To steal a phrase from a fellow columnist, the debate surrounding Lawn room selections is as much a tradition as the selection itself. In 2017, columnists of The Cavalier Daily’s Opinion section have been especially concerned with this issue, writing no less than four different columns on the topic. On one level, I appreciate the paper hosting a vigorous debate on University topics. However, the debate around Lawn rooms is ultimately meaningless. Creating change for the University by changing the composition of Lawn residents is not only a fruitless exercise, but also takes attention away from more fundamental changes needed at the University.
The column which most embodies the ideal of top to bottom change the Lawn could enact was Matt Winesett’s argument for merit as the only criteria for Lawn residency. He paints a picture of the Lawn as city on a hill which University students strive for. His argument is that, as long as we respect the Lawn as an institution based in achievement, we will continue to have the University prosper — fail to do so and the intellectual base of the University could degrade. Ideals and institutions matter, but it is hard to argue that the Lawn is the base of University meritocracy. Teachers and student organizations are a better place to look for that. Adding diversity standards to the Lawn won’t spell the end for achievement at the University. Focusing on where achievement is actually earned is a better place to start for those worries.
By the same logic, a more diverse Lawn is also a misplaced fight. Every year there is a column complaining about Lawn diversity, this year we got two — one arguing for socioeconomic diversity and another advocating for school diversity. I am as much a proponent of diversity as anyone but this is not the way to go about it. Having a more diverse Lawn will not make the University more representative. It will only garner resent from people who feel their spot on the Lawn was taken and sap the motivation of diversity activists. I know this because this is exactly what is happening with affirmative action. Affirmative action has been in place for years and it has done nothing but create debate, resentment and paltry change.
Think about the underlying reasons why the Lawn doesn’t have more diversity. The simple fact is there is an achievement gap between white and nonwhite students. This is not because white students are innately better at school or leadership, but because the deck is stacked in their favor. Non-white students have a disproportionate reliance on student-aid and scholarships. Non-white students also have a hard enough time becoming part of many organizations, let alone becoming leaders.
If these are the underlying problems, Opinion columnists should be writing more about financial aid, frivolous University spending, implicit bias in student organizations and barriers to achievement for non-white students. Inadequate focus on these issues is the reason the Lawn is not very diverse, and will remain that way for a while. Only after non-white students have fair chances to become leaders at the University will we see the numbers change.
There are other flavors of Lawn room columns, such as the one written about who is qualified to select Lawn room residents. Though at the face this column is not quite as misguided, it still falls into the trap of arguing along meritocratic and representational lines. The change the columnist proposes still does not address any underlying problems, and contributes to the idea that the Lawn is the same as the University. The University and Lawn are a one-way mirror of each other — the University only reflects on the Lawn, not the other way around.
Some might see it as overly critical to demand that people focus only on the underlying problems, arguing that some change is better than none. In some areas I might accept this argument, but the discussion about Lawn room selection has been fruitless for years. These discussions are not improving the University and only serve to distract from real problems. I understand that the Lawn is a very dear topic to the University community and unlike the larger problems it seems possible to make real change. Do not take the easy path or settle for a symbolic battle — fight for real change.
Bobby Doyle is an Opinion columnist for the Cavalier Daily. He may be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
