Election season at Skidmore is in full swing, with students vying for various SGA positions. Perhaps the most anticipated race, however, is for SGA President, as current President Josh Maxwell ‘26 runs against Vice President for Institutional Diversity, Samantha Majiedt ‘27. Although there have been debates for this position in previous years, none in recent memory has stirred this much excitement—or showcased two very different candidates.
Held on April 2nd, the debate filled Gannett with students, faculty, and administrators eager to hear both candidates. As attendees filtered in prior to the start time, Maxwell prepped at his podium while Majiedt distributed blue flyers with QR codes linking to her extensive three-page résumé.
The two candidates have taken divergent approaches to campaigning. Maxwell’s Instagram, @josh4sga, displays endorsements from various student leaders and highlights his qualifications from his time as VP for Financial Affairs. Majiedt, on the other hand, has focused her Instagram, @madampres_samantha, on outreach, gathering input from diverse student groups. Their contrasting styles reflect their platforms: Maxwell represents stability and institutional progress, while Majiedt champions grassroots change.
Maxwell opened by emphasizing his strong legislative experience as a basis for candidacy. Branding his campaign as one of growth and advancement, he described SGA’s past as “toxic and unstable” and credited his leadership with “ensur[ing] that we never return to that level of dysfunction.” He further added that he had brought the SGA into a time of prosperity, fixing many cultural issues within the organization. His accomplishments include overseeing the Falstaff’s renovation, preserving Filene as a student space, and securing funding for menstrual products and reproductive healthcare. In a pointed remark, he stated that the presidency requires a “highly technical policy expert” and is not the place to teach leadership fundamentals.
Majiedt delivered her opening remarks next, underscoring her fresh perspective and extensive experience outside SGA. This includes work with Namibia’s Minister of Justice, helping to draft acts on divorce laws, crime policy, and youth unemployment. She argued that SGA resolutions often become institutional policies rather than student-led initiatives. “I don’t just lead; I engage and act,” she stated, reinforcing her commitment to inclusive leadership. “I have bridged connections between people who wouldn’t normally be in the same boat. I will pet your dog even though I’m allergic. I will be there for you. And that is what SGA is for: to be there for its students.”
Zachary Schwan, Director of Leadership Activities, moderated the debate. He first asked what programs or advocacy efforts each candidate would lead to support stress, mental health, and holistic well-being, particularly for those who haven’t historically had access to those resources.
Maxwell prioritized de-stigmatizing counseling services, advocating outreach to student-athletes, and diversifying counseling staff. Majiedt, citing her lived experience as a person of color who has faced marginalization, argued that expecting others to seek out resources is insufficient and proposed bringing wellness initiatives directly to students through club collaborations and culturally relevant support systems. “We can’t keep asking people to go to [the counseling center], especially if they feel their identity is stigmatized. We need to keep asking: how can we use research and statistics from people’s own countries and communities to help them?”
The second question: what strategies would each candidate use to build coalitions across diverse organizations to promote unity and collaboration?
Majiedt emphasized joint events between professional organizations, such as the Career Development Center and College Athletics, with cultural clubs. Maxwell agreed but stressed delivering tangible results instead of empty promises. He cited improved relations between SGA and student-athletes, where before they could not be in the same room—though he did not disclose the reason for this previous tension. Additionally, he challenged Majiedt’s legislative record, stating: “Samantha might say she knows how to write a resolution, but she’s only co-sponsored one, and I wrote it.”
“Correct me if I’m wrong,” one audience member asked, “but some student commissions were cut, if not all, including the one that advocated for accessibility rights. That has a real impact.”
Accessibility issues on campus seem to have cast a shadow on SGA’s otherwise helpful contributions over the past two semesters. After restructuring many committees and organizations and reviewing bylaws last year, SGA decided to change the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Commission to a CID Subcommittee on ADA. Many were rightfully upset about this, though Maxwell argued that this was a positive change and that those advocating for accessibility on campus would now have more access to resources. He also added that a major goal of his is to foster a community where students of all backgrounds and identities could join SGA and advocate for needs.
“Something a president has to do is listen but disagree,” Maxwell said. “I was transparent with this process, and an information session was hosted.” To that, multiple audience members noticeably shook their heads in disagreement.
However, Majiedt confirmed that this had happened, asserting that “lack of communication was the issue.” She stressed that continuous communication and representation are always important. “But I think language also really matters—it can denote a lot. If some are saying that something doesn’t work, how can we help meet them halfway?”
Maxwell pushed back: “Samantha could have introduced a resolution to amend the ADA Subcommittee name and make changes, but she didn’t. I told her I would help her write the resolution and bring it to the senate… but no resolution was introduced.”
