THE UNIVERSITY'S athletic facilities, particularly the AFC, are first-rate and an enormous resource to students here. However, there is a significant problem with the existing entry policy that creates an unnecessary burden on students and faculty when they forget their University ID. Happily, the University is aware of these problems and is investigating a solution, and it should be encouraged to follow through.
The existing policy is that when a patron comes to the AFC without his University ID, he can gain admission with a refundable $5 payment, a driver's license and a "sponsor" willing to vouch for him. While these requirements don't sound terribly burdensome, they frequently prevent people from working out. Students and faculty who carry their University IDs in their wallet, along with all other forms of identification, are out of luck when they leave their wallet at home or at the office.
This is important because a well-designed entry policy should accomplish two goals. First, it ought to ensure that only people who have paid to use the facilities are admitted. Second, it should be minimally burdensome and not prevent people who should be able to use the gym from doing so.
The existing system is flawed on both levels. First, the procedure is not difficult for someone outside the community to circumvent. The individuals that staff the front desk allow total strangers to sponsor each other. Theoretically, the idea of this process is that the sponsor is vouching that the sponsored individual is worthy of temporary inclusion within the community of trust. But how can a sponsor possibly know any better than the desk staff whether this is true of a total stranger? I've never been turned down by any of the strangers I have had to ask to sponsor me, nor have I seen anyone else be turned down. Mark Fletcher, the Director of Intramural Recreational Sports indicated that at least one theft was perpetrated by an individual who had been admitted to the facilities thanks to an unwitting sponsor,
Second, the refund procedure is cumbersome and irritating to students. The refund must be requested during business hours, when many students are at class; it takes several minutes to complete the process; and the refund itself is given in the form of a check rather than as cash. The entire process creates a substantial administrative burden on the AFC, which handles all these transactions on paper.
An electronic system that allowed students to be admitted by typing in their student ID number or other identifying information and having their identity confirmed by the desk attendant through a picture on a computer screen would overcome both these issues. In conjunction with a strict policy only to admit guests whose sponsors were willing to explicitly vouch for their sponsees, this system would prevent any unauthorized entry into the facilities. It would also guarantee that legitimate University affiliates were not shut out because they forgot their University ID and their driver's license.
Fletcher has indicated that the University is currently investigating options for such a system but is wary of the potential cost. My hope is that the department follows through on these efforts.
Obviously, there is a limit to the amount the University should be willing to pay for such a system. At the same time, it must consider the magnitude of the benefits before deciding not to purchase one due to cost. The one-time investment cost to put this kind of system in place would be mitigated by relieving the Intramural Recreational Sports department of the ongoing administrative burden of processing $5 check requests. More importantly, the system would prevent students and faculty from having their workout plans ruined simply because they forgot their wallet. Workouts are worth real money to people, as evinced by the willingness of guests to pay for admittance, and missed workouts must be considered in any cost-benefit analysis. The security improvements such a system could bring can also be monetized.
I reject the argument that students who forget their IDs are responsible for their actions and its their fault if they can't be admitted to the facilities. While not exactly false, this argument is not compelling. A large number of people are occasionally forgetful and there is no reason to maintain an existing system that punishes them while also leading to a less safe environment when a cost-effective alternative is available.
Andrew Winerman's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at awinerman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 20 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 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 | 6 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.
