SA Election Rules and the Myth of Equity
“In order to maintain an equitable voting and campaigning environment, absolutely no in-person campaigning is allowed.” – Cornell Student Assembly
In its latest display of impotence, the Cornell Student Assembly announced that no in-person campaigning will be allowed to take place in this upcoming election cycle. The goal of achieving an “equitable environment” informed the decision. In-person interactions, speeches, and chalking are all prohibited.
The rules established by the Student Assembly introduce a new set of concerns regarding fairness and deprive candidates of their right to free speech and ability to innovate. As defined in Merriam Webster, equity is “justice according to natural law or right, specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism”.
The attempt to eliminate “unfair” advantages through legislation often creates new injustices. What if one candidate has a significantly larger social media following than the others? In the absence of in-person campaigning, the other candidates’ ability to compete is severely restricted, and their odds of winning are virtually nonexistent. What if a candidate doesn’t have any social media accounts at all? What if one candidate is more popular than the others, and can utilize their presence in various group chats and existing social networks to swing the election in their favor? The new SA election law clearly benefits a specific type of candidate – the favorite.
Sure, in-person campaigning allows students on campus to earn an advantage, however, it is a natural advantage. The natural advantage is a direct result of their willingness to return to campus and be entrepreneurial. Discrimination intended to level the playing field will instead create new disparities and establish steeper barriers to entry in our electoral system.
