Power, Patterns, and Traditions: Why We Will No Longer Be Managing a Yell Leader Campaign

“The Mugdown exists to challenge the thinking of the Texas A&M community by delivering relevant satirical news.”
— The Mugdown Mission Statement

As Texas A&M University’s satirical publication, we at The Mugdown want the community to look at things differently. We are proud to be students of a university with such a rich history of tradition. However, this preoccupation with tradition is double-edged — it becomes tempting to conflate stubborn patterns with legitimate traditions. 

Last semester, we announced the creation of a yell leader platform.  We sought to leverage our following to give extraordinary Aggies a chance in a race that is rarely competitive. Maybe, through our platform, we could hold a mirror up to the student body. With this project, we wanted to get campus talking about what they believe defines a yell leader. Which aspects of A&M should they represent? Why should one person be considered electable and not another? And behind all of this, why do we have the patterns we see today?

However, this effort has been cut short.

Last week, we looked forward to formally announcing our candidates. While looking through the rules, however, we found a short passage of note — Article IV Section I Subsection (c) (4) (iii). It states:

Candidates shall be allowed to speak media outlets [sic] for quote or press concerning their candidacy during the pre-campaign period. Candidates are not permitted to submit or have published material that is written by the candidate or staff members for the purposes of campaigning. These prohibited publications include, but are not limited to, “Mail Calls” and opinion or editorial articles that are intended for publication. If contacted by a media outlet, candidates shall be allowed to submit material in response to questions generated by the media outlet. Candidates may only be included in articles or stories written by employees or freelance writers of media outlet [sic]. Candidates appearing in media outlets for reasons not related to campaigning or their candidacy are exempt from this rule.

From the wording of this rule, we inferred that it applies to groups that report real news — this rule intends to avoid a conflict of interest between candidates and groups that tell facts. We as an organization do not report real news. We write satire. Our content is filtered through a lens of fiction. Due to the choice words of “media outlet,” we decided to reach out last Thursday to the election commissioner for clarification. We were told the following:

Per your website and maroonlink, The Mugdown is defined as ‘Texas A&M’s first satirical newspaper’ therefore we would treat The Mugdown as a media outlet.

The Mugdown is first and foremost a student organization. We do produce multimedia content, but we have never in our history functioned as a legitimate, news-focused media outlet. We are not comparable to The Eagle, KBTX, or even The Battalion. Much like 5 For Yell, we are a group of students who wished to support our selected candidates. 5 For Yell is able to reuse its well-known brand from past elections without issue. We were trying to use our brand to challenge the status quo, but we are being prevented from building a platform for our selected candidates because of a vague technicality. How could a single, unaffiliated candidate ever hope to have a chance if the election rules give powerful groups such as 5 For Yell an inherent advantage?

These aren’t actual political elections — there is no party system when deciding who can run for an election. Student elections do not feature party systems because they can create unnecessary divisions and can build machines that consistently select candidates internally. Why, then, do we have perpetual co-candidacy groups like 5 For Yell running primaries? Why is 5 For Yell allowed to utilize previously built social media platforms and resources from one of the largest student organizations on campus to establish a rule over Texas A&M’s most visible representatives?

Through our platform, we wanted to bring this dichotomy to light. If we, another organization, picked candidates and put them out there, maybe we could encourage people to consider the issues with the current system.

Last semester, we went through a rigorous selection process to find the best candidates possible. Through this process, we found three amazing Aggies that we sincerely believe will make great yell leaders. All three are filled with passion and dedication, and they each represent the qualities that make the Aggie Family so strong. All three have overcome different challenges to be a part of this university, and they represent students who rarely, if ever, are allowed to be yell leaders. All three spoke about the moment they started dreaming about being a yell leader but never believed it would be a possibility. We hoped to serve as campaign staff for these Aggies to not only actively embody our mission statement and challenge the thinking of the Texas A&M community, but also to help spotlight a few people on campus that represent our community’s best qualities.

However, navigating elections can be difficult. At 21 pages, this year’s rulebook, is simultaneously too much and too little information. Some passages seem to have been written in the ’90s and have yet to see an update. In many cases, the rules are written just loosely enough to work for the groups that typically hold power and just stringently enough to prevent unconventional challengers to the status quo.

Because we believe in our candidates, we cannot have our members serve as campaign staff. We care too deeply about their aspirations to risk a potential disqualification by using our resources to campaign on their behalf. 

To be clear: their campaign will continue, just without us. We are overjoyed that we could help to bring the three of them together, but we are profoundly sad that we are unfairly prohibited from taking this journey with them. 

Although we will not be working on their campaign in any capacity, we will still be commenting heavily on this election. We will stick to our mission statement and challenge the thinking of the Texas A&M community by providing relevant satirical content. We hope this election season makes you think about what purpose yell leaders and elections serve this university. Most of all, we hope it inspires you to engage in a dialogue with your fellow Aggies. We want discourse. Naturally, people will disagree. But this university’s past, present, and future improvements do not take place without discussions and disagreements. 

When the university is moving in the right direction, we at The Mugdown aim to serve as a tailwind to usher progress. But when we see the university needs to make serious changes to create a healthier community for the student body, we aim to work as a headwind. All we can ask is that you think critically about who you are voting for and why.

 

— The Mugdown