The demographics of the Lawn Selection Committee have faced some scrutiny in the past, and Monday's Focus story ("The greenness of the Lawn") features the complaints of several former Lawn residents looking to change this process. Although there is no panacea that can quell every complaint, the Lawn Selection Process Organizing Committee - the only group that can make permanent changes to the process - ought to re-evaluate what each of the appointed members of the LSC brings to the process.
The LSC is comprised of 35 fourth-year students, 15 of whom are randomly chosen students who submit their names for drawing by the LSPOC. The other 20 members are fourth-year student leaders of high-profile organizations, such as Student Council and the Honor and University Judiciary Committees. Among these leaders are the fourth-year presidents of the various schools at the University, such as the Nursing, Commerce and Engineering Schools. Although it makes sense to include Council and undergraduate school presidents - who are elected by their peers to represent their interests - spots for other leaders should be reviewed. The Honor Committee and UJC play a prominent role at the University and in student self-governance, but their elected members serve as part of a judiciary, not as general representatives of the student body.
Some students have voiced objections to the underrepresentation of the Greek community on the LSC - even though there are four seats for official Greek representatives. The presidents of the Inter-Fraternity, Inter-Sorority, National Pan-Hellenic and Multicultural Greek Councils all serve on the LSC and represent a fifth of the appointed seats. Additionally, a significant number of other LSC members are Greek, which does not reflect the proportion of students involved in Greek life at the University. Last year's Council president and Honor Committee chair, for example, were both fraternity members and served on the LSC. It can be difficult to avoid this scenario because a large proportion of student leaders participate in Greek life, but it nevertheless presents an interesting challenge for the committee to ensure fair representation of the University community.
The pros and cons of having either an entirely randomized LSC or one comprised of only student leaders are apparent. An LSC consisting entirely of random fourth-year students may mean some members are apathetic and not interested in putting in the long hours needed to review applications. But it would in theory diversify the pool of members and ensure a number of different perspectives are represented. A committee entirely comprised of student leaders, however, sends the wrong message by implying that traditionally influential student groups ought to have the most say.
Representation of minority groups also is somewhat skewed. For example, the Office of the African-American Affairs dean sits on LSPOC, but there are no additional administrators that represent other ethnic groups. This fact may in part be because there are only program coordinators - not deans - for Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Muslim, and Middle Eastern Student Services or the Asian/Asian Pacific American Student Services offices at the University. Regardless, it seems to send an odd message that only one minority group has official administrative representation on LSPOC.
The LSPOC is correct to create a mix of random yet self-selecting fourth-year students and student leaders to serve on the LSC. Nevertheless, the composition of student leaders chosen makes a significant difference in how students perceive the legitimacy of the committee and the Lawn selection process.\n\nThis is a two-part editorial that will continue tomorrow by addressing the transparency of the process for endowed rooms.
Read More
GERBER: Gaslighting for DEI — community DEI proponents must stop ignoring the law
By Scott Douglas Gerber | 2 days agoAdditionally, the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of DEI should stop pretending they are complying with the law.
SHRAUGER: Protect City Council funding for Central Virginia Violence Interrupters
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoEntrusting people with a criminal background to facilitate nonviolent intervention and providing in-depth training in crime prevention is possibly the best alternative to police funding or further, more costly initiatives.
WASSERMAN: The Cavalier Daily got it wrong on UVa.’s discrimination cases
By Barbara Wasserman | 4 days agoThat framing is not just misleading — it obscures the real failures of University leadership and the courage of the students who stood up to them.
