In the 2016 presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s loss in part stemmed from leaked emails showing possible collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to ensure Clinton was chosen as the Democratic nominee. To believe this was an isolated event is a grave mistake: as will be shown, questionable practices extend to the youngest entrance of Democratic Party politics: the High School Democrats of America.
Background
To understand the reform necessary in the High School Democrats, a brief but thorough history of the High School Democrats must be given. The High School Democrats of America (HSDA) was founded in December 2005 as a caucus of the Young Democrats of America (YDA). In 2014, the caucus officially severed ties with YDA. It is important to note this severance did not apply to state chapters and left states in various stages of relations with their state YDA chapters. State HSDA chapters have greatly varying by-laws, which leads to confusing overlaps and gaps in understanding ethics and elections rules as the powers of state, HSDA, and YDA conflict. The national organization is run by the Executive Board, an elected group of officers who lead various divisions of operations; the National Staff, an appointed group of volunteer HSDA members who manage regular activities and administrative duties; and the National Committee, a collective voice of the states and caucuses consisting of one leader and an additional representative per state. In addition, an Ethics Council serves as a regulatory body that investigates and recommends punishment to those who violate the rules.
In the summer of 2021, national elections were held for the Executive Board of the High School Democrats of America. A diverse field of candidates ran, and, of them, six people emerged victorious in their races. These six individuals range from experienced HSDA members who had previously served on the National Staff to new faces. On the surface, this process seemed like a regular election in which democracy worked the way it was supposed to and fit the tenets of the High School Democrats. However, it was quite the opposite.
Patterns and Practices
The campaigning culture of the High School Democrats has long been described as toxic by HSDA members and candidates alike and has long been under scrutiny and criticism from internal leaders and members in the past. It seems like every year a new scandal or problem is uncovered. Nearly every year, the national leadership promises reforms that end up being, unenforced, and irrelevant.[1] Careerism in the organization, combined with a redundancy in selecting its officers, fosters the shared problem of having some elected leaders who are uninterested in being actual leaders.
There is a clear divide in HSDA leadership between those who wish to create genuine change and those who wish to create stronger resumés. It is no secret that many HSDA members are only involved to appear more impressive to colleges. Unfortunately, this results in damaging issues that have been devastating the High School Democrats of America.
A result of the institutionally widespread careerism, rumors regarding deep issues abound. From nepotism and favoritism to suspicions about a former vice-chair using Republicans to get more votes, many problems arise, and all are raised quiet enough to prevent certainty or action.
Careerism and nepotism, or perhaps plain redundancy, sees the continued selection of HSDA officers and staffers to multiple positions[2] rather than allowing a greater number of members to expand their leadership opportunities. HSDA has a difference between state and national leadership to promote differences in opinion and to promote a culture of separating distinct powers. This divide, required by the by-laws, goes ignored by some leaders who choose to hold positions at both levels simultaneously. In fact, two Executive Board members are from the same state and both serve on their state’s executive board, one of whom is also a National Committee member by virtue of being a state chapter chairperson. A staff member is from the same school as two National Committee members. A state HSDA chapter vice-chair serves as Advocacy Director. In fact, the incumbent of the most powerful National Staff position, the Chief-of-Staff, simultaneously serves as the state leader of their HSDA chapter. This redundancy leads to the same people continuously gaining leadership and preventing the ascent of new leaders, not to mention the violation of the principles of separation of powers.
State elections that are accompanied by a disregard for national elections rules lead to the election of state chapter leaders who are either unversed in the rules that govern them or are choosing to ignore those rules. Both options present a serious problem that points to institutional shortcomings that can only be fixed through reforms.
National elections highlighted a serious problem with engagement. 10,000 members are registered with the High School Democrats. In the elections this past year, voter turnout was incredibly low and the election for national chair was decided by an incredibly thin margin. Either engagement has reached embarrassing lows or democracy has not worked the way it was supposed to have worked. As with state elections, both options showcase a serious institutional issue.
While speaking with some HSDA members for this report, it became clear that the ability of high schoolers to be high schoolers in the organization is waning. The resentment some members have for others who share the same core ideological beliefs is overwhelming. To think all this hate came from an organization meant to unite similarly minded individuals is difficult to imagine. These institutional problems sow a division among the ranks of liberal high schoolers that prevents the organizing and activism potential of our generation from being reached.
Reform From the Roots
Reform at the deepest level is necessary for the High School Democrats to truly fulfill its potential with organizing and electing young liberals and progressives. It goes without saying that the Ethics Council should conduct independent, thorough, and extensive investigations of all allegations discussed. Additionally, the Executive Board and National Committee must remain separate, and whether that means imposing new restrictions on the leadership of next year or whether that means immediate action (including resignations) is to be determined by the ability of those holding overlapping positions to prevent their own judgement from clouding. The Development Director, who is the Executive Board member in charge of elections, and an independent committee should conduct an investigation of all state elections practices to ensure uniform enforcement of the by-laws and prevention of inequity and unfairness.
The High School Democrats of America has the ability to transform politics at all levels and with all ages. HSDA cannot allow practices that are antithetical to its values to continue. Organizing and activism at the national level cannot happen with career high school politicians who prevent the organization from being the gateway into liberal politics.
I write hoping to bring light to the issues within the organization of which I am member, not only to inspire reforms but to encourage all to reflect on the shortcomings of their own youth organizations and promote positive changes in order to spread a more perfect form of young liberal activism. If HSDA members put pressure on their National Committee members and on the Executive Board, real change can happen and reforms can be enacted. Using the words of civil rights leader James Baldwin, I love HSDA more than any other organization in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize it. Liberalism is all about holding people and systems accountable to the rights and freedoms of the people; it is necessary that High School Democrats hold our leaders accountable.
[1] Restrictions on the latest national election included a limit of one campaign staffer per person, no unsolicited communications to voters, no publicized endorsements, no campaign social media accounts, no discussion of possible appointments in office.
[2]Nearly a quarter of those holding a position with the National Staff or Executive Board simultaneously serve on the leadership of their state HSDA chapter.
This is very clearly written by someone who is looking to “expose” HSDA because they did not get whatever position they wanted