In short: When a student organization is requiring its members to vote for certain people, democracy is not served, and officials need to stop covering for these organizations.

Just as Americans have the right to speak freely, they have the right to be silent. Just as Americans have the right to practice the religion of their choice, they have the right to practice none.

UA students have the right to vote for whomever they want in SGA elections, but they also have the right not to. No student organization should be able to tell its members who to vote for or require them to vote. It may be a “civic duty,” but it is by no means a requirement.

This is exactly what is happening in at least one sorority. Students are being given a list of candidates to vote for and are told to forward confirmation of their vote to sorority leaders. While the popular perception around campus is that this has been happening for a while, the issue goes beyond simple electioneering.

The University is hiding behind federal privacy laws to avoid confronting this problem, and it creates a dangerous moral hazard. If the University protects these organizations and refuses to push for fairer elections, it makes this behavior seem right.

This behavior isn’t right, and it starts those who planned this down what could be, if it is not already, a slippery slope to corruption. These students are able to get away with petty things like minor electioneering because students and officials refuse to fight or brush it off as standard practice. If this trend continues, the offenders will believe the University will deflect attention using privacy laws at every turn.

The University of Alabama is training the future leaders of this state. They should not believe they can use heavy-handed tactics like these to gain legitimate political gains. Look at the politics of the state of Alabama: Larry Langford was recently sentenced to 15 years in prison for corruption and special interests dominate the statehouse. There is a culture of political irresponsibility and corruption that pervades this state from top to bottom, and the University refuses to nip it in the bud.

UA officials should not allow organizations, particularly those as powerful and important to their members as sororities, to threaten their members to vote especially for particular candidates. Campaigning is fine, but posting a list of approved candidates and implying that members who do not vote for those candidates will not have their ballots count is going too far.

Yes, it is important for students to vote. Students have that right, and many would call it their civic duty to exercise it. The problem is that they should be free to choose not only who to vote for, but whether to vote at all. Voting is a choice, not a requirement.

Editor Amanda Peterson did not participate in this editorial.