IGNORANT though they may be, there are still those who describe college as a place of "equal opportunity." Certainly, ambitious programs like AccessUVA help lessen the burden of the swelling costs of education. Ultimately, however, money matters. Wealthier students can study abroad more easily and, more importantly, they can afford to participate in student organizations. By paying certain student leaders a decent stipend, every student could participate in University organizations regardless of his or her financial circumstances.
Fourth year Honor advisor Okey Udumaga acknowledged, "I have no choice but to work. I need to make sure I can afford books and stay in school." Udumaga resigned from the Student Council last year to attend to, among other commitments, his job as a dispatcher for Saferide. "It's hard to do both," he said.
If the University provided even a modest stipend to certain student leaders, "getting involved" would no longer necessitate hardship. It could equalize opportunity so that any student, regardless of their parents' income bracket, could join the Honor Committee, University Guide Service or The Cavalier Daily.
If I may indulge in just one cliché, supporting student leaders financially is a win-win situation. Student involvement wouldn't depend on financial independence, or lack thereof. And organizations would benefit from increased competition for leadership positions, thus ensuring them better leadership. See, no losers -- except the University, perhaps. They, presumably, would pay for my benevolent suggestion. That brings us to the first, most convenient, and most ludicrous objection to rewarding student leadership: We can't afford it.
At this point, we might as well discuss whether or not the University can afford such a crushing financial burden. One ought to bear in mind that some student leaders are offered small compensation for working during summers. So, to put it mildly, the idea is not out of the realm of possibility. With the new stadium, the South Lawn Project, and paying workers' insufficient wages, some might infer that the University suffers dire economic straights. Assuming the University paid the top three officers in 100 student organizations $1,000 annually, the total annual cost would be $300,000 -- about the same amount the University pays President John T. Casteen, III. Cut the number of organizations in half, and the University would only pay, roughly, the cost of a tenured professor's annual salary. Certainly, I wouldn't describe the proposal as cheap, but I challenge the administration to find a less expensive way to genuinely improve diversity in student organizations. Penny for penny, it beats more diversity seminars.
The second, slightly more reasonable objection deals with selecting which organizations deserve money and which don't. I call this the "if you don't have enough to share with everybody, no one can have any," complaint. To be sure, not every student organization can or should receive money to compensate its officers. I doubt the president of the Storm Chasing Club needs extra funds to supplement his tireless pursuit of hail and tornadoes. The major, more well-established student organizations, however, ought to have the resources to compensate their leadership.
Regarding who gets the money and who doesn't, it would be futileto suggest a system here. Today, CIOs can apply for funding through a complicated array of paperwork and bureaucracy which, eventually, provide funds for nearly any group to purchase supplies, fund trips, etc. The application for officer compensation could be similar. Even if only a few, select organizations compensated their officers, competition for those positions would increase, and as any self-respecting Comm Schooler will tell you, competition is a good thing.
Still, paying student leaders easily lends itself to criticism attending to the fear that, if leadership positions come with salaries, people will participate for the money rather than for résumé-padding, ambition, power envy or (rare, I know) altruism. This reveals the rather bizarre sentimentclaiming that paying someone to do a job somehow minimizes the virtue of working. What nonsense. Even if it did, the University should seek the best-qualified candidates, not the nicest or most benevolent. We don't expect our local or national politicians to work pro bono. Even Mother Theresa turned a profit.
Put simply, if not a bit ironically, volunteered employment favors the wealthy. To promote "equal opportunity," the University ought to make leadership positions an option for everyone.
Once a student enters college, if he or she has to work 40 hours a week to pay rent, buy books, or afford tuition, running for chairman of the Honor Committee is quite out of the question. Compensating these positions promotes equality among students, improves diversity in student organizations, and makes student involvement more accessible. And as an added bonus, implementing such a policy would make the phrase "equal opportunity" slightly less ridiculous.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
