Newspaper Page Text
PICK YOUR POISON: GATEWOOD VS.
SWINT
EDITORIAL STAFF
JAMES PARKER
Campus News Editor
MORIBA CUMMINGS
Arts & Entertainment Editor
DAWNN ANDERSON
Associate Campus News Editor
Junior Calvin Swint openly ex
pressed his dissatisfaction with
the administration's approaches
to students’ concerns while fel
low Morehouse College junior
Michael Gatewood, in many
responses, seemed to embody
the role of President John Wil
son’s unofficial protege. Swint
listed many problems, includ
ing the lack of bills proposed
by the current SGA, very little
communication from current
members, and few SGA-led
programs. He also highlighted
his grievances with decisions
made by Wilson’s administration
that have negatively affected
some students. However, unlike
his opponent, Gatewood did
seem to see many changes to
the SGA that should be made.
He also spoke highly of Wilson's
upper-level staff members whom
he has become very close with.
Relationships with administrators
are important for all students,
but it appears that Gatewood
does not intend to challenge
any administrative policies or
decisions. Furthermore, he of
ten explained his presidential
goals by using the jarringly similar
wording that Wilson has used in
presenting his own. For example,
Gatewood mentioned his vision
for “a Morehouse that is not yet
here,” and his desire to achieve
“preeminence.” In many of his
statements, Gatewood seemed
to advocate more on behalf of
administration than on the be
half of students.
While both candidates
are personable and possess an
admirable passion for the institu
tion (two factors we deem nec
essary for assuming such a posi
tion), this alone will not cater to
the needs of the student body.
During his interview, Gatewood
appeared well prepared and
promptly responsive to most is
sues, but seemed disconnected
from underrepresented students.
We specifically asked about
those who may be without hous
ing due to financial constraints,
and unable to afford meal plans,
and also extended this to include
members of the LGBTQ commu
nity. Swint, who survived home
lessness and vocally expressed
his identification with the LGBTQ
community, clearly represented
these groups but did not offer
initiatives to address their issues.
Additionally, Swint was
very open about previous finan
cial, familial, and personal issues
that he has overcome. Con
trastingly, Gatewood was much
more guarded, censored, and
politically correct in his demea
nor.
“That’s what separates
me a part from [the other can
didate]; I represent the commu
nity,” Swint said.
Gatewood's failure to
provide any personal testimonies
about his Morehouse experience
made it difficult to see how he
could sincerely appeal to his
constituents. Swint spoke openly
about his road to Morehouse,
but though his responses were
thoughtful in theory, they were
delivered under layers of profan
ity and inconsistency.
In reviewing the resumes
of both presidential hopefuls, it
appears that neither possesses
appropriate leadership experi
ences in which they formally
presided over others. Under lead
ership, Gatewood's resume cited
his roles as treasurer of Collegiate
100 of Atlanta, student trustee on
the Morehouse Board of Trustees,
and research analyst for the
Morehouse Business Association.
Swint's resume listed positions
including interning for several
legislators, and organizations in
Newark, N.J., and Atlanta, Ga.
Overall, many of Swint’s
detailed plans seemed overly
ambitious, while Gatewood of
fered few changes to students'
current experience. Swint ex
plained his five-year $20 million
fundraising initiative but only
presented vague descriptions
on how this could actually be
executed. He also prepared a
schedule listing dozens of events
he would organize for the up
coming year, and thoroughly
outlined his intended partner
ships with specific student organi
zations. Gatewood’s initiatives,
though realistic and achievable,
were minor and uninspiring. All
four of his platform points fo
cused on improving communica
tion by responding to all inquiries
from students within 48 hours,
releasing SGA progress reports,
creating a database to include
all college announcements, and
working more closely with class
councils to plan events, including
a community service competi
tion. As far as any additional is
sues are concerned, Gatewood
had few pians.
“The last few days, my
running mate and I went on
what we call a ‘listening tour’
where we met with students to
listen to some of the problems,”
Gatewood said. “A lot of [the
problems] are effective from
year to year; a lot of those aren’t
changing. The cafeteria, and
some of the physical structure of
the campus, the accessibility to
Douglas Hall and Archer; those
things aren't changing, quite
frankly.”
It must be noted that
Swint also arrived to his sched
uled interview two hours late
without any prior warning of his
tardiness. He did, however, ac
count his tardiness to an on-go
ing illness.
The conclusions presented in this
article were based on the edito
rial staff's interpretation of the in-
person interviews and campaign
materials that were provided by
each candidate. We believe
that all students should use their
own discretion when voting,
and do not wish to unfairly influ
ence anyone's decision. It was
important that the staff critically
analyze each candidate's state
ments so that the student body
could ultimately make an in
formed decision. We thoroughly
examined two political figures on
campus, but none of the afore
mentioned critiques were per
sonal. Though our final decision
remains not to publicly endorse
either candidate, we undoubt
edly possess the sentiment that
both Swint and Gatewood seem
to be well-intentioned More
house brothers who desire to
better the institution.