Resign Now! McElroy Disgraces UBC, AMS, Self, With Scandalous Slate

RESIGN NOW!

McElroy Disgraces UBC, AMS, Self,

With Scandalous Slate.

Full Disclosure:

I am not related to, and have not slept with, Jeremy McElroy. I understand this puts me in the minority of authoritative voices on the issue of the elections. I’m okay with that. I hope you, dear reader, are as well.

Yesterday the Ubyssey came out with a bold, if predictable headline.

“McElroy resoundingly elected President”, it proclaimed.

Evidently they didn’t get the memo: it doesn’t count if you CHEAT.

And McElroy did cheat. He cheated. He admitted he cheated. Well, to be fair, he didn’t admit to it, as such. He only acknowledged the evidence that proved he cheated. And he only acknowledged that evidence AFTER everyone else did.

Amazingly, the article went on to discuss how this year’s election was more difficult for Jeremy than his last. “It was way harder [this year]”, Jeremy complains. To his credit: cheating is tough work.  

Elsewhere in the Ubyssey McElroy called the website "immature". Here I think he's being too hard on himself. The slating website wasn't immature. It was clever and probably somewhat effective. But it also clearly broke the election rules by which all candidates were bound. Covertly and intentionally breaking the rules for personal gain is cheating. Again, ill-advised, immoral, and scandalous, but not immature. Anyway, at 22 you're still young yet Jeremy. Don't feel bad, lots of old people cheat too. 

I’m just bewildered how the lamestream campus media isn’t more upset. They’re busier talking about Bijan and his two weeks left in office. When they do discuss the matter, the lamestream media seems to keep saying “he wanted to win REEEEALLY bad, and he put his time in, and he deserved to win… so what if he cheated.”

Are they for real?

the straight facts

For those of who get your news exclusively from ‘Caught Red Handed’, here is the story of stolen election, in brief.

1.   Jeremy McElory and Mitch Wright anonymously co-start a website, ithinkubc.ca, during their respective campaigns for president and vice president external.

2.   They use the website to attack Bijan (who had used his own website, Bijan.ca, to criticize McElroy).

3.   Then Jeremy and Mitch and a still anonymous (possibly non-existent) third party use the website to endorse each other and a slate of other candidates for every position. The mutual endorsements they offer and their joint use of the website as a campaign tool, explicitly violate the election rules which forbid slates.

4.   McElroy and Wright disavow involvement with the website.

5.   Then an enterprising researcher determines that the domain name used for the website is in fact registered to Jeremy McElroy. McElroy and Wright are forced to acknowledge their involvement with the website. McElroy apologizes, and the website is shutdown.

These facts are not disputed. Not even by McElroy. This discussion then, is not a discussion of facts (what happened) but a discussion of consequences (what should happen). To understand this, it is necessary to understand the extent of the McElroy’s misconduct.

In attempting to ascertain those facts, you would be well advised to avoid the Ubyssey’s ‘hooray, Jeremy won, everything’s fine’ article, because interestingly, the Ubyssey doesn’t even mention the crux of the glaringly sinister violation McElroy committed.

They write: “But the bitterness came with revelations that McElroy had… been a contributor to the anonymous blog ithinkubc.wordpress.ca, a site aimed at attacking current AMS President Bijan Ahmadian.”

First, he wasn’t “a contributor”. He was THE founder! That’s why the website was in HIS NAME.

And the funny thing is, if McElroy and his VPX accomplice, Mr. Wright, had made a blog that only criticized Bijan, the situation would be very, very different.

Indeed, at the very least, since Bijan openly criticized McElroy, everyone involved would have recognized McElroy’s absolute right to a response, to publically confront his accuser.

That another candidate contributed to the same Bijan-critical blog would still be troubling, as the Ubyssey rightly notes (credit where credit is due).

But… Wright and McElroy both worked with Bijan. Perhaps McElroy enlisted Wright’s commentary not because he was another candidate, but simply because he was qualified to give it. That might explain collaboration on a website critical of Bijan. (Though this does beg the question of why both did it anonymously – more on that later.)

The Ubyssey maintains that the blog behavior they cite (namely criticizing Bijan) was “slate-like”. They’re 100% right. Two candidates co-writing the same blog to criticize Bijan in the same way would be “slate-like”. But it’s not what happened.

What happened is far, far worse.  

That’s because the blog McElroy and Wright co-started didn’t just criticize Bijan.

IT ALSO ENDORSED BOTH WRIGHT AND MCELROY, AND SOMEONE FOR EVERY OTHER POSITION!

THAT’S NOT SLATE-LIKE. THAT’S SLATE.

THAT’S NOT ‘I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT BUTTER’, THAT’S FREAKIN BUTTERLICIOUS BLAST.

So, to recap, we have: two candidates, endorsing each other, and endorsing a slate of other candidates for every position?

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SLATE!

Slate-like? Hardly!

So… McElroy and Wright formed a slate together, this should be clear. The slate they formed endorsed a bunch of other candidates (who, though inextricably linked to this issue, bear no responsibility for it).

a quandary of AMS proportions

Up until this point, I’ve just laid out the facts. Given that McElroy broke the rules some punitive measure is obviously required. Should those measures include disqualification? Should McElroy be allowed to take office if he cheated?

There are three arguments floating around campus for McElroy’s presidential legitimacy, despite his clearly illicit actions:

1)   He got a bunch of votes (they didn’t get the memo, see above)

2)   He said sorry

3)   He promises he won’t do it again

For the sake of clarity, I’ll break these down one by one.

