SINCE WHEN did the word "change" become a synonym for "improvement?" Maybe I missed out on this etymological development, but I have always been under the impression that things can change for the better or the worse. And yet current politicians, from my beloved Mike Huckabee to Barack Obama, run under banners emblazoned with "change" in bold letters. The same applies to University politics, where constant complaints against the ineffectiveness of student government fly from all sides, including frequently in this publication. The world view that considers change a fundamentally positive thing often operates from a flawed position. It assumes that change, especially radical change, is inherently a good thing, and that yielding to established methods and conventions is inherently a destructive force. As such, a world view that considers the very idea of change a positive entity operates from a progressive perspective that ought to be placed under severe scrutiny before one buys in completely.
I will not go so far in the other direction as to assert that change is inherently a negative thing. We live in a world that is far from perfect; there will always be flaws in every human endeavor, every human institution but not all require radical change. Some problems do require a major overhaul. For example, under an oppressive system of government, change might be a welcome and positive opportunity. If one lives in an area plagued by violence, then change would certainly be a good thing. Or, if economic times were truly bad, then perhaps a change might be necessary.
When things are going well, however, change ought to be looked on very cautiously, and if pursued, ought to be done within an established framework. From a governmental standpoint, when the economy, foreign affairs, and the domestic tranquility function adequately, change should be fairly limited and specifically targeted. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that we cannot account for all the variables that stem from human actions, and the greater the attempted change, the more variables there are to be accounted for.
Thus, as much as is possible, change ought to take place within established and time-tested frameworks. The Civil Rights movement harbored elements of both kinds of change. It sought the practical redress of grievances against an oppressive social and political environment and an implementation of the ideals expressed by the Constitution of equality under the law regardless of race. At the same time, it demonstrated elements outside of the proscribed channels, occasionally leading to destructive riots and violence. The two results, political achievement and violence, demonstrate positive and negative aspects of calls for change. Sometimes it can achieve objectives and make the country or world a better place, but sometimes it can merely create a bigger mess.
The same can be said about change at the University. While some may call for drastic changes in the basic functioning nature of student government, or of the various institutions that comprise it, in general they function well. There have not been major controversies regarding the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee, or even the Student Council. The relations between students and faculty contain little to no strife. Student life at the University operates at a near optimum level for the majority of students. A guest column earlier this week called for a major shift in the relations between student government and the University Administration, calling for greater initiative and activism on the part of students.This is unnecessary, given the relative satisfaction most people feel. If the system functions well, why risk a breakdown via major changes? Instead, let us tweak where we can, in ways such as making student government more accountable to students, but let us control change so as to maintain the successful scenario in which we interact now..
Some might argue that I am merely repeating the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But I am merely posing two caveats to go along with this idea. Given the state of the world as an imperfect place, and one that, excluding divine intervention, will stay that way despite any amount of human effort, we ought not to assume that just because something is imperfect, it is broken. Advocates of change also ought to remember that it cuts both ways, that the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. Should we search for ways to improve the world around us? Absolutely. But in doing so, let us also appreciate what we have that works well, and realize that in seeking to change it, we may sometimes do more harm than good.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va.’s path forward begins in the shadows of administrative silence
By Editorial Board | 17 hours agoAs it stands, students will be returning to Grounds with no concrete sense of who will be at the helm of this institution and little reason to trust the governing body, which has made no attempt to explain or justify its actions.
GARVIE: U.Va. Health is rapidly falling behind on its responsibility to patients
By Adeline Garvie | 2 days agoWhile gender-affirming care is one of the biggest ways U.Va. Health is falling short, it is not the only one.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
4 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.
