The 58th Student Council election has come to an end. According to the results of the vote held from 9 a.m. on Nov. 25 to 6 p.m. on Nov. 27, the slate “PRO” was elected with 4097 votes (63.17%) and a turnout of 52.9%. PRO, short for People Right Organization, ran with the aim of listening to and representing students’ voices at the forefront. It presented major pledges such as establishing links between students and corporations or institutions, planning new student-oriented content, and introducing a participatory presidential election system for the practical benefit of students.

  However, from the candidacy process to the moment its victory was confirmed, the PRO slate was at the center of ongoing controversy. The CBT has summarized the information received through reports and the responses provided by the PRO slate and the CBNU’s central election commission.

  On March 11, during simultaneous pro and anti impeachment rallies held on campus, an outsider entered the scene and used violent language and behavior toward students participating in the impeachment-support rally. The incident was treated as a serious act of violence targeting CBNU students, and some affected students later reported experiencing psychological distress, and related investigations and legal proceedings are still ongoing.

  On Nov. 7 at around 7 p.m., the CBT received an email from an anonymous informant who identified themselves as a CBNU graduate. The email was titled “Reporting the Student Council Candidate, Organizer of a Far-Right Campus Rally Involving Violence and Arson.” The informant forwarded a News1 article, titled “Ahn Cheol-soo Meets the 2030 Generation, Vows to Devote Himself to Building a Happy Nation for the Future Generation” (April 20, 2025) mentioning, “Moon, a CBNU student who led a rally opposing the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol,” and raised allegations that PRO slate’s main candidate Moon Byung-ju (Dept. of Chemical Engineering, 23) was the organizer of the on-campus anti-impeachment rally on March 11 and tacitly supported or condoned the violent incident perpetrated by the outsider. Allegations of similar nature quickly spread during the policy debate on Nov. 19 and across platforms such as Everytime. However, the News1 article alone was insufficient to confirm these allegations as fact.

  Accordingly, the CBT met with candidate Moon at 8 p.m. on Nov. 22 and asked, “We would like you to clarify the facts regarding the political-orientation controversy raised during the recent policy debate and on Everytime, as well as the allegation that you organized an on-campus rally opposing the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol.” Moon replied, “Some parts of the political-orientation controversy are inaccurate, and more importantly, there is no logical connection between running for the student council and holding a specific ideological stance,” adding, “If elected, I intend to compile the entirety of the political-orientation controversy into a timeline and publicly share it as a document to provide transparent explanations.”

  The commission chose not to proceed with Moon’s response to the related questions during the policy debate, saying, “This is not appropriate for the setting of a policy debate, and the candidate qualification review has already been fully completed by the commission.”

  The PRO slate’s club-related pledges, included in its promotional pamphlet, also drew controversy. On the final page of the pamphlet, tailored pledges were listed alongside the names of 40 out of the 52 central clubs at the university. However, some of the pledge details had not been discussed in advance with certain clubs, prompting their presidents to raise objections and request corrections and an apology. It was also pointed out that only 40 clubs were included in the pledges, rather than all central clubs.

  In response to these concerns, Moon promised through the KakaoTalk group chat of the central club presidents prior to the policy debate that he would officially apologize and make corrections regarding this issue during the debate. However, this promise was not kept. At the policy debate held on Nov. 19, club presidents questioned Moon, demanding ▲corrections to the club-related pledges ▲an explanation of the sources of the pledge materials ▲measures to address the issue, and ▲an official apology. Moon stated that after the debate, he would personally approach the club presidents present at the venue to apologize individually.

  On Nov. 21, the PRO slate posted an apology message in the KakaoTalk group chat of the central club presidents and promised to upload the same apology to its social media account by Nov. 24. At the same time, it informed them that posting the apology required approval from the commission, which might cause delays.

  In a Nov. 22 interview with the CBT, Moon addressed the issue and said, “I offer my official apology. Moving forward, we plan to gather each club’s circumstances and needs through discussions with the student club union and to concretize the pledges. We will also strengthen cross-verification with the club presidents in order to establish more accurate operational plans.”

  However, as of the end of the campaign period, CBT was unable to confirm that an official apology from the PRO slate had been posted on its official channel.

  Chae Seo-byung (Dept. of Physics, 23), president of the central club DIY DIY, remarked, “The fact that Moon avoids presenting a comprehensive solution to the issue is itself problematic. It sets a bad precedent. If a student council candidate can independently announce pledges without prior consultation with other student self-governing organizations on campus, and then gloss over the issue with an informal apology, future candidates may also believe they can propose pledges without sufficient review or consultation simply to win elections, disregarding existing student organizations. I think this issue must be addressed strictly in accordance with principles and procedure.”