Five out of the five platforms of presidential candidates this year mentioned the inclusion of a more diverse group of voices in Student Government in their platforms. Over the last few years, the push to include a bigger range of perspectives has been a focal point for Cabinets from both the 2015-16 and ‘16-’17 school years, according to Student Government faculty advisory Jeanne Barr. But during–and just following–the recent election, two students took controversial action on behalf of student diversity.

On Friday, May 19, as members of the Student Body cast their votes for next year’s Student Government, each presidential candidate was allotted a four minute speech as their final chance to convince the Upper School they were the best candidate.

Junior Priscilla Roman’s speech started out as a personal introduction. Roman, who previously served in the cabinet as the Inclusion Coordinator for the 2015-’16 school year, discussed her past, and particularly her experience outside of Parker. When her time was up, she continued to speak. The microphone was taken from her, she was instructed to stop speaking multiple times, and still she continued with her speech. Eventually, she sat back down, only to rise again moments later to announce her official withdrawal from the race.

Roman was told to stop speaking solely in the interest of time constraints and of giving each candidate equal speaking time, according to Barr. That started with the outgoing president, senior Will Polsky.  “Will had previously communicated to the candidates via email exactly how much time they had,” Barr said. “We try to stick to a schedule since we only have 40 minutes and need time for comments and questions and things like that.  The first candidate came up, and she went over time. And Will told her to stop and she kept going, so I came up and asked her to wrap it up, and she said, ‘OK.’ Then I went over to the other candidates and said, ‘Please remember to keep your speeches at four minutes,’ and they all agreed. The next two candidates were perfectly in time, and Priscilla was the fourth to speak. She went over time, and Will was telling her to stop, I was, Mr. Bielizna was…she was just ignoring everybody, and in the interest of allowing time for questions and comments, we asked her to leave the podium… It’s a shame her message was kind of taken over by her going over time.”

Withdrawing from the race had been her plan all along, Roman said.  She ran in order to deliver a message about equity to the entire student body. “I knew from the start I was going to drop out,” she said.  “It started as a joke between me and my friends–I would get to ‘drop mic,’ like Obama. But then I started to think about it. What if I was actually President? I started to think back to when I was on Cabinet, and in the past three years, what I’ve observed, and I came to the conclusion it was just a bunch of inequalities and inequities.”

Her goal was to raise awareness of that particular issue, Roman said, as well as to try to urge the faculty sponsors and the upcoming cabinet to focus some of their energy on trying to fix the problem. “The point of my candidacy was to point these inequities out in my final speech and address them in front of the whole Student Body, so that everyone would be aware of it,” Roman said. “I was trying to say that if we want any sort of change, the system Student Government entails needs to change, and the agenda of the faculty sponsors needs to be reconsidered. I think that when you’re running for anything in Student Government, or applying, there’s a notion that there’s a particular group of students that run and win. And the Government serves them, and only them, and that’s so true. These are the people that have been at the school forever, have parents on the board, and feel comfortable speaking in Plenary. We need to break that tradition, we need to break that scale off, and if it can’t come off, there will be no change.”

Barr states her agenda is amplifying student voices from any part of the school. “It is challenging, because different students have different comfort levels and levels of awareness about different issues,” Barr said. “What I try to do is to encourage the Student Body to consider multiple venues like senate, small groups, plenary, etc. and try to make it so that everyone has some kind of place to be heard, although I think we don’t have sufficient avenues of expression in Student Government at the moment. I would reject the notion that I have some kind of agenda to foster the advancement of the kids with the most voice, that’s categorically just not true.”

The responses to Priscilla’s actions have been varied. “I think what Priscilla did was valid and brought up a lot of issues that are important to a lot of people,” said sophomore Sarah Jayne Austin “However, it did kind of disrespect the institution and Student Government itself a little bit, but I think that’s what she was trying to do.”

Junior Karoli Esparza, Roman’s friend and supporter, agrees with Roman’s actions. “Overall I was 100% supportive of her message. I thought it was super impressive that she stood up and did that. To create commotion, I thought it was great. Because the only way you can start a conversation is to bring up controversy, and get people to talk about it. And that’s what she wanted, for people to talk about it. And they definitely did.”

Although current President Polsky thinks that Roman’s actions were honorable, he believes they were not executed in an ideal manner. “I think what she did took guts, I think she had the potential to make a very powerful statement,” Polsky said. “I understand her desire to make the speech, but I think it lost its power when it went over time, and she lost the ability to make her point. If she had kept it within the bounds, it could have been very powerful, but going over time kind of overshadowed her point.”

Roman does not regret her decision to run and withdraw. “The truth is, many voices get shut down like that in student government and in classes sometimes,” she said.  “Or sometimes voices aren’t heard because of fear of being judged. I was just a visual. I’m proud to say I’ve given a lot of input into the community outside of Student Government mainly because I felt less restricted and naturally motivated. My speech impacted a few people, and those who saw past the tension on stage are the people who will create a change in the Parker community and beyond.”

