Disappointment. There is no other term that can better describe my feelings toward this year's election process and student self-governance here at the University, specifically concerning the upcoming run-off election for Student Council president. All University students should be appalled by the continued election controversy. The attention has created much suspicion that many of the allegations of the past few days may actually be rooted in truth. Due to the events that have occurred in the last two weeks, my faith in fellow students and the administration has been questioned. No longer do I feel confident in one of the most influential organizations on Grounds. We must recognize that our ideals of honesty and trust in student governance have not been fully realized or adhered to.
There is no need to further rumors or perpetuate false allegations. What must be acknowledged is the myriad of suspicions of wrongs committed by those in charge of elections. When one candidate is repetitively singled out in such a process, it seems plausible that the candidate is not at fault, receiving an unfair amount of attention. Rather, ulterior motives and personal agendas are at hand. Because of this, we should be very skeptical of people in power. Students must examine the information circulating the University and seriously rethink the reasons why a candidate would garner so many unforeseen obstacles if they were not a serious threat.
Regardless of whom you may support in this race, it's undeniable that events have occurred that have yet to be fully explained but still are highly questionable. Since the start of this campaign, questions have been raised to the validity and motive of Council in this election. If Council's Executive Board is going to try to dismantle the endorsements of two very diverse and necessary voices on Grounds, it has the responsibility to inform these groups well in advance of election time. It does not seem logical that the Coalition's and First Year Council's disenfranchisement fell so close to the election after Lundy had already been endorsed. Certainly, if this were such a core, crucial issue for the election, it would have been fully addressed long before this time.
Yesterday morning, Council presidential candidate Daisy Lundy brought two appeals before the Council's Rules and Ethics Board. Though the Board ruled against Lundy -- thus continuing to hold a run-off election this week -- her opponent's absence from the hearing was highly noticeable and problematic since the Ethics and Rules Board had the potential to name Lundy president. In granting this appeal process, Council should have stopped all campaigning procedures for both candidates until the appeals were heard. This has occupied critical time now lost for campaigning efforts, introducing a clear advantage to her opponent.
Even now, Council has not given an explanation to allay serious concerns from students regarding improper access to vote totals during the election. Though Council President Micah Schwartz has commented that "the Executive Board has discussed this concern and we are going to investigate," there has been no mention of how those monitoring the vote have affected campaigning ("Appeal challenges election results," Feb. 24). It's not only an issue of bias but one of honor and integrity that a public forum must address .
The lack of accountability, honesty and information has completely blurred the lines of truth in this election. The questionable actions of Council members have disregarded a system of student self-governance not by endorsing a qualified successor, but by creating numerous complications for an equally qualified opponent after an election has been slated to begin. This election has become a race of alliances and support, not one of actual issues and student concerns. The race for one of the most important student positions on Grounds has turned into a bid for popularity amid partiality because of the semantics of Council, an immense injustice to those running and voting. This is a mockery of our system.
Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Simply, too many suspect situations have occurred concerning these elections for one to still believe that this race has been fair, just and honorable. There is no student self-governance if students are not left to make a wise decision about election candidates without bias. The only hope to correct such wrongs now is to discern truth and reevaluate our system with a fresh perspective for Council. We must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. The responsibility now lies on the shoulders of students who truly care about the morals and values of the University to stand up for what they believe by voting again in the run-off election. It is the voices of the students that will determine our character and the path our university will take.
(Amey Adkins' column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at aadkins@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | YesterdayBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
