AS KID Rock laments, there is a price you pay to be a big shot. When you're so visible, it's natural to come under greater scrutiny and perhaps even criticism. In light of the recent proposal to modify the first-year housing application, the University owes its scholars the consideration every big shot deserves.
The Ad Hoc Enrollment Committee recently released a proposal to eliminate the distinction between the McCormick and Alderman Road residence areas. This announcement has generated discussion among members of the University community. While the debate over such a change is indeed legitimate, a more noteworthy consideration has been completely ignored.
The continued compulsory separation of Echols and Rodman Scholars into their own dormitories distinctly contradicts the spirit of the Committee's proposal.
This Ad Hoc group was formed five years ago to address concerns about trends in first-year housing areas. The objective was to modify the existing process to ensure that housing assignments would create a greater sense of diversity among first years and in the University community as a whole. The conclusion was made that by ceasing to offer a choice between traditional first-year areas, self-separation would end.
Oh, except for our first-year Scholars. They are still required to live in Webb, Watson and Maupin dorms. This condition expressly conflicts with the Committee's desired outcome: diversity of housing assignments. If the Committee intends to garner student support for their ideas, they must reconcile this double standard. The continued separation of first-year scholars must be an individual choice, if it to be made at all.
The objective of the Scholars programs is clear. The incentive to choose the University over an Ivy League or peer institution is greater when students are offered the unique opportunity, among other privileges, to live solely among other Scholars. Mandating this living choice, however, creates an environment that adds to the "separated" existence that first years currently face.
The buzzword appeal of "diversity" manifests itself day after day around Grounds. A vital concern to students, faculty and administrators alike, the desire to overcome obstacles to diversity is a perennial matter. The ideas set forth by the Committee are valid, particularly in the sense that focus is to be placed on programming in dormitories. But the proposal does not meet the stated objective of creating a diverse first-year living experience. The ends and the means are simply inconsistent.
Were the Committee to decide that students gifted in arts or athletics would benefit from a separate living area, the rest of their first year peers would be equally deprived of a diverse experience. But such a conclusion is not drawn. In fact, the proposal specifically aims to integrate athletes into non-athlete housing situations. They obviously value diversity on a certain level. However, their plan does not take integration as far as it needs to go. The University can't expect students to support a solution that perpetuates the supposed problem at hand.
We should not tolerate a first-year living situation that appears diverse in all traditional first-year dorms save three. If we don't accept the disparate conditions now, how can the University purport that such a new situation would be any better? Both cases are insufficiently diverse.
The Committee's aim is admirable. They have done valuable and insightful work. Unfortunately, the results lack substance.
The University cannot expect students to accept such a double standard. The discrepancies of the proposal are an inherent flaw that must be addressed before it can be credible. The efforts made to foster a better first-year experience are valuable and important. The proposal should not be dismissed on its premise alone. However, unless its objectives and methods are reconciled, it will be useless. It's not a matter of taking cheap shots or being big shots. It's about the price we pay and giving everyone a fair shot.
(Katherine Martini's column appears Mondays in the Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Risk and reward
By Charlie Healy | 1 hours agoThe college newspaper was nowhere on my radar, and I had no previous experience with journalism.
PARTING SHOT: You are your own limit
By Wardah Kamran | 6 hours agoMe, my staffers, we were there. And it happened. And I think that is important enough.
PARTING SHOT: When it comes to art, it pays to pay attention
By Delaney Hammond | 2 days agoEven among people who value the arts, carving out space for critical engagement with — rather than just passive consumption of — art has been an endeavor I have treasured.
