Sciences, and the Meehan School of Business. Before his duties as Provost and VP of Academic Affairs, President Favazza served as Dean of General Education and Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs.

In addition to his experience at Stonehill, Favazza was a Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis. He also oversaw the “Search For Values” program, which was the core curriculum at Rhodes. 

When I entered the president’s office, he and his executive assistant Janet (who was instrumental in expediting the interview-many thanks to her) were warm and welcoming. Upon entering a closed room, I remember President Favazza’s expression- one of anticipation. This anticipatory gaze wasn’t out of fear, but later manifested itself as eagerness. 

President Favazza is aware of the difficult spot he has filled. I opened by asking him: what do you want to say to the Saint Anselm College community? In giving him the opportunity to take the lead, I saw that President Favazza is not a man on an island. He extolled the virtues of the staff, the administration, and the professors without whom, he said, success would be impossible. 

It is not difficult to seem sageworthy and wise when speaking about those around you, however. I asked what he would do, specifically, to further engage the student body and to do what his predecessor failed to do: be seen by students. He opened with classic examples: attending student sporting events, class events, et cetera, et cetera. One thing he did mention, was a “breakfast with the president” where he would be at Davison Hall once or twice a month and students would be free to sit and chat with him.

That was all good-of course, but Saint Anselm students will not be assuaged by promises and oaths. They demand accountability and action. It is because of this, that I was so pleased to see President Favazza hold a meet and greet in the Intercultural Center this past week. Kudos to you, President Favazza, for holding your word, and holding to it early. 

Our conversation ebbed and flowed, but he was never evasive. He did his best to answer questions squarely, no matter the difficulty of their subject matter. He referenced the perceived antiquity of the monastic community, that some students believe holds back the potential of the school. He retorted with a reminder that Saint Anselm is a bastion of tradition: a tradition that upholds virtues of compassion, service, and sacrifice.

The students of 2019 face unique challenges to those of college students from previous generations. It is not an uncommon feeling amongst this generation that older generations are unsympathetic towards the extra anxiety and stresses we feel as college students in this day and age. I asked President Favazza what he found to be the most difficult challenges facing Saint Anselm College. As opposed to naming a college-specific issue, Favazza was keen to this anxiety, proclaiming the added cost of college to be his first challenge facing Saint Anselm. 

This sensitivity may result from a unique perspective: President Favazza was a first generation college student. When I asked him about how this influenced his approach as president, he responded with a reminder to be compassionate. Not having the same support system as students with parents who went to college was a challenge he experienced. As a result of this, he spoke to the importance of having a strong college advisory infrastructure to assist students who needed it. Such a sympathetic approach might prove to be constructive in this current era of college finance anxiety.

On a personal note, his experience as a first-gen college student gave him what he called a “personal resiliency” that “tried to take advantage of disadvantage”. Such an attitude would be surely welcomed at Saint Anselm. Anselmians don’t get going when the going gets tough. 

It would not have been a fruitful conversation had we not discussed housing. Everyone on this campus knows someone in a forced triple. That should be considered a categorical failure to accommodate for growing class sizes. Thankfully, despite being fresh on the job, the moment I mentioned the word “housing”, President Favazza responded with a nod of understanding. “It’s not ideal to have so many forced triples” was his immediate response. While he was noncommittal to saying that the college would build a new dorm, President Favazza did clearly state that he wanted to look into the potential of building one, as well as wanting to improve on our already existing dorms (as I write this, Saint Mary’s Hall flooded and was without running water for at least one day due to a burst pipe-a repeat of an issue from last winter that displaced three students). 

In conjunction with the discussion surrounding housing, many students have decried the construction of the new welcome center for the department of admissions as misguided, as they feel that the most pressing infrastructure need for the student body is a new residence hall. I asked him about the multi-million dollar project, and received a similar response. While, again, the current housing situation wasn’t “ideal”, the new welcome center was not without merit. “The school needs new students to live on,” he said, further noting that many other schools that Saint Anselm competes with for admissions have their own welcome centers. It will now be a question as to whether or not the new students pulled in by the welcome center will have a place to live on campus. However, once again Favazza couldn’t commit to any upcoming dormitory building projects.

This response didn’t surprise me-most major infrastructure projects undertaken by the college need to get through the Board of Trustees first. The Trustees themselves are a sensitive subject; they operate outside the jurisdiction of the school, and are not held accountable by the student body. They also aren’t held accountable by the professors or deanships. 

What if this were different? What if the most powerful body in the college had a student representative? This idea has been tossed around the Student Government Association for some time now- to no avail (clearly). President Favazza had an interesting take on this situation: at the institutions he previously worked at there was not a permanent student seat on the board of trustees, but there was a temporary seat for a student representative for special meetings and retreats of the board. He expressed an interest in the potential to implement a similar system at Saint Anselm.

President Favazza expressed interest in many things that sounded fantastic. Other than what has already been mentioned, he discussed adding new undergraduate programs, increasing study abroad opportunities, as well as the potentiality of a “J-Term”, a shortened academic term in January that’d give students an opportunity to study a class or two outside of their major requirements. Middlebury College in Vermont employs their J-Term with great success. 

All of that sounds good in theory, but where President Favazza needs to separate himself from his predecessor, is by fulfilling promises, listening to students, and being there for us.

I was incredibly grateful for the opportunity to listen to President Favazza. I sincerely hope it won’t be the last time the two of us sit together. I also sincerely hope that now that I’ve taken the time to listen to him, he will take the time to listen to us.

CNN Hosts Historic Town Hall at Saint Anselm

Manchester – Five major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination gathered in the Dana Center Monday night for a CNN special event. The event was sponsored by the Harvard Institute of Politics and the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. The participants in Monday night’s town halls included Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN). Each of the candidates was given one hour to answer questions from young voters planning to participate in their states Democratic primary, and present their plan for new American leadership. Healthcare, education, and climate change dominated the conversation as candidates fielded questions about their commitments to provide a better standard of living for Americans.

