The question of whether to make ballot question and ballot initiative analytics public has been a topic of conversation among Wellesley students for months, notably in spring semester 2023 when the ballot question about gender-inclusive language was passed, and again this year during Senate on March 4 and March 11.
On March 11, a Senator presented an amendment that would add a clause to Article 14 of the CG constitution allowing for the release of results on ballot questions. In addition to reporting whether or not the ballot question passed (the current practice under Article 14), the amendment would require that “Ballot question analytics consisting of (1) the number of surveyed students and (2) the number of votes for each choice shall be made public to the student body within one week of the Election.”
In the Senate minutes from March 4, Dean of Students Sheila Shaw Horton defended the College’s existing practice of not releasing voting numbers to students. “She’s seen a lot of community pain and once the ballot initiative is done, she wants it to be done. Once you release numbers, the pain just continues, and she doesn’t want to see that. Once a decision is made, it is what it is, and then we move on,” the minutes read. While the administration’s desire to protect students from unnecessary pain is understandable, it is unfortunately not sufficient to justify not disclosing ballot numbers.
Not releasing specific analytics is simply a barrier to knowledge about our campus. The efforts by the administration to limit unnecessary pain may actually create more by exacerbating the feeling of polarization in an environment where people take to anonymous social media platforms to express frustration.
There is often unnecessary pain attached to ballot questions and initiatives regardless of their outcomes. Anyone who has opened Sidechat knows that it is most often exactly what you might expect from an anonymous platform — a podium from which anyone can air their grievances without fear of the personal repercussions.
Wellesley’s student body is overwhelmingly aware, involved and passionate about solving problems on campus. This involvement is naturally frustrating much of the time in the face of opposition and slow-moving change. When the appeal of the anonymous platform is coupled with the often-frustrating position of being invested in change at Wellesley, it makes sense to turn to Sidechat.
However, Sidechat presents another dilemma: the most controversial posts — the ones that make your friends ask, “Did you see what someone said on Sidechat?” in the dining hall — seem to be the posts that start with one person’s opinion and spiral into disagreement in the comment section. Whether these posts come from feeling like almost everyone disagrees with you and wanting to put your opinion out there without facing backlash, or feeling like almost everyone on campus agrees with you and wanting to express frustration about the remaining obstacles to change, there is an underlying polarization that results from these usually unproductive discussions. A few conversations on campus outside of Sidechat will usually suggest that we likely aren’t as polarized as it can seem. However, this fact doesn’t often succeed in shaking the feeling that we’re a very polarized community.
In our current environment, where an anonymous app is a mainstream form of discourse, these discussions — which are so often borne out of frustration — shape how students view and interact with their community members. When our perception of our community can be so skewed by anonymous content, we have a greater responsibility to make measurable information available.
The community pain that Dean Horton referenced is real and should be handled with care. Ballot questions that put things like students’ identities up for public debate shouldn’t be taken nonchalantly. There is also a chance that having access to specific ballot question analytics for each option could be weaponized to inflict more pain on students.
Even so, I have faith in Wellesley’s student body’s ability to have thoughtful and empathetic conversations about difficult questions. In my own conversations with Wellesley students, I’ve seen that it is possible to change people’s minds. Students who at first may have been adamantly on one side as a result of only seeing extreme takes on Sidechat born out of frustration can be persuaded by having a conversation that addresses their questions or concerns.
Access to specific results also offers insight into how our campus community responds to advocacy and conversation leading up to voting on a ballot question. Publicizing simply a yes or no answer to a question doesn’t lend itself to an effective evaluation of what strategies we use to advocate on campus.
The urge to respond to the results of a ballot question by saying “it is what it is” and then moving on is tempting but ultimately problematic. Questions big enough to necessitate ballot questions shouldn’t just be thrown by the wayside after the community has spoken. Students should have access to the knowledge of what conversations still need to be had and what work still has to be done. The idea that we have to completely avoid the harm caused by ballot question analytics being released undermines the ideals of Wellesley. Wellesley shouldn’t seek to matriculate students who are comfortable without access to all the information. Wellesley students are supposed to be able to have difficult conversations, successfully advocate for what they believe in, and seek as much knowledge as possible — having access to the numbers for ballot questions and initiatives is the first step.
