UIUC Student Government History 2020-2022: The Fall of a Progressive Coalition
Part 1 of a multi-part series exploring student politics at UIUC
In the summer of 2023, I interviewed Dr. Michael Goodman, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in student government. The conversation I had with Dr. Goodman stuck with me, and I think it describes a fundamental contradiction in most student governments in the United States.
He told me that student governments operate under the “same design as a state government or the US government”, and also mentioned that these institutions often claim to be “apolitical”, “non-partisan” or “neutral”. This raises the question, how can an institution modeled after our political structures claim to be apolitical? As Dr. Goodman frames the quintessential question:, “Is it possible to be neutral? Our politicians don’t do that, and student government is politics.”
Yes, even if some people want to avoid it, student government is inherently political. Many student governments may aim to be distanced from national politics and members of student governments may consider themselves to be simply “representing students”. But the decisions about what counts as “political” and what doesn’t, about which students should be represented, and how to represent them, cannot be separated from politics.
At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), it is sometimes a struggle to even get people to acknowledge this. But for those who do, there is a lot that can be learned from the politics of student government. While it may not be as powerful as “real” governments, it is the only official representation we have as students.
Over the course of my four years as an undergraduate at UIUC, I have been a part of four student government election campaigns, not only following the candidates and results carefully, but actively campaigning for a candidate each time. Because of my partisan involvement in these races, I cannot claim to be neutral when describing the landscape of student politics on our campus. The way I tell this story will come from my personal experiences and political perspectives. But I will do my best to stick to documented facts as the basis of my analysis and conclusions. This has been somewhat difficult, as several campaigns have scrubbed much of their social media presence following the results of their respective elections. I will note things with three question marks (???) when there is uncertainty because of this. However, I think using what still remains, along with my own experiences at the time, I can still paint an accurate picture.
This is the first part in that story, covering some essential background information on the first election experience I took part in on UIUC’s campus, as well as its aftermath. With that being said, let's jump into UIUC’s student government history.
The Landscape of Student Politics
Currently, the Illinois Student Council (ISC) is recognized as the official student government at UIUC. Before the 2023 student government elections, it was known simply as the Illinois Student Government (ISG). I’ll stick to simply referring to the institution as “student government” from here on out to avoid any confusion.
The UIUC student government, like the United States government, has an elected Executive and Legislative branch. Besides that, there are other parts of student government and other positions voted in during student elections, but these two are the most relevant politically and within the scope of this article.
Under the executive branch, there is the Student Body President and Vice president, who are elected through ranked choice voting. They also appoint various officers and others who serve in their administration. Under the legislative branch, there is the Student Congress (formerly known as the Student Senate), with candidates elected for each academic division (specifically UIUC’s Colleges). The legislative branch is led by a Speaker and consists of various committees. For a more in-depth look at these respective branches, you can find helpful charts provided on the student government website.
The truth of the matter is that these branches don’t have a whole lot of power. The UIUC student government has a very limited budget, and little formal authority. There are concrete things they’ve been able to achieve, but they exist largely at the whim of the University administration, who is represented within student government by the Advisor.
Another important position is that of the student trustee. Each University of Illinois campus elects one student trustee with a first past the post vote, and the three rotate their voting rights on the board of trustees. This means that formally, the UIUC student trustee may not have any voting power at a given moment. Practically, however, they have a lot more authority than much of student government, especially considering their role gives them access to the same information as any other member of the board of trustees.
In the first few months of each year, there are campaigns to fill each of these seats and some others. A small fraction of students show up to vote in the elections, with turnout rarely surpassing ten percent. To contextualize this, there are over 50,000 students at UIUC. This includes graduate students, who usually bring down the turnout numbers significantly, and already have a much stronger form of representation in the form of their union.
So with such little power and low student involvement, does the student government at UIUC really matter? Truthfully, that is a very good question that many organizers on campus, myself included, have spent a lot of time considering. There may be many more relevant uses of political organizing effort than student government. Even understanding these limits, having formal representation of the student body can be pretty significant for organizing. We can see a great example of this by going back to the political events early in 2020.
