IN APRIL 1998, then-Dean of Students Robert T. Canevari said to hell with student self-governance and banned first years from rushing fraternities in the fall. His actions arrogantly and unapologetically opposed the expressed wishes of the elected representatives of the Inter-Fraternity Council, First Year Council and Student Council. Ever since, students have patiently petitioned and editorialized for the simple restoration of a large chunk of their social freedom -- the freedom to associate outside of class with whom they want, when they want, without fear of punishment. But at every turn their concerns have met with the quick and cold dismissals of an un-elected administration that seems both exceedingly uninterested in what students want and increasingly fixated on dictating what students need. This continued interference in students' social lives is but one representative example of the administration unjustly acting in loco parentis -- in the place of parents -- instead of letting students direct their own lives.
With few exceptions, the youngest students at the University are 18 years old. In the United States and in Virginia, this classifies them as adults. They are allowed to buy guns or to enlist in the armed forces. They are allowed to purchase highly addictive tobacco products or take out thousands of dollars of independent student loans. They are allowed to marry or to get abortions without anyone's consent. But in our aptly misnamed "Community of Trust" they are not allowed to decide for themselves when to rush a fraternity. The administration treats these adult men like children -- with the classically unimpressive excuse, of course, that it is for their own good.
On Oct. 23 of last year, current Dean of Students Penny Rue wrote a column for The Cavalier Daily, "Springing into rush," in which she explained her reasons for her office's continued interference in the social lives of students. Chief among these reasons, she claims that banning fall rush "gives students the chance to acclimate to college life, make friends ... and establish themselves academically." Similarly, she argues that the ban gives fraternities a "better opportunity" to evaluate prospective members. And she seems not to be joking. To argue that banning students from voluntary social associations for an entire semester enhances their "chances" or "opportunities" to do anything is not only patently absurd on its face, but also insulting to the autonomy of these potential fraternity members. Without interference from the administration, students clearly could decide for themselves whether to rush in the fall or spring. What Rue's argument truly shows is that she wants to deny student choice, not enhance it, because she doesn't think students are responsible enough to take care of themselves.
Even more telling, however, is Rue's assertion that under the fall rush ban, students are more likely to join fraternities "for the right reasons." The right reasons? Every grown man has his own reasons for pursuing his social life as he sees fit, and in a liberal society there is no external authority for judging whether these reasons are right or wrong. Perhaps Rue wouldn't mind if someone watched her for four months of the year to make sure that she wasn't associating with her friends "for the wrong reasons." But most adults would mind such interference, and most of them at the University do.
In an interview, Aaron Laushway, Assistant Dean of Students for Fraternity and Sorority Life, cited the desire to reduce "excessive drinking" as yet another paternalistic reason for banning fall rush. Again, this is an area in which administrators have precisely no business poking their noses. The University simply should set rigorous academic standards, and these standards should not be impugned for any reason. If a student drinks himself below a requisite GPA for an extended period of time, he should be suspended from the University. As an adult capable of leading his own life, he will have no one to blame but himself. That is the extent to which the administration should concern itself with students' alcohol habits.
The fundamental Jeffersonian assumption that individuals should be afforded the greatest amount of freedom consistent with the security of their basic rights should not go out the window at Jefferson's University. Maximum social liberty does not hinder higher education but instead enhances it by developing students' independence along with their intelligence. By contrast, the University, in loco parentis, fails to respect the autonomy of the adult students whose freedom it so capriciously curtails. And, beyond being dismissive of the solid Virginian tradition of representative student self-governance, the administration's crass paternalism ultimately becomes dismissive of students themselves.
(Anthony Dick's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
U.Va. Medical Students: Defend academic freedom
By U.Va. Medical Students | 2 days agoTo yield in the face of federal pressure does more than betray the University’s core values — it encourages future attacks on academia.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
2 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
MICHAELSON: U.Va. must not surrender to authoritarian pressure
By Wesley Michaelson | 3 days agoThis University belongs to the people of Virginia — not to Washington, not to unelected federal appointees and certainly not to political donors with an agenda. This is our University. And we will fight for it.
