THE UNIVERSITY should stop permitting its public spaces to be sullied with the tags of organizations that are not representative of its values as a leading institute of public education. I speak of course of the "Z", "IMP" and "7" symbols that mar Grounds.
The placement of these symbols in public places, even on the very steps of the Rotunda, is an assertion of institutional ownership to which these groups have no right. That the University has never chosen to remove these markings demonstrates its accession to these claims.
As a public university the University should exert itself to endorse public values: equality, open expression and common citizenship. But the values that underlie the Seven Society, the Zs, and the IMPs are the antitheses of these public values -- inequality, secrecy and stratified citizenship -- and yet the University permits them to be honored everywhere on Grounds.
Let's focus on the Seven Society, which is the most secretive and most celebrated of these organizations. What entitles them to their tags? What are their goals? How do they choose their members? Do they choose to induct students who are paragons of public virtue? Perhaps instead they choose members who are well-connected and well-born who will perpetuate their organization's institutional privileges. Perhaps they require members be of the proper race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and political beliefs.
Several people I've discussed these issues with have made reasonable arguments that the Seven Society should be given the benefit of the doubt. Alexander Gilliam, special assistant to the president and Board of Visitors, pointed out that many past members of the Seven Society were "people of great prominence" who served both the country and the University with distinction. He also noted the Seven Society is responsible for "countless" instances of assistance to students in need at the University.
I agree that it is very unlikely the Seven Society conducts itself according to discriminatory practices, though one wonders what position its members took toward the integration of black and female students in the past. It probably discriminates on the basis of "virtue" by inducting individuals who were leaders while students and are expected to be leaders as alumni. But there is no way to verify the Seven Society's current principles or practices given the paradigm of secrecy the organization itself has created, and that alone should invalidate their claim to celebrate themselves on the public spaces of a public university.
As for the contributions made by the Seven Society, they do not deserve the attention they receive nor justify allowing the group to place its logo across Grounds.. The Seven Society regularly gets publicity at convocation ceremonies for donations that amount to several thousand dollars and, in one recent example, slightly more than $10,000, small change to the University. They made a $1 million pledge to the South Lawn Project, offer an annual $7,000 teaching award, and make unknown donations to students in need. Taking all that into account, the total monetary contributions of the Seven Society in recent memory equal, at most, a year or two of interest payments on John Paul Jones' single gift, and probably less. Their contributions pale in comparison to the $3 billion Capital Campaign, which depends on the general alumni community rather than some elite club. If the University sells itself, it should at least demand a reasonable price.
It is not certain that the Seven Society -- or the whole body of secret and ring societies -- has any positive net financial impact on the University. Despite their contributions, their place on Grounds causes alienation among students who have no interest in their pretensions, and therefore less interest in the health of a university that puts such pretensions on a pedestal. Students who had hoped to be inducted into such societies could harbor resentments that reduce their giving to the University. Also, it is probable that many of the contributions made in the name of the societies themselves would have been made in the names of their individual members had the societies not existed.
These same arguments for the questionable net financial benefit of the secret societies apply identically to any effect of secret and ring societies on overall engagement in alumni affairs and University governance.
Secret societies as such are not the problem. Their secrecy is probably just a reflection of the fact their members enjoy their aura of mystery and romance. Instead, the problem is the sanction these groups are given by the University. If they want to keep their graffiti -- especially the Seven Society -- then their members should name themselves and prove their individual and institutional virtue make them deserve it. Otherwise, it's time to take out the turpentine and end this misuse of public lands.
Andrew Winerman is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer. He is a graduate student studying economics.
Read More
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
CASTAGNO: Intensifying security theater in schools does not make them safer
By Conall Costagno | March 24, 2025Adding more stringent security measures will not solve the underlying issue, which is that schools must do more to invest in students’ mental health.
