The failed appeal to re-invent the Campus Union election system

In recent weeks, there has been a push to restructure the Campus Union election system to mimic the democratic selection process of the United States by allowing a potential president and vice president to run for office on a joint ticket. 

One member of Campus Union, who wished to remain anonymous, voiced her reasons for welcoming this change and discussed how it would impact the culture of Wofford’s student government. 

“The driving force behind this proposal was to level the playing field and create a more diverse Campus Union executive board,” she said. “Over the past nine years, Destiny mentioned that all of the past CU presidents have been male, seven of the nine have been members of a fraternity, and only two of the nine have been of color.” 

The student continued, addressing arguments that were made on this topic.

“With the joint ticket system,” she said, “it was expressed that it would potentially divide the fraternities’ brother votes, and allow for someone to have a chance to find someone else that appeals to a different crowd than she or he may be able to reach.” 

On Jan. 25, Campus Union held a formal meeting to discuss the proposal. After much deliberation the motion was denied, leaving some delegates feeling disillusioned with the process. 

The anonymous student went on to discuss her perception of the rationale behind the proposal’s denial. 

“The reasons for not passing this proposal was basically the saying, “if it’s not broken don’t fix it”,” she said, “but clearly things are broken if we have students on campus who don’t feel heard or feel that things need to change (@blackatwofford).” 

The student further explained that the majority of the pushback against the motion spawned from the worry of inciting division on campus. 

“Another reason was that the current executive board were all members of IFC (Interfraternity Council), and campus union brought them closer,” she added. “Another reason was the fear of two IFC members running on one ticket, but if that did happen and another IFC member ran with, let’s say, the president of SAAC, it would further divide the IFC votes, therefore leveling the playing field. Another reason was because it would lose the sense of individualism in campus union, but isn’t the point of campus union to advocate for the campus as a whole, not just the members of it?” 

The anonymous student also commented concerning the strong opposition to the proposal. 

“They felt that this would do more good than bad for our campus,” she said, “and if it didn’t work things can always be changed. Those who felt strongly against it felt that their personal opinions weighed more than the betterment of the campus. Their feelings were more of fears that their friend may not win in the future. There was even the comment of this being a “popularity contest” as if getting into campus union isn’t that already.” 

The student then offered her opinion regarding the potential future of the suggested change and how Campus Union could evolve. 

“As long as the same type of people join the campus union, I don’t think an attempt like this will come again,” she said. “Real change usually starts at the top, but in some cases it’s a grassroots project, and that’s what it’s looking like for change to happen at Wofford and within Campus Union.” 

The student concluded with the notion that, although student government is imperfect, the position of power can still be used as a platform to give a voice to students who are unwilling or unable to speak for themselves and offered her perspective on what Campus Union has become and has the potential to be. 

“I enjoy being able to advocate for those who aren’t in the room,” she said.“People that were voted out, people too afraid to run, or people that just don’t want to run. I think that is what Campus union is about, but one thing I have noticed is that it’s turned into a gathering for friends. I have also noticed, as stated above that the people of CU have lost the cause behind it. They vote for things as they benefit them and not how they will benefit or harm the campus as a whole.”

Written by Nehemiah Broadie