As the SGA turns a new page this year, I think it merits some reflection of the past one. I must warn you before you read further. I will herein weigh great criticism against the Khoury administration of last year’s SGA, and I don’t do this to insult anyone, but to send a message to this year’s SGA to avoid repeating the failures of the past president.
Devoid of any vision of meaningful ideas, President Khoury decided to forego his $6,000 salary to boost his image and to show the school that he didn’t want to become president for the money. And indeed, that much is true. The most important thing for Pedro was not the money; it was his ego. In his mind, Pedro could have cared less whether he got $6,000 or 6 cents as long as he was revered and respected for being some sort of infallible, great leader. Whenever something goes wrong in SGA, whenever something bad happened, it was always the fault of Pedro’s enemies or his family problems or those under him. In essence, everyone and everything was culpable except Pedro Khoury. In his mind, Pedro thought of himself as some sort of glorious leader who had a rags-to-riches type story. He actually believed in this mythical, god-like image of himself. It was apparent in the way that he wrote and spoke about himself. For those who said, “He did a good job in UL”, I say Pedro’s success as UL Pres had little to do with his own talents. In retrospect, he was endowed with an exception E-Board that made him look more capable than he actually was. When in SGA, those phenomenal E-Board members were gone, the true Pedro came to light, and he was a pathetic excuse for a president. For all the symbolism that Pedro exploited, his $6,000 giveaway, the brandishment of his achievement as SGA’s first Latino President, his “heartfelt” concern for minority issues, Pedro really gave back little more than symbolism. He polarized the campus along racial grounds to enhance his own political position and cultivated a powerful cadre of blind followers who followed him for no other reason than the fact that he was “one of them”. Last year, Pedro let us all down, and any other person who takes an objective look at what he accomplished in office cannot refute that. Pedro was a disgrace, a failure, a phony. And it wasn’t his family problems or the avowedly hostile E-Board he inherited that was the main problem; it was Pedro himself, too busy cultivating his glorious self-image too pay heed to the problems that truly mattered to students. Never was there so much hope and possibility in SGA, as the day that Pedro Khoury took office, and never was so much hope misplaced and so much possibility sqauandered and wasted. Pedro Khoury’s legacy is not one of triumph; it is one of tragedy.