On Thursday, February 13th, 2020, the University of Illinois passed a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution after six hours of debate. This was a major win for the movement for Palestinian liberation on campus, and was covered in publications across the country. Unsurprisingly, it was not implemented by the university administration, who said in response that “ISG resolutions are non-binding, and the university has no plans to act on this one.”
However, despite its failure to promote policy change, this resolution was a meaningful and bold political stand taken by the student government. It also helped shape the political environment of UIUC. In fact, a supporter of the resolution, Alexis Perezchica, would shortly thereafter win the 2020 student body presidency in a tight three-way race.
Later that year I arrived on campus, and began to get involved in political organizing with the UIUC Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) chapter. I was first introduced to student government when we, like many other organizations, were approached for our endorsement. This kind of official indication of support, alongside candidate platforms and stated positions, are some of our best tools to analyze student government candidates. For that reason, before we get into the 2021 election cycle, we need to have a basic knowledge of some student organizations on campus.
Instead of going through each in great detail, I’ve provided a chart which you can refer back to if you ever become confused or need to reference any of the student organizations I’m discussing. From here on out, I will use the acronyms listed below to refer to these organizations.
I hope this chart is useful. If anyone reading this has any questions or feedback to make things more clear, please let me know - I will probably be updating this as I continue this series. Anyway, with this context in mind, we can start talking about first election cycle I experienced on campus.
The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Candidate With a Slate is a Good Candidate With A Slate
Out of all the elections I have been on campus for, 2021 felt the most real. Despite the heavy COVID restrictions of March 2021, the elections proceeded with large in-person canvassing operations. From what I could tell, there were pretty big differences between the presidential candidates and their visions for UIUC. The student turnout was at a high compared to almost any other election since, although admittedly still very low at around eight percent.
Politically, this election was defined by the two opposing coalitions, called slates. These slates were formalized within election law, and included candidates for president and vice president, student legislature, and trustee.
One slate was led by the candidates that approached YDSA - Enoma Egiebor and Nicole Arnold. Enoma and Nicole’s campaign was very impressive in its scope. They ran in a slate alongside then-president Alexis Perezchica, who was running for trustee, and 18 candidates for the legislature. Their main campaign platform included diversity, equity and inclusion, student wellness, and environmental justice. Their endorsements were wide ranging, including organizations dedicated to mental health and sexual assault prevention, as well as essentially every relevant progressive political organization on campus. This included YDSA, SECS, SJP, I-CAUSE and BSFR.
The alternatives were Tyler Swanson and Vada Gregory. As is typical of the more conservative candidates in student government races, they allied themselves with Greek organizations on campus, with the Daily Illini reporting that they planned on “increasing the involvement of Greek life in ISG in order to better represent the interests of fraternities and sororities.” They were also endorsed by Illini Dems. I am pretty sure other organizations, including those in Greek Life, formally endorsed them too, but their campaign page has been deleted and I haven’t been able to find evidence for that through the Wayback Machine or elsewhere.
While framing this election as pitting more progressive candidates (Enoma/Nicole) versus more conservative ones (Tyler/Vada), is generally accurate, there is a bit more to the story than that. The choice of members for Enoma and Nicole’s slate was pretty ideologically diverse. I would describe it as a big tent including more centrist/center left candidates to solidly left wing or progressive candidates. It included candidates that were endorsed by Illini Dems, who supported their opponents. In terms of getting themselves elected, this was a very smart move. As a slate, you could build a large group of canvassers that mutually supported each other. However, this lack of ideological unity could also contribute to some problems in achieving significant change when in office.
The trustee race of this year was defined by different dynamics, with both candidates campaigning as progressives. Alexis Perezchica, the incumbent president supported by Enoma and Nicole, was running against Mariama Mwilambwe. The two had split the support of progressive organizations, with Mariama also being endorsed by Illini Dems.
In the end, Enoma and Nicole won resoundingly, with 55% of the vote in the first round, and a margin of victory of close to 600 votes. The trustee race was much closer, coming down to less than 200 votes, with Mariama ending up winning with 40% of the vote.
