The Lawn is clearly a special place. Not only is it the centerpiece of Thomas Jefferson's vision for what a university should be, but it is also where we begin and end our experience at the University, through Convocation and Graduation. The Lawn is arguably the toughest place to live on Grounds. Each year hundreds of hopeful third-years submit applications with the goal of earning the elite status of Lawn resident. On Friday, this year's applicants will find out whether or not they have been granted a Lawn Room, and because of the competitiveness of the selection process, not everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. Though each year seems to give rise to more and more criticism of the Lawn selection process, it is way past time for some serious discussion about who gets to choose each year's Lawn residents.
Currently the selection committee is comprised of thirty-seven voting members, in addition to one non-voting member, the current Head Resident of the Lawn. Of the thirty-seven, fifteen are fourth-years who submitted their names to the Housing Division to be entered in a random computer lottery. The remaining twenty-two voting members are "ex-officio" members who are involved in certain clubs and student organizations around Grounds. Such groups include the National Pan-Hellenic Council, the Latino Student Alliance, the Inter-Sorority Council, Multicultural Greek Council and the Black Student Alliance. There is also a Middle Eastern student representative, a transfer student and a student athlete. In addition, the president of Student Council and the chairs of both the Honor Committee and University Judiciary Committee are also "ex-officio" members of the selection committee. The Organizing Committee, which includes the Dean of Students, the Dean of the Office of African American Affairs and the presidents of all six undergraduate schools determines which groups have a seat on the Selection Committee. The organizations which have seats can change from year to year, although current Head Lawn Resident, Ben Chrisinger, who is also on the Organizing Committee, acknowledges that the committee "can't really take away groups" once they have been added. This essentially means that once a group successfully lobbies to get a spot on the Selection Committee, it has a permanent voice in the Lawn selection process. The point of the "ex-officio members," according to Chrisinger, is to "ensure a broad perspective on the Committee."
Guaranteeing certain favored groups on Grounds a seat on the Selection Committee is not necessarily the best way to ensure fairness and unique perspectives on the committee. Why not eliminate the "ex-officio" members all together and instead have a committee of entirely randomly selected students? Surely thirty-seven random fourth-years would be a diverse group of individuals. Comprising the selection committee of random students would also legitimize the entire process. Whether a valid belief or not, the process has the appearance of favoring certain individuals over others because of the make-up of the Selection Committee. Having a committee composed of randomly chosen individuals would help eliminate this perception, thus giving the process more credibility.
Completely randomizing the committee would not only give greater legitimacy to the selection process but would make the committee more representative of the student body as a whole. For example, the "ex-officio" members for the most part are the presidents of their respective organizations. Collectively, those individuals cannot be representative of the majority of students who are not club presidents because they choose to pursue other - no less important - interests, perhaps by donating their talents to volunteering in the Charlottesville community or devoting their time to the arts. Those efforts rarely have the possibility of being recognized with such a title as "president." In addition, some of the groups who have seats on the selection committee represent a small fraction of students. Why should these organizations have a say in who gets on the Lawn? Rather than try to make sure that all interests are represented, which seems impossible without having hundreds of "ex-officio" members, the simplest and fairest thing to do is to eliminate the "ex-officio" members all together.
In the end, perhaps the best part about randomizing the selection committee would be that it would give ownership of the Lawn and the selection process back to all the students, not just those select few who happen to be the president of a club that the Organizing Committee deems important or special enough. One often-heard criticism of the selection process is that committee members are biased to members of the groups they represent. Chrisinger explained that "in training they are told to leave their allegiances at the door. They are not lobbyists." That may be true, but that does not change the perception regarding the existence of bias. A random group of peers should be able to do just as good of a job of selecting the Lawn Residents in an unbiased manner as "ex-officio" members. That is not to say that the outcome of who gets to live on the Lawn would change. In all likelihood, it wouldn't change that much, if at all. Changing the make-up of the Selection Committee would, however, be a more credible and legitimate way to select who gets a prestigious Lawn room and would eliminate any criticism of the process being biased.
The Lawn belongs to all students at the University. Acceptance into the University grants a measure of credibility to a student's intelligence and work ethic. Therefore, nothing would be more fair than to allow a random group of University students to select who gets to live on our Lawn. It is time to say goodbye to the "ex-officio" members of the Selection Committee, give the process more credibility and give ownership of the Lawn back to all students of the University.
Megan Stiles columns appear Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 23 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
