FIRST-year students may think they are gaining more control over their lives when they leave home for school. Because of a recent proposal by the administration, however, that could change.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Student Concerns and Enrollment recently explored the possibility of removing the housing option of Alderman vs. McCormick road for incoming first-year students, thanks to an observation that minorities tend to choose the Alderman road area. In the interest of what sounds suspiciously like a quota, one of the most important aspects of a person's environment -- his living space -- will no longer be a choice for incoming first years.
Though the intentions behind the newly adopted proposal are good, the methodology is flawed. True, lack of social integration is a concern at the University. For whatever reason, students tend to cling to people who look similar. More social integration would mean a more enriching experience for us all.
Such integration should be voluntary, however, and not forced by an administrative decision. This proposal denies everyone -- minorities included -- the choice to live where they would feel most comfortable.
If the difference between the two areas was as simple as distance from O-Hill and Central Grounds, this conversation would be unnecessary -- incoming first-year students might as well flip a coin. But the arrangements on Alderman Road and McCormick Road are strikingly different, each suiting different personalities.
Say a student doesn't mind less privacy and would rather meet lots of people right away. Old Dorms would be more appropriate. Another student wants a more intimate surrounding, where he or she would meet fewer people, but would get to know each one better. New Dorms would be more comforting.
If someone hates the idea of sharing a bathroom with 40 people, they would be miserable on McCormick Road. Or, if someone really loves the idea of a front yard to socialize or play Frisbee, they would miss part of the first-year experience if stuck on Alderman Road.
Even if a student's choice is racially or religiously motivated -- for example an Afghani student who would feel threatened if placed on a hallway with 19 people who don't understand Islam -- throwing them in that very situation would do more harm to the one student than good to the others. That student would feel less homesick and more relaxed living where he chose, and would be more self-confident when ready to share his beliefs.
Another practical example is cost -- a student attempting to pay his or her own way or trying to cut costs will notice that living in Old Dorms is $100-300 cheaper.
These different personalities lead to another U.Va. tradition later on -- dorm rivalry. First-year students may have felt it for the first time this year at the Rotunda sing when the Hullabahoos started the classic New Dorms/Old Dorms cheer. This identity is one more example of the small communities we cherish without regard for race within the larger University community.
By the same "integration" rationale, the University should look into interest mixing, too. Perhaps there are too many Engineering students in Old Dorms, or too many College kids. The University intentionally separates Echols students into their own dorm -- is that intelligence segregation?
Recruitment also could be affected. Admissions can't explain to every prospective student that the reason they offer little choice of residence first year is because of concerns about racial integration; instead, prospective students will see that they have no control over living arrangements. If the University's concern is recruitment of more minorities, shouldn't comfort be a priority?
Instead of denying students the privilege to live where they would like, the University should look at the deeper causes of segregation. How many students coming in know that minorities tend to gravitate to Alderman Road? Is that why they do? Maybe minorities, since their introduction to the University was later than the originally all-white student body, are less enthralled with the trappings of legacy and "oldness," and are simply smart to choose bigger rooms closer to food.
If concrete reasons can't be found, Housing can find other ways to make McCormick Road more attractive -- for example, create a first-year resource center or an inter-cultural café like Tuttle Coffee House. Or better yet, install air-conditioners; then everyone will want to live there.
So much is uncertain on the first day of college. Most students don't know their way around Grounds, how the food will be in the dining halls, how classes will go or if they'll even get into the ones they want. When it comes to the most basic part of moving away from home -- where to live -- life becomes even more uncertain.
We are put in a tiny room with another person we have never met and are told to stay there for one of the most tumultuous years of our lives. This situation, already tense, would be much more palatable if students, including minorities, had the power to make at least one decision.
(Emily Harding's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 6 hours agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 2 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
