Audrey Buckley
Editor’s Note: Executive candidate JD Romero, who published under the name Juan Rodriguez, has previously worked for The Daily Texan opinion department and currently serves as a voting member on the Texas Student Media Board.
This past Monday, the Dean of Students overturned the disqualification of the Hudson Thomas and Thierry Chu executive alliance in the campus-wide elections — a disappointing move that resulted in the pair winning the president and vice president roles for the 2025-26 academic year.
The Office of the Dean of Students’ unnecessary involvement in this election once again reminds us of UT’s repeated failure to allow student autonomy on campus.
Denying Student Government’s ability to deliberate internally and produce a resulting decision is a dangerous misstep for student autonomy. SG representatives have made clear that the overreach and undue influence over their leadership raises serious concerns about the independence of our student body’s highest authority.
“We, as Justices and Clerks, were confirmed by the Assembly, in most if not all cases unanimously,” the court held. “As a result, we too represent the wishes of the student body, and we must have the ability to do so without interference if we are to have the trust both of the students we serve and of those among our governing ranks.”
Executive alliance debate
Overreach from University administration began when the Election Supervisory Board reached out to the Texan Editor-in-Chief to moderate the SG debate, as is tradition. However, the Office of the Dean of Students limited our line of questioning and requested our moderation team strike three questions on the following topics: SB 17 and anti-DEI sentiment, institutional neutrality and sexual assault. When the Editorial Board expressed concern about the ethical implications of this suggestion, we were given the option to pull the questions or withdraw from the event completely.
The audience question portion of the debate was also adjusted. Instead of the moderation team fielding audience questions in real-time, the ESB collected them through QR codes and selected questions. Neither of these practices has occurred before at an SG Executive Alliance Debate. While both actions are within the rights of University administration, the sudden imposition of student governance represents a confusing and disturbing trend against the autonomy of the student body. Simply because the administration reserves the right to control the discourse of its students during a University-sponsored event does not mean it is ethical.
Complaints filed, Thomas-Chu alliance disqualified
The Office of the Dean of Students became further involved during the complaint process, which was an unnecessary administrative call. The ESB ruled that the Thomas-Chu alliance violated the Election Supervisory Board code by attempting to secure a presentation at campus organizations before the official campaigning period and faced ESB-determined consequences for doing so.
Thomas and Chu did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
A second complaint was filed last Tuesday by fellow executive alliance candidate JD Romero, who accused Thomas-Chu of violating several other ESB codes. Romero wrote that Thomas-Chu failed to report the use of videographers and professional camera equipment and exceeded the campaign spending limit by over 120%, which is grounds for immediate disqualification. Romero’s complaint never received an ESB hearing, as the Dean of Students directed the Election Supervisory Board to dismiss the complaint due to lack of evidence.
However, Romero’s complaint listed six specific code violations and stated specific instances of each. Four complaints with far less detail and specificity were granted both a hearing and a decision without interference from the Office of the Dean of Students in this election cycle.
“The Court finds that the DOS exceeded its role in student elections by intervening in ESB proceedings, resulting in the dismissal of a formal complaint without the ESB exercising independent judgment,” the Supreme Court wrote on the matter. “This court has reviewed the original complaint and has determined that it is statutorily in line with the Campus-Wide Election Code.”
The ESB’s budgetary rules exist to prevent candidates from utilizing personal wealth to influence the outcome of the election. If there are no consequences for candidates breaking the rules, these checks and balances have no impact. This opens the door for future candidates to push the limits of campaign rules and, ultimately, for elections to be won by wealth and status rather than by merit.
On March 7, Romero appealed the initial dismissal and was granted a hearing by the Student Government Supreme Court on Sunday at 9 a.m. During the hearing, Thomas abruptly left after a heated conversation in which he told members to “talk to the Dean” if they had any issues. The Supreme Court sided with Romero due to Thomas’s failure to present evidence, according to ESB chair Ty Gribble.
On Sunday evening, it was announced that the Supreme Court ruled that Thomas-Chu should be disqualified.
“There was no conceivable situation where the Dean of Students involvement in this matter would be required, other than if the accused personally reached out to the Office of the Dean of Students to subvert the authority granted to ESB,” according to the Supreme Court’s final ruling.
Even those with the earned authority who understand SG regulations do not see a justification for the Dean’s involvement. Regardless of whether ESB followed due process, it’s a fact that the alliance broke several rules and should be held accountable.
Ruling overturned
The Daily Texan confirmed that Thomas went to the Office of the Dean of Students and met with the Student Government organization advisor and dean Katie McGee the following day, on Monday, March 10. Six other Executive Alliance candidates confirmed they were not informed about the possibility of meeting with the Dean of Students and never communicated with McGee directly about any campaign questions.
The meeting between Thomas and the office occurred at around noon. At 12:48 p.m., the Office of the Dean of Students sent an email announcing they overruled the Supreme Court decision, reversing the disqualification of the Thomas-Chu alliance.
The decision to overturn the ruling was based on Article IV, Section 6.15 of the SG Constitution, which states, “The Election Supervisory Board shall possess primary review jurisdiction in all Student Government election disputes, and b. The Student Government supreme court shall possess sole appellate jurisdiction in all Student Government election disputes.”
The Office of the Dean of Students argued that Romero’s complaint was not grounds for disqualification since it was not heard by the Election Supervisory Board. However, it was the Office’s intervention that redirected the appeal to the Supreme Court in the first place, a move that interrupted the judicial process and circumvented student authority.
SG Speaker Nidhi Chanchlani emailed Executive Board members announcing the Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Thomas and Chu at 1:03 p.m., after the Dean of Students had already overturned the ruling. The Thomas-Chu win was certified by Gribble and McGee at 1:30 p.m. despite the SG Court’s decision to disqualify. At 1:53 p.m., all members of SG received a second email from Chanchlani explaining the Dean’s decision — just seven minutes before the release of election results.
The Editorial Board stands for student voices
The Office of the Dean of Students’ failure to communicate with SG shows a disconnect between the two organizations. SG cannot support the student body and act in our best interest if they are excluded from deliberations about their constituents.
From taking the debate from the Editorial Board’s hands to problematic involvement during the complaint process, the Office of the Dean of Students crossed boundaries within its role in numerous ways throughout the process of the Student Government election. Regardless of the next steps the University or the elected alliance take, this year’s campus-wide election process revealed a distinct overreach in the complaint process and, subsequently, inadequate consequences for the Thomas-Chu alliance. Their controversial victory will define the rest of their term.
While we respect that the Executive Alliance debate is University-sponsored, this Editorial Board refuses any invitation to moderate the event until the Office of the Dean of Students can confirm it will no longer overstep in the moderation process. Maybe the Office of the Dean of Students thought the student body wouldn’t care if they increased their involvement in the election process. But we do. We believe in the fundamental right to free discourse, and the Office of the Dean of Students has thus far failed to convey that their values align.
The editorial board is composed of associate editors Emily Harrison, Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders, Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.