Legislative results are a bit more complicated. A lot of the seats are not competitive, with write-ins winning in very low turnout elections, or not enough people running and creating vacancies. A lot of candidates run without clear political goals, especially those not on a slate.
Despite this, we can still make some conclusions about the Legislative elections in 2021. Enoma’s slate did very well, with 15 of their 18 candidates being elected to the senate. Only one of these candidates actually lost their election, as Enoma and Nicole both ran for legislative seats as well and were disqualified with their presidential victory,as it's common for presidential or trustee candidates who aim to secure a role in student government even if they lose the presidential election.
Several candidates elected to the senate in this election would go on to become very important political figures in the next years of student government. I specifically want to mention Greg Davidson, Josh Small, and Garrett Forrest. Of the three, Garret was the only one allied with the more conservative slate, while Greg and Josh were part of Enoma and Nicole’s slate. For now, we’ll put a pin in this, but remember it for later.
There were also two notable referenda on the ballot this year. First, there was the question of reallocating 25% of the University of Illinois Police Department budget towards “ resources for students, workers, and community members.” This passed with 78% of the vote, in a win for the movement to defund the police, although the University administration did not implement this non-binding result. The other referendum tasked UIUC with“establishing a department designated to assist undocumented and DACAmented students.” While there are similar resources listed on the University’s website, I am unsure if they have met the criteria of the ballot referendum.
Overall, this election was a victory for progressives. It wasn’t necessarily a shift in a more progressive direction, as I have been told by some of those involved that the student government’s progressive bloc had shrunk. But it represented the continuation of leadership of the student government consisting of those campaigning as progressives and seeking support of progressive organizations.
One reason this happened is because UIUC students, on average, tend to skew politically progressive, relatively speaking. At least, those in tune with the political happenings around campus and tend to vote in student elections, which represents a small portion of the total student population, generally hold more progressive views. But it's not just that - Enoma and Nicole’s campaign itself was very well orchestrated. Not only did they secure the endorsement of essentially every major progressive organization, but they aligned themselves with a huge number of candidates for senate, creating an expansive coalition.
Ultimately, I think this coalition work is what decided the 2021 student body election. Generally, at UIUC, both campaigns try to frame themselves as progressive, even if one usually follows the more conservative interests of greek life. So, in instances like these, the more important factor in determining an election outcome is not necessarily about having the most appealing political positions, but actually turning out people to vote. And that is how Enoma and Nicole did it, by amassing a large coalition of people to canvas and organizations to mobilize for them.
What Happened With SECS and SJP
In the year that followed, however, things would begin to deteriorate. Enoma and Nicole’s relationship with several progressive organizations would come into question, and the stage would be set for a very different election in 2022.
In this section, I am going to focus on two major events in Enoma and Nicole’s term. While these events are not the only relevant things that happened while they were in office, nor were the actions taken wholly representative of their time as student government leadership, they were memorable and significant, and directly contributed to the fracturing of the progressive coalition in student government. For that reason, I think they deserve the spotlight when zeroing in on the political implications of this period.
First, in December of 2021, there was a controversy regarding a Student Government massmail and the reaction to it in the Students for Environmental ConcernS (SECS) group chat. The massmail, sent out on December 10, 2021, included a section titled “Environmental Concerns”. It had updates on what Enoma and Nicole had been doing, including meeting with relevant administrators, and requests they were making to move forward on fossil fuel divestment.
SECS is an organization which focuses heavily on fossil fuel divestment, so this massmail prompted discussion in their GroupMe, which included Enoma and some of her political allies and friends. Some people in the group chat felt that the letter did not go far enough. Others countered that they had done what they could, as ultimately, the UIUC administration had to approve any massmail sent out to the student body. After this, things escalated within and outside of the groupchat. The most significant claim made was that some of the language used to describe Enoma in a negative light would not have been made if she was not a Black woman, and constituted a microaggression.
In a very quick turn of events, Enoma and Nicole posted several statements on their public instagram account calling out SECS leadership by name. For their part, some members of SECS leadership did acknowledge their failure to create a space where respectful discussion can occur. Eventually, five days after the initial massmail went out, Enoma and Nicole retracted their statements and concluded that “the most productive course of action is to continue upon previous conversations with SECS and [the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion] to come up with a solution”. They also reiterated that none of their statements were official communications of the student government, which is why they chose to post these statements through their campaign account instead.
