Sina Nemazi

Presidential Candidate

Final Score: 64.13% (F)

Awareness

On campus: 50%
Off campus: 69%

Failure to identify social dynamics that affect the daily lives of their (potential) LGBTQ+ constituency, which leads me to question their ability to advocate for LGBTQ+ students on campus. Uses terms to indicate gender identity and sexuality without demonstrating an understanding of what these terms mean. Wrote that the queer community's assets consist of its ability to be helped rather than the community's contributions to campus. Patronizing!

History of Advocacy

General: 67%
Intersectional: 73%

Candidate's answers were vague and lacking in regards to their previous experiences with advocacy, but appreciated their vision for the future.

Vision for the Future

57%

They described themselves as a resource for current groups, rather than their savior.

Concreteness of Policy

70%

Points out some basic issues, but does not get too in depth about any policies.

What, in general terms, are major turning points in the history of the LGBTQ community on campus?

I think one of the most important turning points was when the "I am" movement was brought to campus because it allowed for us to show our support for our friends in the LGBTQ community and show the world that we support the LGBTQ community and are allies. We are one unified campus. I also think that the LLC "Crossroads" is a great opportunity to explore concepts of gender and sexuality.

Roya Wolfe

Vice presidential Candidate

Final Score: 71% (C-)

Awareness

On campus: 80%
Off campus: 78%

Good, but inserts platitudes and attempts to lean on identity. Exemplifies a thorough understanding of the importance of resources on campus and of intersectionality. Identifies national issues well and how they can translate into the lives of LGBTQ students on campus.

History of Advocacy

LGBTQ: 77%
Intersectional: 93%

This candidate shared a decent background of community service and discussed how their personal experiences have informed their advocacy, yet still show a mediocre understanding of advocacy in general.

Vision for the Future

33%

There are more LGBTQ groups on campus than just Pride. Also this candidate demonstrates zero knowledge or desire about issues GUSA faces.

Concreteness of Policy

87%

Solutions could be a little more concrete, but the issues addressed are very real and relevant

What, in general terms, are major turning points in the history of the LGBTQ community on campus?

I know it took a while and a lot of hard work for GU Pride to form. When I visited Georgetown I had not come out yet as bisexual, however I did look into the resources on campus and I remember thinking about whether or not I wanted to go to a Catholic school. Hearing about the history of GU Pride and other student advocacy groups on campus was one of the reasons I wanted to come here. GU Pride was originally known as the "Gay People of Georgetown," and the name eventually changed. Georgetown relentlessly appealed the students that took the university to court, and it wasn't until 1988 that the coalition was given the right to exist. The LGBTQ Resource Center celebrated its 10th anniversary last year.

The LGBTQ Report Card

Sina Nemazi

Presidential Candidate

Final Score: 64.13% (F)

Awareness

On campus: 50% Off campus: 69%

History of Advocacy

General: 67% Intersectional: 73%

Vision for the Future

57%

Concreteness of Policy

70%

What, in general terms, are major turning points in the history of the LGBTQ community on campus?

Roya Wolfe

Vice presidential Candidate

Final Score: 71% (C-)

Awareness

On campus: 80% Off campus: 78%

History of Advocacy

LGBTQ: 77% Intersectional: 93%

Vision for the Future

33%

Concreteness of Policy

87%

What, in general terms, are major turning points in the history of the LGBTQ community on campus?

On campus: 50%
Off campus: 69%

General: 67%
Intersectional: 73%

On campus: 80%
Off campus: 78%

LGBTQ: 77%
Intersectional: 93%