President Beong-Soo Kim said Wednesday he wished he had the time to talk to other University stakeholders, like the debate’s planned host, the USC Center for the Political Future, before cancelling the California gubernatorial debate during an Academic Senate meeting. 

“The conversation with [ABC7] went very late into the night and things moved so fast,” Kim said. “In hindsight, I wish there had been more time for me to bring others directly into the conversation; not just CPF but also other faculty.” 

ABC7 and the Center for the Political Future planned to co-host California’s Gubernatorial Debate on March 24. They invited the top six candidates to the debate based on a formula that emphasized polling and fundraising numbers, created by USC professor Christian Grose. 

When no candidates of color received an invitation due to none making the criteria’s top six most viable winners, Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, former United States Health and Human Services secretary, wrote a letter accusing USC of purposefully excluding candidates of color from the stage.

On top of Becerra’s letter, Kim received a separate letter March 24, signed by California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, California Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and seven major legislative caucus leaders. The letter demanded USC “open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates.”

Less than 24 hours before the event, Kim canceled the debate and said in an interview with L.A. Material that he canceled the debate when ABC7 was unwilling to increase the number of invited candidates.  

Kim also said that when making the decision to cancel the debate, he did not take into account “demands” from excluded candidates or other state legislators. 

“The excluded candidates, in my opinion, were crying foul,” Kim said during Wednesday’s meeting. “[The debate] was to provide a forum for voters to hear from candidates. I ultimately decided that USC was becoming a distraction to that process and it was becoming a debate about the debate.” 

Kim said he believed that no matter what the University did, it would be criticized. So ultimately, he decided to do what he “thought was right.” 

Clifford Neuman, an associate professor of computer science practice, asked Kim why the decision fell on the president’s office rather than the CPF to cancel the debate. 

In response, Kim said he made the decision because he was involved in the debate planning and that the letters demanding it be cancelled were addressed to him personally. He also said that Bob Shrum, the director of CPF, likely disagreed with the decision. 

Kim said that he is taking this as an opportunity for growth, and hopes USC will stay politically active in the future. 

“It would be great if we could host another debate, whether in this cycle or next cycle,” Kim said. “Hopefully, there are some lessons learned here.”