Supreme Nonsense
As I first strolled through the entrance of Agora on the day of preliminary elections, I saw Sean Taylor’s “Supreme Leader” poster alongside a clutter of all the other candidates’. Next to the glossy poster papers promising transparency and mental stability stood a red poster of Sean Taylor looking out into the horizon reading the lines, “Sean Taylor for Supreme Leader.” I gave a good laugh, remarking to a friend how creative of a joke it was amidst the desparation and sincerity of other candidates. Later that week, I encountered it again on the Humor page of The Exonian. The bottom part read “Glorious Leader” instead, which was the first time I realized how insensitive the poster could be. Then I heard of Taylor’s speech at Wetherell. Then I saw the campaign video on Facebook. This joke had crossed the line.
The “campaign” is offensive to specific members of our community. I understand that none of the offenses I am about to list have been done on purpose. But even unintentional harm is harm nonetheless. The reason why “Supreme Leader” was scratched from the original poster and replaced with “Glorious Leader” is because of its implication of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, a controversial dictator who leads an oppressive totalitarian regime with little to no regard for human rights. Not far from this Hermit kingdom is Japan. Taylor’s campaign posters portray his face surrounded by numerous banners of different shades of red—his face as the “sun” on the Imperial Japanese flag. The Empire of Japan has left a scarring history of colonization and tyranny over many countries as well as a provocation of the United States, which led to its involvement in World War II. But what will explain the Vietnamese flag in his “campaign video?” Vietnam is a communist state, but members of our community are not proud of the fact that the country’s government is arguably corrupt and more backward than progressive. Having the Vietnamese flag stand as a symbol of communism is politically incorrect and offensive. Through all the campaigning, there has been unintended harm to several members, and there should never be anything to offend anyone on a public message.
The “campaign” also undermines the legitimacy of our student government and the two presidential candidates. Many argue that Student Council is not even “a thing,” and that it doesn’t even matter for this purpose. If StuCo is not “a thing,” then how are students doing any better to continue to treat it like a joke? If it is student representation we need in the face of the faculty, there is no more a joke than for the people running it and working for it to take it as a joke. With all the seriousness behind the “write-in” idea for Taylor, it only came to show how immature Exonians were and irresponsible of the disasters that will have to have been dealt with. And while StuCo as an organization has been impacted, Taylor’s “campaign” posed a threat to the actual Presidential candidates. Both Rebecca Ju and Kevin Zhen had to make considerable sacrifices for their campaign. While they could have decided to run for and possibly be leaders of other organizations, they chose Student Council. Taylor may have made some sacrifices for this campaign, such as the t-shirts and time gone into a fake “campaign,” but it falls weak behind the two candidates’. In addition, how disappointing is it for the two if members of our community treat this organization they believe in as a joke? Taylor’s poking fun at the legitimacy of Student Council may have impacted the organization’s reputation and the two faithful presidential candidates.
I am glad that the administration dealt with it so responsibly. No where in our Student Council constitution is there mentioning of the idea of write-in candidates. This begged the question of, then, if a majority of our student body wrote a specific candidate in for the position, would he or she be acknowledged. Ms. Cahalane, a faculty advisor for the Student Council, responded swiftly and suitably in an email about the elections with the following phrase, “Write-in votes will NOT be counted.” While it was disappointing to some, it has prevented the issue from getting out of hand. What if write-in votes were allowed and Taylor received the most number of votes? How is he a legitimate candidate if he has not had his name put on the ballot? 350 signatures? Two public appearances? Would he be able to run Student Council based on his candidacy platform? With so many controversial questions on the table, the school will have witnessed a greater problem—with the die having been cast.
Taylor has run a humorous campaign. There is no doubt that all the “campaigning” he’s done has been a comedic relief for many of us at Exeter. His activity on social media was popular. There are so many things wrong with the campaign, however. Even a public disclaimer could have prevented this confusion. The campaign was a joke taken too far and reluctantly cut short by the more mature and responsible adults of the administration. Sure, our administration may be referred to as the Kremlin, but we surely did not want a student “supreme leader” running it.