Student government election season has arrived, and with it a wave of ambitious promises. Candidates are vowing to improve pre-professional advising, expand campus food options and increase security measures, among dozens of other proposals.
These are not small promises. They require funding, administrative approval and coordination with departments that operate independently of student government. The problem is not the ambition behind these proposals, it is the absence of any honest accounting of what student government can realistically deliver.
Yet campaign messaging rarely explains the mechanics.
Instead, initiatives are presented as outcomes rather than advocacy goals. While student government can lobby administrators, allocate portions of student fees and bring attention to student concerns, it cannot independently open national food chains, alter curriculum requirements, extend library hours without administrative approval or install new physical infrastructure – especially off campus.
To better understand how realistic these promises may be, The Hurricane contacted the current executive board of student government. They declined to comment on the feasibility of the current candidates’ proposals.
That leaves students to evaluate campaign platforms without insight into the likelihood of their execution.
Holding candidates to a higher standard is not a rejection of their ambition. It is a recognition of it. Many proposals reflect genuine student concerns, and some build on past accomplishments: further expansion of the campus ride share map and new shuttle stop covers, for instance, are cited as a foundation for this cycle’s larger proposals. But vision alone is not enough. Clarity about how these goals would actually be achieved and what obstacles stand in the way is missing.
If a candidate proposes expanding food vendors, what existing contracts are in place? If they promise technology upgrades, where would that funding come from? If they guarantee faster reimbursements or clearer budgeting timelines, what structural changes are required?
These questions are not cynical. They are practical.
Student government functions within institutional constraints. Understanding those constraints does not weaken leadership, it strengthens credibility.
The most responsible campaigns are not those with the longest initiative list. They are the ones that distinguish between what they can execute directly, what requires partnership, and what demands long-term advocacy.
Ambition draws attention. Transparency builds trust. As voters, we should expect both.