Majiedt acknowledged this but explained her reasoning. “I was told a resolution might not pass in the senate, so I explored other ways to enact change.”
When Majiedt referenced her work on accessible transit, accessible seating in D-Hall, and signage on food, Maxwell refuted her claim, saying that proposals were not being sent to multiple people as she claimed. “We need to know what we can get done now,” he said, “instead of getting students’ hopes up.” In response, Majiedt asked students involved in the transit initiative to confirm its legitimacy—several raised their hands.
On club funding, both agreed on a holistic approach, with Majiedt emphasizing equity in event allocations. Addressing student safety in a volatile political climate, Maxwell commended Majiedt’s work in institutional diversity, saying she has done a “phenomenal job in this area,” while she emphasized education and awareness as key safeguards.
Closing statements reiterated the candidates’ platforms. Majiedt thanked supporters and expressed gratitude, while Maxwell mentioned that serving as SGA President has been an honor and asked the audience to help SGA continue its work by voting for him.
After the debate, we interviewed students to gather their thoughts on the candidates. Opinions were mixed, but many were quick to commend Maxwell’s debating skills.
“I think that Josh was a really strong debater,” one remarked. “We need someone like that with a strong personality to head the SGA.” Another added, laughing, “His last name is Resolution,” poking fun at how often he referenced resolutions throughout the debate.
However, others expressed concerns about the substance of his arguments. “I feel like a lot of Josh’s points were less oriented toward goals and more focused on what Samantha isn’t doing,” a student noted. “I think Samantha had a lot of constructive things to say.”
Majiedt’s approach to leadership was praised for being community-focused. “She’s more engaged with the community. I see her and talk with her, as opposed to Josh, who I don’t interact with as much. She feels accessible.” Another student echoed this sentiment: “Samantha did a wonderful job of acknowledging people, including the communities she has directly worked with. And Josh had a more difficult time doing that. My personal belief is that Samantha is the most qualified candidate to lead SGA, and I have total faith in her ability to do so.”
Some expressed concerns about the tone of the debate. “He was just attacking her the whole time. This is supposed to be a debate, but all he did was point out what she hadn’t done. It almost seemed like he was claiming to have done everything by himself without any mentors, which is not true. And oh yeah, he also knows how to write a resolution.”
The issue of experience was a recurring theme. “I wouldn’t say there was necessarily a clear winner,” one student mused. “I think they both had very good points. But Josh lowkey downplayed Samantha’s accomplishments. Just because she hasn’t written a resolution here doesn’t mean she doesn’t have experience. She does—just not within Skidmore specifically.”
“Samantha’s qualified,” another upperclassman added. “But being qualified somewhere else is not the same as doing the work at Skidmore.”
Some noted the strengths that each candidate could bring to the table. “The two would work well together. Josh seems like he knows everyone at the top, and Samantha knows a lot of students. If they were co-presidents, that would be cool.” Another audience member observed, “Josh has a lot of experience, and [Samantha] doesn’t. But she really knows how to work a crowd.”
Broader concerns about the debate also emerged. “I personally believe this debate was well-structured, but it led to candidates discussing initiatives and work in a way that excluded the communities they’re surrounded by,” one student said. Another pointed to specific issues with funding priorities: “The emphasis on athletics really took away from marginalized and more diverse communities. Why do we need to talk about athletics? They already get all the funding. That new building? That’s for them. Our clubs need money and resources. And I’ll add that we haven’t been getting that because under Josh’s administration, club budgets have been crazy low.”
A few students even voiced concerns about SGA’s culture. “I don’t feel like the toxic culture at SGA has been resolved at all,” one said. “I’m the head of a club, and I’ve been hearing a lot of really hurtful talk from SGA members. One member who deals with finances has been complaining about my club in their classes, saying we’re too privileged and asking for too much money. But compared to some clubs, we really don’t ask for much.” Another added, “They think just because they know the higher-ups, that gives them the right to be rude to people. Some [members] make great contributions, but I’ve also talked to current members who have been really nasty and act superior for no reason. And they always get protection from the administration.”
Despite the criticisms, some still saw value in Maxwell’s leadership. “I feel like Josh has brought a lot of light and productivity to the SGA. He respects everyone and always takes multiple opinions into account. We need that in a leader.”
Others appreciated Samantha’s composure during the debate. “I think Samantha did a great job keeping her cool and not attacking Josh. I respect her for that.”
Ultimately, the debate left students with much to consider as they head to SkidSync to vote. The election now hinges on which vision resonates most with Skidmore’s student body.