Posters Pose Problems
September 26, 2016
Campaigning is an important part of any election, and this is still true for MSMS. Whether for SGA or just for class officers, campaigning and campaign posters can help a candidate stand out and appeal more to voters. However, this year some candidates felt that there was too little clarification over what was and was not appropriate for posters leading to issues with administration. This begs the question of whether or not the rules of campaigning are clearly defined, and if they are not, how can they be fixed?
One of the candidates for junior class president, Jack Sparkman, felt that there should be more clarity about what is or is not allowed on posters. This is due to an issue over one of Sparkman’s posters featuring the term “lit” which in his words means “fun, great, or fantastic” but can also connotate drug or alcohol use. “What fits that criteria (of what is offensive) is a personal difference between me and the administration,” Sparkman said before adding, “I wish there were clear words, phrases, and things that you could not put on posters given out and stated before the election to protect students from wasting resources.”
However, Sparkman’s main opposition for president, Brianna Ladnier, seemed to have no problems with the content of her posters. “I think every rule that was enforced was pretty fair,” Ladnier said. “Although I had a little bit of issues with campaigning, it was all professional and justifiable.” In this case, how can there be such a difference in experience between two candidates?
The easiest answer is that taste in what is appropriate is objective. While a saying such as “Don’t Let Your Vote Go Down the Toilet!” may slip through just fine, a phrase that implies the usage of drugs or alcohol, regardless of the current colloquial understanding, can easily be considered unprofessional.The easiest solution to this issue is, like Sparkman said, to make a list of what is or is not appropriate, but at the same time this belittles the candidate’s intelligence and implies that they themselves can not well enough think through what is appropriate. For now, candidates should at least be aware that it is always better to be safe than sorry.