It is difficult to discern exactly what impact this had. Among activists and organizers, there were mixed responses. Some agreed that the criticisms towards Enoma and Nicole were wrong or went too far, while others recognized some validity in them. Most people concluded, as Enoma and Nicole did in their retraction statement, that making all of this public only made it worse. Either way, it created confusion and gave the impression of discord between SECS and the student government administration, who were supposed to be allies.
I also, unfortunately, feel the need to mention the reaction on reddit. Whether we like it or not, the UIUC subreddit is pretty big - as I have mentioned before, it's the largest university subreddit overall and in the top 10 when controlled for enrollment. This means that it may have some actual influence on the student body’s population. This will become more relevant in future elections, but I think it is worth mentioning here too, as reddit is likely where many people were exposed to this “scandal”. Several posts were made as these events unfolded, with some redditors calling for Enoma and Nicole’s resignation. Regardless of whether there was any justification for such posts, they likely soured the view of Enoma and Nicole among some portion of UIUC students.
The next event that is important to this story comes a few months later, in March 2022, in the build up to the next election. But in order to give some context, I want to wind back to the summer of 2021, when there was an escalation of violence in Palestine, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, with tens of thousands more being displaced.
In response to this, Enoma and Nicole released a statement on June 28th, 2021 which addressed these ongoing events and UIUC’s complicity in Israel’s oppression. Their post was captioned as follows: “A statement from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign Illinois Student Government in solidarity with the Palestinian people #freepalestine”. While I could note many significant takeaways from this post, the statement is best read in full:
This is a relatively strong and bold statement from the student government leaders, and it was not entirely surprising at this point. After all, they had been endorsed by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and were part of a progressive tradition on campus which had, in the previous year, passed BDS legislation. This context serves as an important indication of how much things would come to change.
In the buildup to the 2022 election, SJP aimed to place a question on the ballot which would show student support for divestment from companies profiting off of human rights abuse. While this ballot question was not formally limited to investments in Israel, it was largely seen as a proxy for the broader debate on BDS.
In December of 2021, the deadline for submitting such a referendum was established as February 27th, 2022. On February 16th, 2022, SJP’s referendum, “REF.05.02 Human Rights Violations in University Investments” was presented during a student government meeting. However, the senate was not able to vote on putting the resolution placing the referendum on the ballot because five senators who opposed it walked out. This meant the legislative body did not meet quorum, and lacked the authority to vote on the resolution.
The decision was delayed to the following week, on February 27th. I was in attendance at this meeting. Most meetings have few guests or none present. This one was packed - more so than any other student government meeting I have been to. On the right side of the room, there were rows and rows of people, mostly pro-Palestine supporters of the resolution. In the middle, the Senators sat in their spaced out desks. On the left, there were rows of mostly pro-Israel opponents of the resolution.
Unsurprisingly, the room had a palpable atmosphere. One controversial incident was related to the podium for speakers, which was on the right side of the room, close to the pro-Palestine attendees. Opponents of the resolution asked if it could be moved elsewhere in the room, because they felt threatened. In a later statement, SJP would describe this as follows: “white students went as far as to ask for the podium to be moved as it was too close to the predominantly black and brown students’ side.”
The lengthy debate itself went along the lines you would expect if you have followed discussion on Palestine before. Pro-Palestine speakers emphasized the human toll on Palestinians, the colonial nature of Israeli expansion and occupation, and called for the referendum to be held as an opportunity for students to voice their perspective on divestment. Pro-Israel speakers argued against those ideas, and posited that the existence of this referendum itself would promote antisemitism. Among those making that case was Garrett Forrest, who made it clear he opposed the resolution. On the other hand, those who had been elected on the Enoma and Nicole slate, including Josh Small and Greg Davidson, generally argued in favor of the resolution.
Before the resolution was to be voted on, a Senator opposing it motioned to move to a secret ballot. Both those in favor and those against the resolution found benefit in anonymity, and this motion passed fairly easily. Enoma, Nicole and the student government advisor prepared paper ballots to be counted anonymously. After the counting was complete, it was announced that the resolution had passed - divestment would be on the ballot!
