SETTING A BAD PRECEDENCE: QUESTIONING IFEC's DECISION ON MR TAOFEEK'S MANIFESTO
Editorial
Warren Bennis once stated, “Leadership is the ability to turn a vision into actual results.” This suggests that a leader needs to have vision and a dedication to lead with accountability. This leads us to ponder the intentions of our leaders: are they pursuing the title and position, or the responsibility associated with it? Although anyone can dream of attaining a role, not everyone is ready to bear the associated responsibility. The core purpose of press nights and screening activities is to assess whether candidates competing for roles are prepared and willing to undertake the required duties, as someone lacking a strategy does not aim to lead.
On January 13, 2025, the Press of the Faculty of the Social Sciences Students Association (FATSSSA) held a press night to examine candidates' manifestos. Many comments were made regarding the manifestos, yet Mr. Taofeek's manifesto, a candidate for Financial Secretary, bewildered everyone. Studies showed that a considerable part of his manifesto was created with the help of AI. Additionally, the proposals presented in the manifesto did not appear as implementable plans but simply enumerated obligations some of which are not even constitutionally assigned to him. As a result of this problem, FATSSSA Press suggested Mr. Taofeek’s disqualification to the electoral committee.
A manifesto is more than merely a written text; it serves as an aspirant's plan and a framework for the role they seek. Depending on AI to create such an essential document raises doubts about the candidate's readiness and commitment to fulfil the duties of the position.
However, the issue lies not only with the candidate but also with the electoral committee, which has failed to raise the standards expected of aspirants. FATSSSA Press, recognizing the flaws in some of the candidates' manifestos during the press night, recommended the disqualification of any candidate whose manifesto was over 80% AI-generated. This thus led to the announcement by the E-in-C during the Press Night that Mr Taofeek would be recommended for disqualification to IFEC.
Absent at the Press Night, the IFEC Returning Officer was contacted about the Press’ recommendation, to which he replied that IFEC would try to make an objective decision. When IFEC released its resolution, it rejected the Press’ recommendation as “insufficient and invalid.” When contacted for clarification on the “insufficient” claim, the Returning Officer for IFEC dismissed the press’s recommendation, arguing that AI serves as an assistance tool.
This stance by IFEC is shortsighted, as it fails to distinguish between using AI as a tool for assistance and over-reliance on it proving beyond reasonable doubt when two(2) different websites flagged the manifesto as AI generated. IFEC also overlooked the dangerous precedent it set by failing to sanction candidates like Mr. Taofeek Adeniyi for their excessive dependence on AI in drafting manifestos. By permitting such practices, IFEC risks encouraging future aspirants to neglect the effort and diligence required to draft thorough manifestos, leading to a decline in the quality of candidates contesting for political offices within the faculty. Consequently, this could result in a deterioration in the quality of administration as a whole.
Comments
Post a Comment