Meritocracy or Popularity? The Student Union Awards Dilemma
Oladele Robiat Mopelola
The Student Union Awards, once a symbol of meritocracy, have arrived at a significant crossroads. What was originally conceived as a celebration of exceptional achievements has devolved into a contest of popularity, raising critical questions about its fairness, purpose, and legitimacy.
These awards were initially designed to recognise students who distinguish themselves from their peers through outstanding contributions and excellence in various domains. However, this noble vision has increasingly been overshadowed by the growing influence of popularity. Today, nominees often exploit their fame or vast social networks to secure votes, sometimes resorting to sending broadcast messages or direct messages (DMs) to peers, urging them for support.
This evolution has transformed the awards into a race for visibility rather than a recognition of merit. The awards has now been reduced to the battle of the most active in begging people to vote or nominate them. Numerous students who are worthy are overlooked simply because they lack the social clout to compete. For many, the awards have shifted from being a testament to their hard work to a platform that rewards popularity.
Exacerbating the issue is the increasing involvement of candidates who hold positions of authority, such as hall of residence executives, faculty executives, and class representatives. These individuals often capitalise on their roles to solicit votes, further blurring the lines between genuine merit and strategic campaigning. The use of unsolicited messages to garner support has sparked debates about privacy and the ethics of such tactics.
“It feels like an invasion of privacy,” one student remarked. “When candidates resort to begging for votes, it undermines their competency and casts doubt on their worthiness for the award.” This sentiment highlights a growing frustration with the methods employed by some nominees, raising questions about whether these tactics are compatible with the spirit of the awards.
Beyond the dominance of popularity, concerns about nepotism and favouritism have also surfaced. Some students believe that cosy relationships with union executives can influence nominations and outcomes. This perception further erodes trust in the process, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the awards and fostering scepticism about their fairness.
The shift from a merit-based system to one driven by popularity has sparked widespread dissatisfaction among students. Moses, a final-year English student, articulated his concerns: “Awards and nominations should be based on merit, not influenced by external factors. Soliciting votes undermines the process and devalues recognition. These awards should genuinely acknowledge achievement, not turn into a popularity contest or an outcome of aggressive campaigning.”
However, not everyone shares this perspective. Akinsumbo Gbadamosi, a second-year History student, offered a nuanced view: “Sending links to vote isn’t necessarily begging; it’s how the organisers set up the process. But it does lean towards being a popularity contest. When people open a nomination link, they often vote for those they know, not necessarily the most deserving candidate.”
Similarly, Mohammed Okunola, a third-year Linguistics and African Studies student acknowledged the challenges: “Anything in this university is a popularity contest. People nominate because they know someone, not because they’re competent. While sending links is intrusive, it does help candidates reach a wider audience. Still, the union could consider interviewing nominees to identify the best candidates.”
These differing opinions underscore the complexity of the issue. While some see the current system as flawed but functional, others believe it fundamentally undermines the awards’ credibility.
The potential of the Student Union Awards to inspire and reward excellence remains undeniable. However, their current trajectory threatens to erode their value and purpose. Addressing the issues of popularity, nepotism, and the lack of meritocracy is critical if these awards are to reclaim their original mission.
One potential solution is to introduce a more rigorous selection process. Instead of relying solely on votes, the union could implement a system that includes interviews, evaluations of candidates’ contributions, and input from a panel of judges. This approach could help ensure that the awards genuinely reflect merit and not just visibility.
Another strategy could involve redefining the voting process to minimise its dependence on social networks. For instance, the union could consider anonymous voting or criteria-based assessments that focus on achievements rather than personal connections.
Ultimately, the cornerstone of these awards should be meritocracy. Excellence deserves to be celebrated for its intrinsic value, not overshadowed by the loudest voices or the widest networks. Recognising and rewarding genuine achievements can restore the credibility of the Student Union Awards and reinforce their role as a beacon of inspiration for the student body.
The Student Union Awards must evolve to stay true to their original purpose. By addressing the challenges they face, the union can ensure that these accolades remain a source of pride and motivation, celebrating the best and brightest among students for years to come.