Kaden Florsheim, the Student Body President Elect for the 2017-18 school year, agrees with Roman’s sentiments.  “If there is one thing I want to change in my time as President, it is to make Student Government more inclusive,” Florsheim said. “Not just for underclassmen, but for anyone who has felt marginalized. The same people are talking, the same people are being heard. And they don’t want to hear the voices of people who aren’t being heard. And so, we need to give those people a voice, and that is what I want to do.”

Florsheim plans to achieve this goal by creating a competitive prize system for frequent speakers in order to incentivize students, implement mixed-grade seating in plenary, and work with the Inclusion Coordinator–which was the source of the other controversy.

For the past two years, the Inclusion Coordinator has been an appointed Cabinet position to Student Government. The job description of this position is as follows: “The Inclusion Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that the diverse needs of our Student Body are all taken into account throughout the many facets of Student Government. Within Cabinet, the Inclusion Coordinator will ensure that a wide variety of different voices are heard and prioritized, including the needs of students typically underrepresented.”

In the past, both Roman and junior Carlos Lopez have served as Inclusion Coordinator, and their work in this position has included creating dialogues and workshops around themes including “Gender at Parker” and “Being a New Kid at Parker.”

This year, the position of Inclusion Coordinator was not present on the appointed positions application form sent out by the 2017-’18 Cabinet on May 23rd.“At first I didn’t list it as an appointed position because I didn’t understand the need for an Inclusion Coordinator,” Florsheim said. “But what happened was multiple people came up to me the next day and said the Inclusion Coordinator made an impact on their lives, and they felt it was a super helpful, so I came back, used their feedback, and put it back.”

After consulting with his cabinet, Florsheim reinstated the position by sending out the job description and a short paragraph about the Inclusion Coordinator on May 24th, in an email to the entire Upper School. Florsheim reinstated the position due to the number of concerns expressed about the discontinuation of the position.

The way the position was reinstated caused some backlash. Sophomore Charlie Moog, the current Secretary and former Parliamentarian, and recent candidate for President, wrote an anonymous letter to Florsheim, which was delivered by a third party on May 25th. In said letter, Moog called for a vote to ratify this position before it was re-implemented into Student Government. If the vote was not completed, he said, it would be appropriate for Florsheim to be impeached.

“Implementing any new Cabinet position requires an amendment to the constitution,” Moog said. “And making this amendment requires a ⅔ majority. The faculty advisor and presidents in the past have circumvented this when it comes to the Inclusion Coordinator by withholding a vote. Kaden’s in a tough position. He’s inherited this mess. I’ve told Kaden what he’s doing is not allowed, and asked very simply if he could hold a vote–as he’s constitutionally required to do so.”

This is not a new objection. According to Moog, the unconstitutionality of the Inclusion Coordinator position has been disputed for the two years it has been in existence. “Every other position has gone through this process, and the faculty advisors, along with Will Polsky, Allie Bensinger, and now Kaden have just decided they don’t need it and to completely ignore the constitutional requirement,” Moog said. I had a huge clash with Will about holding a vote, and we actually, in the end, decided to hold a vote, and then the faculty advisor and Will cancelled it at the last minute.”

Polsky sees where Moog is coming from with his claims, but interprets the Constitution differently. “There is a section of the Constitution that says ‘these following positions must be on Cabinet.’ The Inclusion Coordinator is not one of these positions,” Polsky said. “However, we are interpreting the Constitution more loosely here and saying you can’t not have those positions listed, but there is no rule against adding more positions. I do think we should have held a vote this year, to have the position in the Constitution. I somewhat regret deciding not to hold one.”

Moog believes there is only one way to solve this problem. “There is no good solution to this problem–the only one I see is to hold a vote–but I suspect Kaden will join the group of Presidents to conveniently overlook this constitutional requirement.”

“Let me be clear,” Moog said, “I want to have an Inclusion Coordinator and I think it could be a valuable position on cabinet. But we need to go through the appropriate procedures to give it proper direction.”

Barr holds the opinion that a vote is not a viable solution to the conflict. “The issue with holding a vote is that we shouldn’t debate inclusion,” Barr said.  “Kids coming up to the mic, saying, ‘I don’t think we should have an Inclusion Coordinator. I don’t need it.’ Can you imagine how infuriating that could be for someone who needs it?” Barr said. “And if that’s how you feel, the position doesn’t exist to serve you. Even if one or two kids feel like we need an Inclusion Coordinator, we need an Inclusion Coordinator. I don’t think it should be about majority–the Inclusion Coordinator exists to serve those who are underrepresented.”

In his letter to the editors of “The Weekly,” published in this issue, Florsheim offered his official response.  “Let’s address the constitutional argument some have advanced to oppose an Inclusion Coordinator,” he said.  “The argument is that when the constitution lists cabinet positions, the list should be read to be exclusive even though it says no such thing…I have the power to appoint an Inclusion Coordinator, and I have done so.”

Florsheim plans to keep the Inclusion Coordinator as a position throughout his time in office. Although he does not feel the position is at all unconstitutional, he hopes to amend the Constitution in the future to make the position permanent in order to ensure Student Government is as inclusive–and transparent–as possible.