SGA Elections 2025: Cura Theatricalis Wins

The recent SGA elections have exposed a troubling disconnect between some candidates and the actual values, priorities, and needs of our campus community. It’s disappointing—no, appalling—that so few students have pointed out the glaring reality: many of the candidates campaigning for leadership positions aren’t even engaging with the responsibilities of the offices they’re seeking. They’re not presenting concrete visions, actionable plans, or even a basic understanding of the job itself. Instead, what we’ve seen is a rise in reactive, emotionally driven rhetoric that distracts from real governance.

There’s a certain bitterness in the air, an undercurrent of saltiness that has begun to define campus political discourse. What’s worse is the fixation on the referendum, a student-led initiative that already won. Rather than moving forward, some individuals have chosen to run entire campaigns centered on resentment—campaigns that are anti-SGA, pro-referendum, and completely detached from the reality that the referendum in question has already passed. What, then, are you running for? If your campaign revolves around rehashing a debate that the student body has already settled, it begins to feel less like leadership and more like a personal grudge.

Frankly, it’s childish. It’s immature. It does a disservice to the values we claim to uphold as Georgetown students—values of dialogue, service, and future-oriented change. Leadership requires more than slogans and stale arguments; it demands vision, responsibility, and the humility to know when the conversation has already moved on. This isn’t about gatekeeping or silencing dissent- it’s about raising the bar. And it’s time we start expecting more.

The debate was nothing short of a spectacle—and not in a good way. Some presidential candidates were downright baffling. Expectations were high, yet the campaign quickly devolved into noise and theatrics. “God bless democracy, and God bless Georgetown” could’ve been a powerful moment, had it not been buried under the cringe-worthy clapping of cheer squads planted in the audience. If the candidate had any real arguments, they were drowned out by a strategy built on distraction rather than discourse. Instead of engaging with tough questions, they hid behind noise.

Then came another candidate, who stared into the audience with wide eyes and grand promises: “Every decision will be made with the student body.” Really? Every decision? Every budget approval? Are we electing a leader or someone who plans to crowdsource governance into complete paralysis? Let’s be serious—how do you expect to get anything done if every move has to go through endless consultation? It’s not leadership, it’s deflection. And don’t even get me started on the “pantry promise.”

Now let’s talk about the vice presidential race. One candidate boldly claimed they would prioritize international students—only to backtrack the moment backlash hit, suddenly insisting, “It’s not about giving more to some groups.” Leadership requires clarity and accountability, not vague buzzwords or selective advocacy. As a VP candidate, it’s concerning to see segments of the student body prioritized for appeal rather than unity. The lack of any mention of SAC was also a notable omission.

And then—there are the candidates whose entire campaigns seem to be built on “vibes,” aesthetic energy, and a polished social media presence. Demure smiles, cute slogans, and aesthetically pleasing posters might win you Instagram likes, but let’s see how far that gets you with the faculty—or when you're sitting in a meeting negotiating on behalf of hundreds of students. If your campaign has no points, no platform, and no plan, then it’s not a campaign—it’s a performance.

This election cycle has been a disappointing parade of overpromising, underdelivering, and straight-up nonsense. Somewhere along the way, people forgot that SGA is supposed to serve the student body—not entertain it. What a sad, unserious campaign season.