Construction can be found all around Grounds. The beginnings of new buildings dot the sidewalks of Jefferson Park Avenue. Scaffolding streaks across the sidewalks of the Lawn. The Edgar Shannon Library just finished a major renovation. And Scott Stadium was just adorned with a massive scoreboard. While the scoreboard is an electric addition, its construction came with additional fencing which enables the enforcement of new restrictions on who can access the Hill — the beloved grassy area on the north end of the stadium. These restrictions are a bad look for the University and constitute a failed attempt to moderate the Hill’s capacity and improve safety.
The Hill is a treasured part of game days in Charlottesville. For decades, Virginia football fans would freely fill the grassy area that has become the defining feature of Scott Stadium. This was especially true during the late 20th century when Virginia had a winning football program. Unfortunately, times have changed and the quality of Virginia football has declined. Along with this decline has come a series of embarrassing events which some speculate contributed to the decision to restrict access to the Hill. Twice in the past three years, the Hill’s proximity to the players has enabled hundreds of Hokies to swarm the field in celebration of victories against their fiercest rival — and fans of football at James Madison University have also subjected Scott Stadium to a similar fate.
While these acts of malfeasance provide one explanation for the decision to restrict access, the University has put forth its own justification. In an Aug. 8 statement, the University explained that the restrictions are designed to “manage capacity and improve safety issues in the area.” To accomplish this, the new policy mandates that only University students, season and mini-plan ticket holders and a select number of other groups with direct connections to the University be permitted on the Hill. In practice, this has meant that students must arrive early to obtain a sticker which grants them access to the Hill. Stickers run out fast, and without a sticker students are barred from the beautiful grassy knoll. As stickerless students are prevented from filling the space left behind by those who make an early exit, the Hill is left to grow emptier with each passing quarter.
A policy which promotes a vacated Hill is foolish enough of its own, but it’s made even more ridiculous by the University’s statement saying the the policy is designed to “manage capacity.” It’s one thing to try and prevent overflow, it’s another thing to prevent students from accessing open space. Passing out stickers which inevitably end up collecting dust on the floor — or sparking a heated conversation between two students fighting for the sticker of an exiting stranger — is an utterly ineffective way to manage the Hill’s capacity.
More than just failing to effectively manage capacity, the new restrictions are also a terrible way to “improve safety in the area.” For one thing, the University has introduced an entirely new safety problem — drunk college students attempting to hop fences to find their friends on the Hill. I personally watched fence hoppers fall flat on their faces and get chased by security. In this way, the new restrictions have placed inebriated students at a greater risk of injury and placed an unnecessary burden on security staff at football games.
In addition, the University has unwisely limited spectators’ ability to exit the area. What used to be open space now consists of fencing with a few designated access points lined by RMC event staff and police officers who monitor ingress and egress. This state of affairs is especially dangerous in emergency situations, like the one experienced during our first home game when spectators were asked to leave the stadium due to inclement weather. Thousands of students forced to rush through a few narrowly constructed access points is a recipe for disaster that seems antithetical to the University’s stated mission of improving safety.
We also shouldn’t gloss over the fact that these new restrictions were enforced with the help of police patrol at the last two home games. To the extent that the University cares about ensuring that students feel safe and welcome at its football games, it should be wary of any policies which require an unnecessary uptick in student interaction with armed police officers. Different students obviously have varying levels of comfortability interacting with police, but at least the perception of improved safety does not exist when students are accosted by police demanding that they stay away from fencing that separates them from their friends.
These scenes signal a major shift in how the University perceives the purpose of the Hill. What was once an easily accessible communal space has now been fenced off in favor of profit. There is no doubt that the University can increase revenue by building walls and providing perks to those who purchase Virginia football ticket plans. But sacrificing traditions in service of economic efficiency will only erase the institutions which set the University apart. For example, the entire practice of student self-governance is messy and inefficient, but it’s one of the things that makes our university the University. The Hill is another one of those things — a messy, yet beloved tradition that is cherished by many in our community. It’s a shame that our administration seems willing to sacrifice authenticity for ease.
Most unfortunate, however, is the broader context within which the Hill restrictions are situated. The University has experienced its fair share of tension recently — there has been so much for students to process, criticize and debate. To me, the Hill was a bastion of togetherness in a broader sea of chaos and increasing division. But the Hill we once knew hasn’t gone anywhere — the policies which plague it could easily be repealed. In the spirit of safety and togetherness and fun, I ask that the University do away with the restrictions and give us back our Hill.
Nathan Onibudo is the Editor-in-Chief of The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
