Student Union, as an organization, values respect, accountability and, above all, integrity. These values drive our daily meetings with student groups, our roundtables with administrators and, in particular, the 25-plus hours we spend determining the $3.6 million budget consisting of 1 percent of every undergraduate students’ tuition.

To suggest that this session is taken lightly or without the utmost care and respect for our student body hits myself—and I’m sure many others in SU—to the core.

After two years in Student Union, I have defended and advocated for many members within Student Union, including senators, Treasury representatives and exec members alike. This is primarily because I recognize firsthand the outstandingly positive impact they have on the undergraduate student body. As a Treasury representative myself, I analyze and critique the principles we use in Treasury on a regular basis to best determine how to support the student groups on our campus, since they are changeable and should be reevaluated if they are not working. And this includes the weekend I spent helping to determine where the Student Activities Fee will go in the 2020 fiscal year.

For SU members, administrators, live-stream watchers and Student Life writers present, it is undeniable that the 42 legislative members all had one goal: to support the undergraduate student body as best we could. While senators and Treasury representatives entered the room with a variety of perspectives and principles, what united us was our desire to help students. This does not suggest that Student Union is perfect; however, after so many hours of dedication to SU and Wash. U., to suggest that our decisions were founded on words as polarizing as racism, bigotry or sexism is deeply upsetting. And that cannot be taken at face value.

Face value lacks context, explanation and the opportunity to explore different perspectives. For those who read articles last week about general budget: please understand that full context is imperative in the analysis of discussion surrounding the decisions that were made. For those who are deciding who to vote for in tomorrow’s elections: ask questions, examine platforms and try to understand the “why” behind the “what.”

And for present members of Student Union and candidates currently running in elections: pointing a finger toward another member of SU without a willingness to engage in productive dialogue fails to fulfill our roles and our goals as student leaders on this campus. Running a campaign that lacks integrity and accountability only reconstructs the barrier that SU has worked so hard to break down.

I was asked yesterday if I had considered leaving Student Union after the pressure of the last three weeks, to which I responded with an unwavering “no.” I have immense faith in this organization, knowing that it is filled with countless student leaders who put the student body above all else. It is this hope that keeps me excited about what SU has done, is doing and will do in the future.

My intention is not to respond to or defend the events over the past several weeks, but rather to recognize that there does exist a thorough “why” behind “what” we do. Moving forward will require transparency and continued and consistent dialogue—qualities that Student Union and the student body should value. It requires looking past face value in an effort to reduce any potential barrier between a student government and its campus.

With that, we can move into the next term.