When Systems Fail: Why Due Process Matters
My faculty University Senate election victory was overturned. Here’s why I chose to appeal.
I ran for the University Senate this past spring to amplify the voice of the medical campus and help foster healing amid the turmoil we’ve seen at Columbia. As a Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician, I’ve dedicated my career to improving care for children by using simulation science to identify and fix system failures. When something goes wrong, we don’t rush to blame; we ask why it happened so we can fix the system and make future care safer. In healthcare, a culture of safety means creating environments where people can speak up, learn from failure, and improve systems without fear of blame. If we want to improve our tense University climate, we need systems that uphold our community values.
That same mindset compelled me to appeal the University Senate Election Commission's surprising decision to overturn my certified election victory. It wasn’t out of personal grievance, and it certainly wasn’t because I couldn’t accept the outcome of a rerun. I appealed because I recognized latent threats when the process broke down, and I believe we have a duty to speak up to prevent future harm. Silence would have set a precedent that could undermine future elections.
On May 14, I was certified as the winner of the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons non-tenure track Senate election. Two weeks later, one of my opponents filed a complaint against me (and one other candidate), alleging violations of campaign rules. Attached to the complaint was a copy of a short email I sent to my department before the final day of voting, reminding them to vote (for myself or an opposing candidate). The claim that this violated a rule against “campaigning during the voting period” came as a surprise, because no such rule exists in the Elections Code or the instructions sent to candidates.
The Elections Commission decided to hold a hearing on June 6 at which all of the candidates were invited to provide statements. It quickly became clear that multiple candidates shared my understanding of the “rule” in question. Despite this, the Elections Commission ordered a rerun of the election, without citing any specific reason at that time.
Their decision caught me completely off guard. As someone who works every day to build clarity and reliability into high-stakes systems, I was surprised to see a democratic process overturned without clear explanation. I wrote to the Commission to ask why a rerun had been ordered and to raise concerns about other procedural irregularities I had noticed. The Senate’s Elections Code outlines specific rules to ensure fairness and due process when the results of an election are contested. These include a requirement of a “substantial error in procedure” to consider hearing the challenge, notifying all candidates of any decision in writing, and reporting recommendations to the Senate for approval before a certified election result can be overturned. None of these steps were followed before the rerun was announced.
After multiple requests for clarification, the Elections Commission eventually responded by email, claiming that my message had created a “major disruption” of the election process, even while acknowledging that I sent it in good faith and did not violate any explicit rules. Notably, the rerun announcement included updated guidance explicitly prohibiting campaigning during the voting period, underscoring the original ambiguity. Their explanation felt inconsistent and retrospective, so I exercised my right to appeal to the Senate.
I appealed because free and fair elections depend on clear rules, due process, and institutional accountability. During my campaign, I spoke about the need to improve the systems that shape campus culture. However, I now realize that we also need to strengthen the election process itself and the rules that govern our Senate. This is essential to the shared governance model so many of us want for Columbia. We need a system built on trust and service, not one that invites ambiguity, suspicion, or “gotcha” tactics to overturn elections.
In both medicine and governance, trust is built when systems align with our values. When they don’t, we have a responsibility to fix them. I chose to speak up, not just for myself, but for the institution I care deeply about.
On July 18, after a spirited debate on Zoom, the Senate voted 26 to 18 to uphold the Election Commission’s decision to overturn my victory and mandate a rerun. I was disappointed that I was not given the chance to speak after my initial statement, as many issues remained unaddressed. The debate was unfortunately cut short by a few senators who called it a “waste of time” and moved to end the discussion and hold an anonymous vote. It was a missed opportunity to clarify the rules, address procedural irregularities, and uphold the integrity of due process.
Still, I was heartened by those who took the matter seriously and hope the conversation inspired other senators to work together to improve the system going forward. I will honor the outcome of the appeal and look forward to the opportunity to re-earn the broad support of my colleagues in the next election.
As a senator, I will continue to advocate for systems that are fair, transparent, and equitable so that every member of our community is treated with respect and held to the same standards. Restoring trust in our institutions starts with working together to fix the systems we rely on. Let’s begin by ensuring a civil elections process that reflects a commitment to serving Columbia, not division. The values we bring to the ballot box echo far beyond a single election, and help lay the foundation for a better Columbia.
Dr. David Kessler is a Professor of Pediatrics in Emergency Medicine and Vice Chair of Innovation and Strategic Initiatives at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.
 | A guest post by
|
Don’t bother. Unless you are willing to sue the board for violating the rights of the voters and its own rules. Based on the way you describe the circumstances I would suggest consulting an attorney if you haven’t done so already.
As a fraud and corruption specialist, your board and senate is corrupted to its eyeballs. Playing along with them under those circumstances is counter-productive.
Elected senators being able to vote “anonymously” is what is done in autocracies. How can the voter know what senator to vote for if their votes on such matters are “anonymous”?
You and the majority of voters who elected you were robbed, and you and they can seemingly do nothing about it but play along as best you can. That only consolidates the corruption. Better for good people of integrity to stand outside the corrupt circle and call it out instead of helping to prop it up. It is propped up well enough as it is.
Thank you for pointing out this particular rotten element.