Argument I

McElroy supporters seem to think that since his cheating worked so well and he won by a hefty margin, we shouldn’t let the cheating bother us too much. This seems to be the position taken by the Ubyssey.

The issue with this argument is twofold.

(I wonder what the Ubyssey’s Watergate coverage would have looked like? “BUT NIXON WON THOUGH, DIDN’T YOU HEAR?”)

In the first, we don’t really know if McElroy won (legitimately).

His cheating may have contributed to the votes he received in large enough number that the outcome of the presidential election may have been different without them.

In this case, his cheating is the proximate cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause) of his victory. In other words: if no cheating, then no victory. And nobody (well, uh, almost nobody – here’s looking at you, Ubyssey) thinks McElroy should be rewarded, WITH THE PRESIDENCY, for cheating.

Furthermore, since nobody, including the university itself is sure if McElroy really represents the authentic feelings of students (you know, before the cheating), nobody, including the university, can engage with him as the rightful leader of the student body.

This is especially important because McElroy has expressed his intention to go head-to-head with the university. An immensely difficult (and in this reporter’s opinion, bad) policy to pursue even with a strong student mandate, it will be nearly impossible in the current situation, which is no mandate at all.

Imagine the negotiation session.

University: X

McElroy: Y

University: But some students think X, too

McElroy: BUT I represent the students because they voted for me, and I think Y

University: You don’t really represent students. Remember? You cheated. Some students think X. We think the rest do too. You have no mandate to speak for students. Therefore, X.)

The second issue is more nuanced.

Even if the illicit actions did not affect the outcome of the election, he still cheated. There’s a moral and a practical issue with having a cheater in office, even if his cheating didn’t induce his win.

The Practical. If he cheated under the intense scrutiny of the elections administration, and with the possibility of being disqualified ever present, what will he do with the immense power and protection of the presidency?

The Moral. Do we really want a cheater to be the highest ranking member in our student society? What kind of message would that send to UBC students, aspiring UBC leaders, and to the other organizations with which the AMS must form bona fide relationships?

Argument II: He said he was sorry.

Response: McElroy only said he was sorry after he was caught.

And at that point his options were limited to “my bad” or, as Immortal Technique famously said, “fuck ya’ll and I’m gone”. He went with the former. Big deal?

“I’m… feeling terrible that I betrayed [people’s trust]” McElroy told the Ubyssey.

That answer satisfied their clearly gifted reporter. Had I been on the case, I would have asked a supplementary question: just when did this terrible feeling sink in? Did it happen to coincide perfectly with the moment you got caught?

I kind of expected the Ubyssey article to add, parenthetically, (read this in a Scooby Doo villain voice for full effect) “and he’d have gotten away with it too, if hadn’t been for those darn blasted kids.”

In considering McElroy’s apology, it is critical to remember how close this issue came to not existing. If he hadn’t been caught, if he had been a little bit more careful, or if others had been a little bit less thorough, nobody might know the truth about the scandal behind ithinkubc.ca.


We still don't know if McElroy did any other sinister slatey things during the election. He hasn't mentioned any. But he didn't mention the sinister slatey things we know he did either, until we found out about them independently.

Argument III: He promises he won’t do it again.

In other words: don’t worry folks, his cheating days are over (now that he won).

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking this a straw man. You’re thinking nobody would be so brazen as to publicly admit they cheated on an election, and then spin it as a positive by saying that they just needed to purge their system of their own pension for fraud.

But it is real. Jeremy himself made the case, when he reassured Ubyssey readers saying “if anything, scandal is out of my system”. Too bad it wasn’t out, you know, before the election.

Of all of the arguments, this one is (as Rory said in a VPX debate) “pretty rich”.

I think at its heart is the idea that it was a mulligan. Like… an “everybody gets one” Spiderman-type thing.

But I’m glad scandal is out of Jeremy McElroy’s system; now let’s get him out of ours.

 the only reasonable solution

You may be surprised to learn that I actually think the elections administration made the right move by not disqualifying Jeremy.

It would have been chaotic. And the Student Council, in all likelihood, would have reversed his decision anyway. Furthermore, it would be tremendously unfair to Michael Moll, who would need to take office amid a firestorm of controversy. Were I in Moll’s position, offered the presidency under such tumultuous circumstances, I might well turn it down.

The only real choices Erik had were: punish McElroy but allow him to win OR throw out the results and call an entirely new presidential election.

I can understand his reluctance to the latter, since it would be immensely costly for the AMS, and put him and his team, and all the candidates, under unimaginable stress.

The move now is McElroy’s. Having won through illegitimate means, he should do the honorable thing and resign. His resignation would be definitive and final. It would allow a leader to take office who could speak with real authority on behalf of students. It is the right thing to do.

This begs the question: it possible to resign from a position you don’t have? I hope so.

---

I want to make one thing very clear: I don’t hate Jeremy McElroy. I don’t even dislike him. In truth, I don’t know him well at all.

I did support his opponent in the election, but I wish Jeremy well. I think he genuinely wanted to be president.

Maybe the cheating was just a one-time slip up. Maybe it was done in the crazy heat of election passion. I’ve run for office before, I know how dizzying it can be.

I think he has done meaningful work on behalf of students in the past, and I admire his commitment. Were he to run again, for any position – including president – and win, without cheating, I would welcome his tenure in office.

But the facts are the facts.

He did cheat. And now, for the good of the AMS and UBC, he needs to resign.

If Jeremy is as committed to the institutions of democracy and the university as I think he is, he will make the mature decision and leave office before he assumes it.