{shortcode-fcb631fcc73d74c7fb38299b4e8c78b576851c57}

Students don’t trust the HUA. The Election Commission just gave them another reason not to.

After 18 months of bureaucratic interference, the Harvard Undergraduate Association’s Election Commission added insult to injury by breaking from precedent to conceal the results of last week’s election and surveys from the student body. In doing so, it not only violated clear regulations but undermined its own legitimacy.

This problem started in April 2024, when all referendums were indefinitely postponed. After an HUA Problem Solving Team adopted a proposal to create surveys, it seemed like the issue had finally been put to rest. But by breaking existing rules, fabricating new ones, and suppressing survey results, the Election Commission showed the issue is alive and well.

First, the Election Commission violated its own rules regarding transparency in its decision to withhold survey results. The proposal that created the survey process specifies that “The HUA will send out the compiled survey to the entire Harvard College student body once a semester.” And yet, the Election Commission now claims the results are not allowed to be released, threatening to take action against student organizations if they do so “in a leading manner” (which apparently includes simply sharing results with The Crimson). That rule does not exist, at least not publicly in writing — where rules are supposed to exist.

I would know. Last year, I served on the HUA Executive Team, which wrote that proposal. Two of our predecessors indefinitely postponed all referendums. To resolve that problem, we created the survey system so that student organizations could submit questions for student body opinion polls. The point was for the results to be public — “supporting the wider community’s need for dialogue and feedback” — which, as I can personally attest, is why we put that into writing.

The Commission does not have the authority to override the existing rule with its present non-transparency policy. Even if it did, this action would still violate the HUA’s constitution, which specifies that election rules must be finalized by Oct. 1, and that “no ex post facto rules for elections may be adopted.”

In addition to breaking the actual rules, the Election Commission further strayed from its guidelines by attempting to enforce non-existent rules. During the election, it reportedly told a student organization that they couldn’t promote the survey, even though there is no rule saying this in the 2024–25 guidelines. (The Commission chose to operate this year’s election under last year’s guidelines rather than creating new ones, which is a separate problem altogether.)

Following these instances of blatant failures to follow its own rules, the Election Commission proceeded to send an email to the entire student body, accusing The Crimson of spreading misinformation. The Commission ostensibly took issue with calling the survey a “vote” even though students were choosing between options — i.e., voting. The Crimson made it clear in its reporting that the survey was optional and non-binding, even quoting the Election Commission. The accusation was baseless.

There were many times last year when I, as a member of the HUA Executive Team, thought The Crimson’s reporting was misleading. I might have been right or wrong, but I never abused the privileges of my position to send a school-wide email accusing The Crimson of misinformation.

Besides the lack of transparency, the inability to follow rules, the creation of arbitrary new ones, and the misguided attack on The Crimson, the cherry on top is that the current Election Commission is illegitimate and unconstitutional.

The HUA’s constitution specifies that the Election Commission must consist of seven members. This one only has five, but that’s the least of our worries. The terms of the Commission’s current members have long expired. Terms last from September to May. Four of these members composed the Commission for the April 2025 HUA elections. Thus, their terms are now expired. (It’s unclear when the fifth member was appointed.)

There is no reason to believe that the current HUA reappointed these four members. To the best of my knowledge, it did not solicit any applications in April — which reappointment would constitutionally require. The Election Commission is ruling by fiat.

The Commission has yet to publicly release the results, and I doubt it ever will. For comparison, last April, it released results just three hours after polls closed, and that election featured more candidates, more races, and more voters.

Despite its efforts to conceal results, the truth has come out.

As a former officer of the HUA, I am cautious to publicly critique the members of student government. I know they are volunteers, the job is not easy, and it is thankless. Yet, people step into these roles presumably because they want to serve the student body. For this illegitimate Election Commission to violate the rules so flagrantly does not fulfill that purpose.

Perhaps the Commission had good intentions. It may want to protect Harvard from news coverage on a controversial subject. But good intentions cannot substitute for constitutional process, transparency, and respect for democratic norms.

Let me give the Commission two pieces of advice. First, the Streisand effect says that the more you try to conceal something, the more attention it will get. This seems to be the case here. The cover-up led to at least three different news articles in The Crimson (and this op-ed). Likewise, many students didn’t even know about the survey until the Commission sent out its email criticizing The Crimson.

Second, no individual has the right to replace the rules with their personal sense of what’s best. The HUA has created a lot of controversy in its time, and it’s had to work to regain students’ confidence. To be clear, this cover-up is not the HUA’s fault, but the Commission’s dereliction undermines faith in all of student government.

Democracy depends on accountability and transparency. It’s the minimum standard for legitimacy. As long as the Election Commission withholds the survey results, the student body is right to withhold its trust.

Matthew R. Tobin ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Economics in Winthrop House and was the academic officer of the Harvard Undergraduate Association.