ASG election controversy

Student presidential elections turn ugly

Maria Simpson / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista

Our nation is in an intense state of political divide that is unlikely to dissipate any time soon. College students, especially at a university that claims to be a “changemaker” campus, should be the new generation attempting to fix the divide we see so much of today so that everyone can work together for a brighter future. Unfortunately, this year’s Associated Students Government (ASG) presidential election events have created more division and shoved out any chance at collaborative growth. It deeply saddens me to see the same divide and unaccepting attitudes shown toward each other in a student election that we see on Capitol Hill.  

I’m not writing this to endorse one candidate or another, or even to support a particular side within the 2022 ASG presidential election. I believe that both sides treated each other and the election with petty attitudes and formed pointless division. Student reactions and actions taken by the candidates demonstrates this. A presidential election, especially a student one that is not guided by party lines of any kind, should be conducted with more grace.

The ASG 2022 presidential election kicked off a few weeks ago with campaigning across campus and social media. April 5 was the ASG presidential primary election, narrowing the competitors down to two candidates: fourth year Logan Tucker and transfer junior Melissa Joy Tumlos. Both candidates seemed perfectly qualified to take on the role; both have previous ASG experience and most recently Tucker as Chief of Staff and Tumlos as an At Large Senator. 

Both candidates shared platforms based on building community for marginalized groups on campus and promoting better wellness practices at USD. Their presidential debate occurred April 8 in front of the Student Life Pavilion, and a live stream was filmed and posted to ASG’s Instagram account.

This is when the election went south. The final student question of the debate asked Tucker how she plans to serve marginalized communities while also recognizing her privilege and holding back where appropriate. The question transpired as a result of Tucker listing the Black Student Union (BSU) and Filipino Ugnayan Student Organization (FUSO) as items of involvement on her resume for presidency. The student asking the question addressed Tucker’s lack of active involvement in these organizations, suggesting that Tucker listing them was an act of tokenization.

Tokenization is when a person or organization performs an action that appears to promote diversity, but it is only done to make them appear that way, not as an actual means to create inclusivity or participate in it. Tucker responded that she has class during BSU meetings and is also studying for the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) which has limited her involvement in all organizations that she is a part of due to its immense study load. Tucker also acknowledged that because she is a cisgender white woman she holds certain privilege and a certain place in these groups designed to bring community to marginalized groups. Tumlos also jumped in to share her thoughts on the situation as a member of FUSO after Tucker made her statement.

Both sides addressed the situation and the issue could have been resolved then and there. However, students then took to Instagram to comment on the debate recording. The initial comment addressed Tucker and gave a clear and educational explanation of tokenizing from the perspective of a member of FUSO. Tucker responded by sharing again what she said in the debate, although her Instagram account has since been deleted, and with it her comments responding to student concerns. Then, the comment section opened up more. Many students, including Tumlos, continued to reiterate themselves, some using professional statements such as the USD People of the Islands Club, but some less so.
Word of the tokenizing issue flew around campus and soon Tucker seemed to be canceled. She was deemed a “failed presidential candidate” by some, and many students who were supporting her were also painted as discriminatory and in the wrong.

Tokenizing, to put it plain and simple, is an inappropriate and offensive act that occurs far too often to marginalized communities who have repeatedly shared exhaustions and frustrations about this continually occurring. This issue occurs a lot when people make performative efforts claiming to support or be involved with marginalized groups in order to make themselves look better. It takes away from very real needs of marginalized communities to receive support and diminishes the dicrimination that those communities face. As a predominantly white woman myself, I know I will never know how it feels to be tokenized and I will not defend that action. However, there is no doubt that we have all seen the sky rocketing trends of cancel culture, a downright toxic phenomenon, and it is shameful to see those trends occur within the USD community. USD prides itself as a changemaker campus, but how can change be made if the second someone makes a mistake we shut them down entirely and refuse to open up a chance for growth and education. How are we, the next generation of leaders and the current “changemakers” at USD, supposed to create a more equitable world if we never offer people an opportunity to learn first. 

The push back after the ASG debate was overly harsh and rash. I have read and heard comments that Tucker is racist, performative, and unfit to serve as ASG’s new president, even after she addressed concerns and removed FUSO from her candidate resume. 

Instead of providing a second chance and growing the community, many people are shutting her down and making bold statements about the kind of person they think she is. I believe our campus community can do a better job listening to all sides of an issue and providing helpful education instead of shutting people down without a second chance. Many issues rose during the 2022 ASG presidential election that I hope our community can learn from for future elections. 

Neither side supporting a candidate was fully in the right or wrong. Both made mistakes, but I think we should all learn from them rather than build a pointless grudge. I know we can do better and demonstrate the intellectual and collaborative democracy that we hope to see.

Tucker and Tumlos’ debate ended problematically on both sides of the issue. Photos courtesy of @usd_asg/Instagram