THE LAWN. Only those who dedicate the greatest amount of time to the University, receive the best grades and get the least amount of sleep have a chance at living in one of the 54 prestigious Lawn rooms. The University prides itself on tradition when it comes to the Lawn, epitomized by the recent student and faculty uproar over Bob Sweeney's eligibility to live in one of the pavilions. With this in mind, it is important to remember that, traditionally, Lawn rooms were designed to be double occupancy rooms to be occupied by all students at the University. The student-governed selection process currently in place maintains as much tradition as is possible with an expanded University, but the early application deadline as well as the current single occupancy of Lawn rooms detracts from the Lawn selection's legitimacy.
With this in mind, my first suggestion for the Lawn Selections process would be to put two beds back in each room as was the original vision of Thomas Jefferson. If the goal is to preserve University tradition and create a Lawn community full of dedicated, goal-driven students, then doubling the number of students living on the Lawn is the best way to accomplish it. Since building new Lawn rooms is out of the question, adding another bed to each room would give qualified applicants the ability to live on the Lawn rather than simply turning them away.
The Lawn rooms were intended to house two people.Their square footage is comparable to other off-Grounds double occupancy apartments.So why don't they house two people? Some argue that allowing more people on the Lawn decreases the legitimacy of living there and cheapens what it means to have been a Lawn resident.
This blatantly elitist argument fails to consider the fact that living on the Lawn was not originally intended to be prestigious, but this quality only arose because the University expanded.Additionally, the fact that qualified applicants are turned down every year shows that these students deserve to live on the lawn and their living there would not "cheapen" anything.
Second, the Lawn application deadline should be pushed back. Currently, Lawn applications are due shortly after returning from winter break in a student's third year. Moving back the application would give a student more time to demonstrate their dedication to the University, since elections for major organizations such as Student Council occur after this date. Moving the application date later in the spring would show the selection committee who will be the leaders of these organizations and allow them to consider these positions in their decision. Some make the case that this option makes it difficult for students to plan for housing if not accepted to the Lawn, but the same is true for Resident Staff. Staffers are not notified of their acceptance until the middle of March. So it makes sense that the same could be done for Lawn applicants.
Similar to the Resident Staff program, Lawn hopefuls could apply for on-Grounds housing and then have their contract in another area automatically cancelled if they receive a Lawn room. Opponents argue that such a system makes it difficult for those who do not receive Lawn rooms because they either have to live on Grounds fourth year or hope to find a place to live in late March. But given that RAs go through the same process, it is not entirely unreasonable.
This would make it so that only serious applicants would consider the Lawn due to the lack of a place to live (other than on-Grounds). John Evans, director of accomodations, said that the current method "gives everybody an equal opportunity because everyone is working with the same time period," but in reality, different organizations hold elections at different times, so a student's commitment to the University may not be equally demonstrated on the exact day Lawn applications are due.
With these changes, the Lawn will be a larger, more involved, better represented community of University students. Along with bringing back the tradition of dual occupancy Lawn rooms, we should make the selection process fairer by giving more organizations the chance to hold elections before elections are held. If the Lawn selection committee ignores this argument, then they are also ignoring common sense as Jeffersonian tradition. These changes are necessary and could easily be instituted by next year.
Greg Crapanzano's column runs weekly on Wednesdays. He can be reached at gcrapanzano@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 4 hours agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 6 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
