The election race for the next president of Seoul National University (SNU) has devolved into a bitter mudslinging contest, reigniting controversies from past elections amid a flurry of public interest disclosures and allegations of electoral maneuvering.

While some voices are calling for a special audit, arguing that the candidates' morality must be thoroughly vetted, others suspect that rival camps have raised these allegations as a last-minute tactic to turn the tables.

As campus members remain divided in their evaluations of the three presidential candidates—Professors Kang Joon-ho, Choi Hae-cheon, and Lee Jae-young—students have expressed cynical views, dismissing the presidential election as a "feast for professors alone."

According to the university community, the allegations raised in this SNU presidential election include the operation of government-funded educational projects, the execution of research grants, and the fairness of the presidential election process.

Suspicions were also raised that some candidates delegated student guidance and lecturing duties to others while operating government-backed projects, inappropriately allocated research funds, and interfered in the selection process of members for the Presidential Recommendation Committee.

The SNU Board of Directors has postponed interviews for the three presidential candidates, originally scheduled for October 27, to November 8.

The reason cited for the delay was additional vetting of the candidates.

Opinions across the campus regarding the various allegations are sharply divided.

The SNU Faculty Association issued a statement on October 22 stating that while it respects the Board of Directors' decision for additional vetting, it urged a separate special audit at the university headquarters level.

The Faculty Association stated, "Holding the status of a presidential candidate cannot be a reason for exemption from the strict standards applied to ordinary professors."

It went on to emphasize that it must be clearly verified whether the candidates complied with internal university regulations.

Lim Jung-mook, head of the SNU Faculty Association, also shared his stance, saying, "Strict standards must be applied to presidential candidates to secure the minimum legitimacy required for the next president."

On the other hand, an SNU official explained, "If there were truly problematic misconduct behind the successive public interest disclosures, it would have come to light long ago," adding, "It appears to be a virtually final effort by another candidate's camp."

The official added, "Because a presidential election is such a sensitive matter, these kinds of things happen."

Furthermore, the official suspected that a rival candidate's camp may have been involved in raising suspicions at the end of the election.

However, it has not been confirmed whether a specific candidate's camp actually interfered in the whistleblowing.

Another SNU professor also raised issues regarding the recurring disclosures, stating that some of the allegations had already been reviewed by the Presidential Recommendation Committee.

Regarding the disclosures related to research funds, this professor explained that the committee had gone through a verification process and determined there were no issues.

Regarding the additional disclosures, the professor argued that they merely amounted to questions over administrative oversights and emphasized that the Board of Directors had not decided to conduct a special audit of the candidates.

This is not the first time that the SNU presidential election has been embroiled in controversy surrounding candidate verification.

During the 26th presidential election in 2014, criticisms were raised that anonymous letters targeting candidates were running rampant.

At the time, the Board of Directors moved to secure fairness by prohibiting candidates or third parties from individually contacting board members outside of official procedures.

During the 27th presidential election in 2018, verification controversies actually led to a candidate's downfall.

Kang Dae-hee, a medical professor selected as the final candidate by the board at the time, resigned from his candidacy after allegations of sexual harassment and plagiarism surfaced.

Criticism was raised that the recommendation committee and the board had selected the final candidate without sufficiently vetting the relevant allegations, and the fact that the committee at the time did not accept anonymous tips also came under fire.

Even in the re-run election held following Professor Kang's resignation, controversies over candidate defamation and fake news flared up.

At the time, the SNU Professors' Council sent an email to professors warning them that acts of slandering candidates through fake news had been confirmed as true and urged caution.

While the final candidate stepped down amid criticism of shoddy verification eight years ago, this time, demands for thorough verification are accompanied by voices suspecting the very intent behind the disclosures.

Campus members showed mixed preferences for candidates in this presidential election.

Professor Kang Joon-ho of the College of Education, who ranked first in the policy evaluation on October 14, scored 169.25 out of a possible 490 points, accounting for only 34.5% of the total score.

Professor Choi Hae-cheon of the College of Engineering received 125.15 points, while Professor Lee Jae-young of the College of Humanities received 113.11 points.

While Professor Kang led in the faculty evaluation, Professor Choi held the upper hand in the student evaluation.

However, the reflection weight of the student evaluation was a mere 9.5% of the total, propelling Professor Kang to overall first place.

As preferences between faculty members and students diverged in the policy evaluation, ongoing disputes over candidate verification continue to deepen conflicts within the campus.

Some students have expressed fatigue, claiming that the presidential election has degenerated into a political battle disconnected from them.

An SNU graduate student surnamed Jung remarked, "Honestly, I have no idea what is going on," pointing out that it is a "feast for professors."

The student criticized, "They are playing politics among themselves over who will win or lose, and I am sick and tired of it."

The student added, "All their pledges are absurd anyway; what difference would it make whoever is chosen? Didn't the first-place candidate ultimately secure the top spot because they received a lot of support from the professors?"

(Photo: Yonhap News)