IN RECENT weeks, the University has exhibited a disturbing trend of measures and ideas that provide benefits to small numbers of students while curtailing or interfering with the rights of other students. From last year's revocation of early decision to removing the option of choosing Old or New Dorms, the University has upheld the few at the expense of the many. Other universities have exhibited this trend, for example, the University of Maryland's decision to allow roommates to choose those of the opposite gender as their roommates -- fortunately, Virginia law prohibits the University from advocating such an arrangement, as doubtless they otherwise would. The University needs to step back from its decisions and think about their impact on the community as a whole rather than looking myopically at its impact on the few.
I have covered the University's decision to get rid of early decision in a previous column, so I will discuss it only as it pertains to this theme. The University abolished the program based on the theory that early decision discourages lower income applicants, as it requires a commitment without knowledge of financial aid to be offered. While this holds obvious benefits for a small number of people, it removes the option for many potential applicants for whom the University would be the first choice. While it provides opportunities for some, it squelches the same opportunities for many others.
The same can be said of the decision to remove the option for first years to list a preference between Old and New Dorms. Meant as a measure to prevent de facto segregation, the removal of the choice between Old and New Dorms means that first years now can only distinguish whether or not they want to live in dorms or in a residential college. This seems to me like a token effort at removing a perception of intolerance which apparently exists in greater quantities in one half of dorms than in the other. And while this may have roots in the truth, the same measures also remove options from students as yet innocent of the stigma associated with the Old Dorms. It removes from incoming first years the ability to indicate a preference for housing closer to Central Grounds or a desire to live in halls as opposed to in suites.
Incidentally, the decision to not allow students to choose which dorms they want to live in is only a small action with little chance to produce real effects on de facto segregation. Students can still choose who they spend their time with, who they date, what classes they take, what associations they join, whether or not to rush fraternities or sororities and, if they so desire, with whom they share a room for their first year. After first year, they can choose who they want to live with. And students have every right to make all of these decisions; indeed, it would be ludicrous for the University to seek to abridge these rights in any way. Students possess a right to association; thus it seems unlikely removing one choice will have any real effect on de facto segregation. In the meantime, it denies those students who want to live in specific dorms for reasons other than with the express intent of segregating themselves the option to do so.
One issue with which the University does not have to deal (thankfully) is whether or not to allow students to room with students of the opposite gender. The University of Maryland has begun to allow students to do so in a "gender neutral dorm," and, according to an article in this publication last week, over 100 students have utilized that option. The University is forbidden to do so by Virginia law, and while this may seem Neanderthal and utterly unenlightened, it is nevertheless a positive thing. It might seem restrictive to the few who might be interested in such a program, but it upholds the moral standards of the many as set down in the Virginia law code. This requires a longer discussion and a divergence into the nature of law, but in essence, the law reflects the collective morality of a people, and while in this case the law may seem to infringe on the rights of the few, it does not in the sense that preventing "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" upholds the moral fabric of a society, and is therefore subject to its legal code. While little is done to prevent cohabitation off Grounds, it makes sense that a public university, receiving state funding, ought to be held to the moral standards adhered to by the citizens of the state. Thus, in this case, the University is bound by law to uphold the standards of the majority at the expense of the minority.
As I wrote last week, under a self-determining system of government, minority viewpoints have every right to seek to change things. But, so long as rights are not violated, the lack of perfection does not equate to oppression or egregious transgression. In light of this, the University ought to examine its decisions from a broader perspective, respecting minority viewpoints but also considering their impact from the perspective of the University community as a whole.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