The evening began with Senator Amy Klobuchar’s town hall moderated by Chris Cuomo. A three-term senator from the state of Minnesota, Klobuchar was one of the most experienced speakers of the night and referred frequently to her experience as a county attorney. She distinguished herself as one of the most moderate candidates of a  crowded field of over fifteen major candidates by refusing to endorse the notion of tuition-free college as well as Senator Sanders “Medicare for All” legislation. She declared herself a “realist” who did not support radical and impractical policies but joined each of the other candidates in advocating for the Green New Deal; a measure Republicans call extreme and unrealistic. She also discussed the need to reform the criminal justice system and suggested increased use of drug courts to curb repeat drug offenses rather than lengthy prison terms. Klobuchar, when asked whether or not she would support impeachment for president Trump, she avoided the question and referred instead to the Senate’s role in the impeachment process as jurors and not prosecutors.

The second town hall with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts featured a very similar question regarding impeachment, to which the Senator responded by saying “There is no political inconvenience when it comes to the Constitution of the United States.” Warren argued that congressional leaders have a civic duty to hold the President accountable and Congress should set politics aside to do what’s right. Warren also proved herself to be an impactful candidate with her proposal to alleviate student debt for millions of Americans and make higher education tuition-free. Warren also advocated for sweeping economic reforms including her “ultra-millionaire tax” which would fund the majority of her initiatives. She cited the reluctance of lawmakers to reform the American economic system because “when your ears are stuffed with money it’s hard to hear.” Senator Warren’s recollection of her mission during her Senate campaign to quite simply make an impact and inspire young women to be leaders also resonated with the audience. She said that during events and parades she would seek out young girls and women, kneel down and say to them “Hello, I’m Elizabeth and I’m running for Senate because that’s what girls do.” Overall, Warren set the tone for the night as each of the following candidates echoed her sentiments about the need to support middle and working-class Americans and provide more educational opportunities for students.

Senator Bernie Sanders followed Warren with an equally fiery rendition of his main talking points: economic reform, Medicare for all, and climate justice. As one of the most anticipated candidates of the night, Sanders received resounding praise when he said: “The United States is a climate leader, but we’re leading in the wrong direction.” However, audience members and political pundits criticized Sanders’ comments regarding voting rights for incarcerated Americans. When asked whether or not Sanders believed that perpetrators of sexual assault or the Boston Marathon Bomber should receive the right to vote, he gave a response which left some in the audience upset. He said that all Americans deserve the right to vote, and it is important to the future of our democracy that we protect the ability to participate in society. Following the event Bentley Warren, a Saint Anselm Sophomore, commented on Sanders remarks by saying “Sanders surprisingly proposed that incarcerated individuals deserve the right to vote while imprisoned, including sex offenders and domestic terrorists, which I believe was a rather unpopular move on his part and will become an attacking point for opponents like Pete Buttigieg.” He was right; when asked if he agreed with Sanders later on in the night, Buttigieg criticized the move and argued that while in prison felons should not be allowed to vote, but upon their reintroduction to society, their rights should be restored.

Sander’s also pushed back on Senator Warren’s claim that the House should move to impeach President Trump. Sanders was more focused on a bigger picture; “If for the next year all the Congress is talking about is ‘Trump, Trump, Trump,’ and ‘Mueller, Mueller, Mueller’ and we’re not talking about health care and raising the minimum wage to a living wage and we’re not talking about climate change and sexism and racism and homophobia and the issues that concern ordinary Americans — I worry that works to Trump’s advantage.”

Senator Kamala Harris of California highlighted the opposition of Republican congressional leaders and the low likelihood that impeachment would pass in the Senate. She said that people needed to be “realistic about what might be the end result. But that doesn’t mean the process shouldn’t take place.” Harris’ second most notable answer came when asked whether or not she supported monetary reparations for African Americans. She avoided answering the question directly, as did Senator Sanders, but both candidates said they would support Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill to study the effects of reparations. Audience members noticed a trend in Harris’ answers to their questions when she began to repeat the phrase “I think that’s a conversation we need to have.” Though she did avoid some questions, Harris’ managed to outline a plan for her presidency focusing mostly on Medicare, climate and criminal justice reform.

A town hall with Mayor of South Bend Indiana Pete Buttigieg moderated by Anderson Cooper concluded the night. Buttigieg was unique in many respects among the night’s candidates and the audience took notice. “It was clear that Mayor Pete Buttigieg stood out as the crowd favorite for his direct and simple answers,” said Chris Millet a Freshman at Saint Anselm “[he] did not sound like a politician as he did not use the same rhetoric as the other four candidates did.” When asked whether or not he believed President Trump should be impeached after reading the Mueller report he stated plainly, “I think it’s pretty clear he deserves impeachment.” Moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out Buttigieg’s lack of a clear plan and platform. Mayor Buttigieg responded by saying that he believed he’d made his positions clear on a variety of topics, and the absence of a platform section on his website did not make him a candidate who lacked beliefs.

This event provided Saint Anselm students with a unique opportunity to engage with candidates in a discussion of the issues important to young Americans. Candidates continuously labeled young voters as one of the most progressive, passionate, and politically active generations in recent history. Junior Abby Roden said, “Youth voices are so often overshadowed or underestimated, it was nice to see my generations questions at the forefront of discussions for a change.” Students walked away from the five-hour event with a better understanding of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, and a stronger appreciation for the democratic process. Saint Anselm has created a standing tradition of being a very politically active campus, and students should be proud of such a tradition.