Why I Voted "No"

In the 17th century, Thomas Hobson operated a thriving livery stable in Cambridge, England. To say the least, Mr. Hobson became successful because of, or possibly in spite of, an odd practice.

Instead of allowing his customers to select their own horse, he demanded they take the one nearest the door or none at all.

Did Mr. Hobson institute this rule to save time? Could it be that he didn’t like watching customers agonize over their decisions?

Whatever the case, Mr. Hobson is remembered for having instituted what we now know as “Hobson’s choice.”

As might have been suspected, “Hobson’s choice” involves one being forced to make a decision between exactly what is offered and nothing at all.

To a degree, the vote taken concerning the mascot process is reminiscent of “Hobson’s choice.” On the other hand, “Hobson’s choice” looks appealing in comparison with the “choice” we were given.

If we, as students, had been given the same consideration that Mr. Hobson gave his customers, we would have at least been able to vote on whether or not we wanted a new mascot.

In other words, the referendum would have asked, “Do you want a new on-field mascot?”

Voting “yes” would mean that one is in favor of a new mascot patrolling the sidelines. Conversely, a “no” vote would mean that one desires to retain the status quo of no on-field mascot.

While not a great choice, it at least offers two distinct alternatives.

The choice given us by the ASB, with the full support of Chancellor Jones, offered no distinct alternatives.

The option given us could only meet the definition of the term “choice” because it offered very minutely different processes by which to reach the same alternative.

I cannot understand why so many of my fellow students chose to put themselves in the back pocket of the administration by aiding in the unfortunate framing of this debate.

Instead of reporting the nuanced difference between what a “no” or “yes” vote meant, our student leaders should have pointed to the inherent unfairness of the “choice” we were given.

I do not dispute that The Daily Mississippian correctly informed students of what voting “yes” and “no” meant.

However, as members of the press, we should have called more into question the motive behind wording a referendum in such a manner.

Neither the ASB nor the administration ever had any intent of allowing students to have a real voice.

If they had, we would have at least had the chance to decide whether or not we wanted to maintain the status quo.

Instead, our leaders were simply seeking political cover for the actions they wanted so deeply to take.

The chancellor has the authority to install a new mascot if he so chooses. It seems, however, that he is unwilling to make tough decisions on these kinds of issues. Instead, he waits for or encourages the ASB to pass a resolution — which he then cites as justification for whatever action he takes.

I understand that, when faced with such limited options, many students decided they must take the gamble that they would actually be allowed to have input in the choosing of a new mascot.

I say gamble because we have not even been told how this whole process will take place. We know that a sort of committee will be formed to handle suggestions. What will the committee do with the suggestions?

Will this committee have the authority to eliminate some?

Will the chancellor simply pick his favorite submitted suggestion? Will students be allowed to choose from among all submitted selections, or will they only be able to choose from either the chancellor’s or the committee’s favorite suggestions?

These are all questions which should have been both asked and answered before a vote ever took place.

I say this because the answers to these questions could have made a large difference in how some students decided to vote.

I voted “no” because I had no desire to be blackmailed by both the ASB and the administration. If we had at least been allowed “Hobson’s choice,” I would have no significant qualms with our leadership.

I have serious problems with being offered only a choice between two paths leading to the same location. That’s not really a choice at all — but the administration can say it was because it was put on a ballot.

Instead of either blindly following or caving in to the administration, question their motives.

Don’t always take for granted what those in political office may say. You must often dig beneath the surface in order to find the truth.

Let us always “question with boldness,” as Thomas Jefferson so nobly advised.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, March 1, 2010