Student Government's Ploy to Weaponize Rape

Last February, a TikTok story appeared from the Communications Director of a Student Body Presidential campaign. The post made a stunning accusation against an opposing candidate: “you did the same thing that almost killed me to another girl and yet you want to be Student Body President.” The implication was unmistakable — a senior campaign official had just publicly accused a fraternity member running for the highest student office of sexual assault.

The accusation was false.

The targeted candidate had filed to run for Student Body President one week earlier. According to the formal election violation complaint, the rumor reached “not just all members of the [opposing] campaign, but to the regular students as well as the accused student’s friends, organizations, and affiliations.” He found himself defending his innocence to his own fraternity brothers, to students with no connection to Student Government, to anyone who would ask. His running mate withdrew from the ticket, citing concerns over her safety and reputation. All but one member of his campaign staff abandoned him to avoid association with the scandal. He received harassing calls and texts. He was threatened during a meeting that included his opponents and Student Government officials. He hired an attorney to defend against the libel.

The Constitutional Council heard the case on February 25, 2025. Their ruling was unambiguous: election fraud under Section 4-4-10(A) of the Student Government Codes. The Council found that the post was “willfully made, requiring recording, captioning and posting” and that it “created a climate of uncertainty and tainted the voting process… causing long-lasting damage in the minds of voters that extends throughout the voting period.”

The punishment was a 24-hour social media ban. The campaign found guilty of election fraud won the election. When impeachment proceedings were brought months later, they were dismissed 9-1.

What followed was a series of reform attempts, all of them killed. SBL 117 (40), “A Bill to Prevent Deceptive Social Media Rebranding in Campaigns,” would have banned the exact tactic used in this election — creating social media accounts to build an audience before converting them into campaign platforms. It failed. SBL 117 (70), the “Campaign Expenditures and Donations Act of 2025,” would have reformed campaign spending and required transparent disclosure of donations. It failed.

SBL 117 (41), “The Fair Elections Enforcement Act,” actually passed the Senate. The bill would have allowed the Constitutional Council to pause elections when fraud allegations arise during voting, ensure timely resolution, and give students who already voted the opportunity to revote after learning the outcome of fraud hearings. It was designed specifically to prevent the scenario where a campaign wins despite being found guilty of fraud because voters had already cast ballots.

The same president whose campaign was found guilty of election fraud vetoed it.

Student Government elections are weeks away. The same codes that allowed a 24-hour social media ban to serve as punishment for weaponizing sexual assault allegations remain on the books. The same Constitutional Council structure that declined to disqualify a campaign found guilty of election fraud will adjudicate any disputes this cycle. New election reform bills — SBL 117 (154) and (155) — have recently been introduced, but with elections imminent, their fate is uncertain.

Sexual assault is not a campaign tactic. The trivialization of such accusations does not just harm the individual targeted — it harms every survivor whose credibility is undermined when false allegations are deployed for political gain. Student Government’s refusal to meaningfully punish this behavior, and its active rejection of reforms that would prevent it, sends a message to every future candidate: if you’re willing to go low enough, you can win.

A victim of false sexual assault accusations had his campaign destroyed and his reputation shattered. The campaign that destroyed him won. And when the Senate tried to make sure it never happened again, the beneficiary of that fraud vetoed the fix.