Why Student Election Chaos at Ohio State Has Lessons for Nonprofits
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported on a student-government election at Ohio State University that spiraled into chaos. What should have been a modest contest for student body president instead became what one participant called “all-out war.”
Campaigns accused each other of violations. The Judicial Panel—the student court charged with oversight—fielded complaints, assigned penalties, and in some cases disqualified entire campaigns. Rules covered everything from flyer placement to language that could be interpreted as “mockery” of an opponent. Eventually, the university stepped in, invalidated the results, and ordered a new election.
On its face, this might seem absurd. After all, a student-body president doesn’t wield much real power. Yet the passions, energy, and adversarial nature looked remarkably similar to political fights at much higher levels.
This raises two possible lessons.
First, divisiveness is showing up earlier. If the atmosphere around a student election can become this hostile, it may signal how deeply polarized our culture has become. Students brought the same posture of conflict and litigation into a setting where the stakes were minimal. That should give us pause.
Second, rules matter. Part of the breakdown was not just conflict but the vague and inconsistent nature of the bylaws. Ambiguous definitions—such as what counted as “belittlement”—gave candidates ammunition to weaponize the rulebook. Inconsistent enforcement created the perception, and perhaps the reality, of bias. In the end, the lack of clarity in policy was as much the culprit as the intensity of the candidates.
For those of us working in nonprofits, this second lesson is especially relevant. While our world is far removed from campus elections, the underlying principle is the same: clear agreements and transparent policies prevent conflict.
A donor gift agreement that leaves room for interpretation about recognition, use of funds, or reporting expectations invites problems later.
A board policy that is ambiguous about conflicts of interest or term limits sets the stage for frustration and mistrust.
Internal procedures for things like expense approvals or campaign counting need to be spelled out to protect both the organization and the individuals involved.
In philanthropy, trust is currency. Nothing erodes trust faster than disputes over what was promised, what was expected, or what rules should have applied. Just as Ohio State had to restart an entire election because of weak and inconsistent governance, nonprofits can find themselves redoing, repairing, or even losing relationships if their structures are unclear.
So, while the story of a student election gone awry might seem distant or even humorous, it carries a reminder. Whether in politics, higher education, or philanthropy, clarity of rules and fairness in enforcement are not optional—they are essential.
