One week ago, on Feb. 5, the Clemson Undergraduate Student Government Senate met to discuss adopting a temporary rule addressing the unconventional circumstances surrounding this year’s student body presidential election.
During the meeting, extensive debate ensued. Ultimately, the body voted to pass the temporary rule after hearing multiple arguments emphasizing the urgency of the situation and the presence of extenuating circumstances in the disqualification of singular candidates, Trey Dowling and Sasha Suggs. Following this decision, Student Sen. Mario Torres and Sen. Fernando Medeiros introduced an amendment aimed at increasing transparency within CUSG operations, specifically within the Student Supreme Court.
This structure mirrors the operation of the U.S. Supreme Court and would foster greater understanding and transparency between CUSG and the student body, legislation that was notably sponsored by the newly appointed Chief Justice.
Transparency matters. Journalists covering all levels of government, from federal to student body, continuously advocate for transparency. The Tiger works to provide as much insight as possible to the student body, but can only do so much with limited information. With two consecutive years of chaotic, unprecedented election circumstances, transparency is now more necessary than ever.
Several senators voiced concern about the potential reputational impact on students involved, questioning what might happen if a future employer discovered information about a student’s involvement in a case. However, this is an inherent risk of public service. Just as a role in CUSG can enhance a resume, accountability for wrongdoing should carry equal weight.
Those involved are public figures who voluntarily stepped into the spotlight. Students know what they sign up for when they run for office, and legitimate candidates should understand that bylaws are subject to change.
During the debate, senators referenced a circumstance in which the top 15 campaign members could be responsible for actions that led to a ticket’s disqualification, yet did not publicly accept responsibility. Multiple senators argued that these individuals did not sign up for the same spotlight as Dowling and Suggs, and therefore, should not be subject to the same level of public accountability.
In many cases, campaign staff publicly advocate for candidates or later earn cabinet positions, making their involvement evident and suggesting that they, too, seek visibility and influence. Students also have a right to know, in this case, if fault lies with unnamed individuals who may later assume positions of power without the student body being aware of past actions.
Publishing judicial opinions could help ensure accountability while also protecting candidates who may be unfairly blamed. Student body Vice President Maya Khaskhely shared that such transparency would have been beneficial in her own situation last year, as it could have reduced rumors and speculation. Despite this, she ultimately remained undecided on the issue.
An unaddressed concern I feel could have influenced the decision is that many members of the student government maintain close personal relationships with candidates — an unavoidable reality in a tight-knit student organization. Given the frequency and intensity of arguments focused on protecting candidates from scrutiny, it is difficult to believe that these relationships played no role in shaping the discussion or decision-making process.
One senator also argued that publishing opinions would expose members of the judicial branch to scrutiny over their rulings. This dual role, serving within both legislative and judicial functions, along with the sentiment it shared, highlights a clear conflict of interest and further illustrates why many students lack trust in student government.
Accountability is essential in roles that directly affect the student body, and public service sometimes demands uncomfortable but necessary trade-offs.
Voting against this amendment appears to prioritize the protection of the institution over the interests of students — a concern echoed by several senators. Last year’s runoff election saw only about 2,760 voters, less than 10% of the student body, underscoring widespread disengagement and skepticism.
Opponents of the amendment argued that it was reactive and that legislation should not be created in response to specific incidents. Yet the temporary rule that was passed a few hours prior, which delayed the elections schedule, was a key example of how systemic problems can sometimes only be identified through unprecedented cases.
Even so, senators acknowledged that this amendment and similar transparency measures had been under development since last fall, undermining claims that it was hastily conceived or created with an intent to be “nosy” in response to the circumstances of this election cycle.
After the amendment’s approval failed, many senators who opposed it spoke in support of similar legislation, but at a later date, due to the unexpected nature of the proposal — a sentiment that felt incomplete and disingenuous.
Transparency is not reactionary — it is foundational. For a governing body that speaks of aspiring towards a future of heightened transparency as well as approachable and accessible student engagement with CUSG, shying away from accountability and honesty is surely not a step in the right direction.
Kylie Tutterrow is a senior political science and communication major from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Kylie can be reached at [email protected].
