The Great Mascot Vote of 2026 was a disappointment wrapped in another disappointment. From the use of generative AI to create the concepts for the mascots, to the return of Ben and John, there was a lot left to be desired. However, since the results of the mascot vote have been made public, a new concern about the fairness of the alumni vote has risen.
Out of the 2,268 votes, 1,594 came from alumni, 448 came from current students, and 226 came from staff and faculty. This means that for every one student vote, there were approximately three-point-five/ three and a half votes from alumni. This uneven distribution of votes left many students feeling confused as to why alumni had such a large influence over the mascot, and why they were even allowed to vote in the first place.
At first glance, it does seem to be unfair that alumni, who no longer attend Franklin and Marshall College, have such a large influence on the mascot vote. Upon further investigation, the supposed “unfairness” of the alumni vote has to be called into question. First, regardless of whether or not alumni could have voted, the dog won out, with the majority of both the student and faculty votes. So, even if the alumni had not voted, the results would have been the same.
Second, alumni deserve to have a say in the affairs of their alma mater. While alumni are not directly involved on campus, they are forever tied to F&M. If F&M were to adopt a radically offensive mascot, the alumni would be forced to associate themselves with that offensive mascot. Additionally, many of our alumni donate generously to F&M (think of the $7.5 million donation for a new fitness center), so there is an economic incentive to at least consider their wants.
Lastly, there are more F&M alumni than there are students. By extension, there are going to be more alumni votes.. There are about 25,000 living F&M alumni. Compare that to the almost 2,000 current students, and it makes the results of the mascot vote look less like the alumni being overrepresented and more about numbers. In fact, alumni would appear to be underrepresented, since approximately 6 percent of all alumni voted, compared to 20 percent of students.
While the presence of the alumni vote might seem undemocratic towards the students, alumni do have a vested interest in the affairs of F&M. Thus, they should be able to express their opinions regarding the mascot. At the end of the day, the more important concerns in front of us are the unapologetic use of generative AI, the complete lack of creativity (I mean, seriously, a dog and a friendly monster?) and the lack of transparency in the selection of the three final options for the mascot.
Ella Kasatkin is a contributing writer. Their email is ekasatki@fandm.edu.