We make a big deal out of student officer roles; each spring, many of us will vie for these prized positions tooth and nail. But it is often unclear how exactly the winners of these competitions will be determined, leading to a silly version of power politics. While the problem may seem trivial, it has the potential to sour relationships, undermine students’ self-confidence, and sow institutional doubt. An article by Yoonsa Lee ’25 in our most recent issue about the peer counselors illustrates how prized roles within the student community can create controversy and grudges.
The problem fundamentally boils down to this: When students are tasked with picking their successors, the potential for corruption becomes inherent in the process. It becomes impossible to avoid personal biases and conflicts of interests that get in the way of assessing candidates based on their qualifications, skills, and dedication to the club’s mission,
This can breed an atmosphere of distrust and skepticism among members, who question whether decisions are being made in the best interest of the club or for the benefit of those in power. Such an environment erodes the sense of unity and collective purpose that should characterize student organizations, undermining their potential to foster meaningful connections and personal growth.
Firstly, clubs and alliances have a responsibility to articulate what leadership skills will be considered during the application process. Setting clear standards will reduce the effect of personal biases, expose unfounded assumptions, and force decision-makers to explaining their acceptances and rejections. In addition, clubs should articulate how these intangible qualities will be assessed. That way, these important but loose terms will become more concretely measurable.
Faculty advisors should have a role in deciding future student leadership, acting as an impartial advocate for the interests of the club as a whole and holding student leaders accountable.
When reviewing applicants, clubs should consider meeting attendance as a prerequisite to ensure future club leaders are committed, specifying “hours of participation” expected of a certain leadership position. This will provide a way of measuring commitment to club activities, one of the most important qualifications.
Furthermore, selection processes for leadership positions should be institutionalized, going through deliberations featuring many people. When power is concentrated in the hands of one or two people, the decision becomes personal, creating the potential for ruined relationships. It also means that important perspectives may be overlooked.
Additionally, clubs should offer potential candidates opportunities to prove themselves by involving them in management tasks, helping them understand their would-be responsibilities and also getting an indication of how they would perform in a leadership position. Bridging the gap between leadership and membership would also ease year-to-year transitions.
Input from club members can also offer helpful perspectives, serving as a window into club members’ aspirations for future leaders and ways in which club members hope that club dynamics will improve.
Most importantly, seniority must not take precedence over preparedness. The misconception that experience trumps merit stifles leads clubs to overlook potential leaders who possess innovative ideas and genuine commitment.
Of course, there are many other factors to consider: should returning leaders need to re-apply? Should diversity be considered? These questions remain open, but we hope that these foundational principles lead to more fairness.