Well, that is what those of us in the room thought, at least. It turns out that the move to use a secret ballot violated the rules of student government. The next day, the student government judiciary granted a complaint about this discrepancy “cert”, meaning that they would hold a hearing on it. This appeared to seal the referendum’s fate - without it being approved by the judiciary before the election, there would be no way it could be on the ballot.
In response, on March 5th, SJP released an instagram post and statement which denounced the student government and university administration as corrupt and oppressive. They also announced that they would be cutting ties with ISG. . While SJP had framed the events as a premeditated attack by Zionist senators, and argued the judiciary was upholding “unmerited claims” to dismiss the referendum, the Executives of student government viewed things differently. I say “the executives” because, in an unusual move, the statement posted the next day to the student government Instagram page was not signed by any person specifically, but merely as “ISG Executive Branch”.
In the statement, they insisted that the judiciary was simply “bound by the rules in our constitution and register" and denounced “harassing behavior” they claimed to witness towards the judiciary. They concluded by stating that “Despite misinformed and misguided assertions made against ISG yesterday (March 5th, 2022), the vast majority of ISG is still dedicated to supporting Palestinian students.”
As the elections were being held, things continued to escalate, with SJP holding a protest against the “Silencing of Palestinian Voices at UIUC”. With this event, it seemed that the ties between Enoma and Nicole and SJP had evaporated, and would not be repaired. This marked another significant blow to the progressive coalition that had previously existed on campus around student government. SJP had been a powerful organizing force on campus and was able to mobilize people to vote for their favored candidates. Now, they were abstaining from involvement entirely.
Later, it would be revealed through a FOIA request that regardless of the judiciary’s decision, the referendum would never have been held. On March 3rd a lawyer, representing students who wished to stay anonymous out of “fear of retaliation”, contacted the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Danita Young. He requested that the University confirm that the referendum would not be held. Later that same day, student government leaders received an email from the Vice Chancellor making clear that the administration would not allow the referendum on the ballot.
The Administration, Rules and Responsibilities
There are a number of conclusions we can take from these events. One, demonstrated by this FOIA’d email, is that the University administration will take action to suppress student government if they believe it benefits their interests. This balance of power is incredibly important to understand. While Vice Chancellor Young claimed to have “great respect” for student government autonomy, that ultimately did not prevent her from overriding a democratic decision.
Another important lesson from these events is that the rules of student government can be manipulated easily. I cannot conclusively say that the motion to move to a secret ballot was a premeditated attack, but regardless of intention, it goes to show that familiarity with procedural questions is important. If legislators and members of the executive were aware of these issues beforehand, they could never have been used against the referendum. Yes, the administration would likely have still intervened, but this would make such an intervention more obviously undemocratic and easier to call out and fight against.
Additionally, this can prompt reflection on what the responsibility of a public official is, even within a limited institution like student government. The incident with SECS teaches us public confrontation for issues perceived as interpersonal conflict can backfire, even if legitimate wrongdoing has occurred. The events that took place between student government and SJP also shed light on questions of responsibility. This is something I personally wondered about myself, as that meeting took place. I was confused as to why a public body, such as the student legislature, would be using a secret ballot. It frankly seems counterintuitive, and while I understand why individual members of the legislature would prefer to not face any backlash, ultimately this responsibility is what being an elected official means.
As we continue to explore the next few years of student government politics, these themes will continue to appear. For now, however, this period of student government serves as a good reflection point to stop and think on the triumphs and pitfalls of student government. It has taken longer than I expected to write this up, and doing the rest of this story justice will take more time.
In the next part, we will pick up where we left off in 2022, with the student government elections about to take place. We will see more from Greg Davidson, Josh Small and Garrett Forrest, all of who ran for student body president in that election. And we will discuss how the events of 2021 and early 2022 set the stage for a realignment in student government politics.
Thanks to Justin Levigne for help with editing this piece.
If you liked reading this you can subscribe the this newsletter & stay updated on future parts of the series, or share it with others with the links below.