Junior Caucus: Leo Smulansky and Ethan Brovender

Record: 2

While Brovender and Smulansky have some leadership in Stuyvesant clubs and the latter has interned for the city government, they lack experience in the Student Union or caucus and are unfamiliar with their workings.

Campaign: 2

With little to no online presence and clear lack of thorough planning and organization, the ticket has earned a Campaign score of two.

Platform: 2.5

The Brovender-Smulansky platform certainly stands out from that of other candidates, but not for all the right reasons. Their ideas for improving how clubs are run and organized at Stuyvesant have not been posed by others, but they aren’t productive or realistic enough to implement. Most importantly, they fail to propose any plans for supporting the junior class academically or resource-wise.

Brovender and Smulansky, like most candidates, lack any experience in the Student Union or caucus. Their respective leadership over smaller Stuyvesant clubs like the Minecraft Club, however, are more hopeful, especially since many of their policies stem from this involvement. But the lack of specific support for the junior class, especially academically and in light of remote learning, draws greatly from the promise of this ticket. Their disjointed dynamic, unfamiliarity with student government, and rather unrealistic and sometimes even unproductive policies further question their capabilities to lead the Junior Caucus.

For specific initiatives, the campaign put focus upon a club exchange program where different clubs would swap leaders, as well as a distanced educational support club hotline for clubs to receive help as they transition to remote learning. When asked further about how these programs would be put into motion, the two’s answers were unhelpful at best, saying that the hotline would be run by club leaders deemed “successful,” and unproductive at worst, with the club exchange program not having a solid argument on how exchanging leaders for a few days would allow clubs to effectively improve. Their aim to make clubs even more accessible by compiling a description of them into a pamphlet, or a “better” StuyActivities, is unrealistic and unnecessary.

Above all, Brovender-Smulansky’s sole emphasis on student organizations may demonstrate a lack of understanding of a caucus’s responsibilities. While their key point of broadening policies and initiatives to the entire student body is commendable, they are not running for Student Union, nor are they pursuing specific roles in its Clubs and Pubs department. As candidates for Junior Caucus, they lack any specificity toward supporting their grade. They only cite game nights and events, such as “lightning round” Zoom sessions for quickly meeting new people, as junior-specific initiatives, though both can ultimately be applied to the general student body. When asked about how they would support their grade academically in the context of remote instruction, they vaguely replied, “You’ve just got to work with what you got.” The ticket certainly understands the social need for students to reconnect in these circumstances but would have a hard time fulfilling any other responsibilities as caucus leaders.

The Brovender-Smulansky ticket runs on the promise of helping Stuyvesant student-run organizations adapt to a virtual school year, but this is not what the junior class needs in such an unprecedented time. The Spectator does not endorse this ticket.