All students are aware of how strongly the University promotes student involvement. At some point during every admissions tour, potential Wahoos hear the spiel about the over 700 Contracted Independent Organizations the University has to offer. Yet, as students explore their interests throughout their time at the University, they will find it requires mental strength and commitment conveniently to even join many of these clubs. For many, the behind-the-scenes club process that they won’t tell you about in a tour is exceedingly draining for already-overworked students and much closer to hazing than the University would like to admit. With increasingly grueling application and interview processes, the University needs to begin recognizing the toll that recruitment for certain CIOs place upon students and enact tangible changes to reduce stress.
Within the University’s diversity of clubs, there tends to be certain student organizations that are more sought after or pre-professionally enticing, leading to a more competitive environment. These competitive clubs, like pre-commerce business fraternities and student self-governance groups, beget competitive processes — including initial applications, multiple stages of interviews and social compatibility outings. With the reputation preceding the clubs, some students are willing to go through an intensive process to become a member.
The Wharton School defined many of these similar, intense processes as hazing at their school, explaining that these sorts of clubs place extreme undue pressure on applicants. Certain activities tied to the recruitment process do not allow students to showcase their skills but instead place physical, emotional, or physiological stress on individuals. Yet our University, when faced with similar clubs, continues to avoid acknowledging the distressing comparability between the Wharton School’s severe processes and ours.
CIOs have been building up this hyper-competitive and stressful environment for years, to the point that Second-Year Council partnered with Student Council to make a survey that addresses these issues. This form includes questions like whether the participant has felt discouragement about joining clubs due to reputation, and whether they feel as though groups are biased and have favoritism or are fair and merit-based. The Second-Year Council should not be alone in interrogating these systems. Rather, the University must earnestly recognize and study the stressors these processes force upon students.
It is important to note that many of these competitive clubs do not intend to haze or punish their recruits — the nature of limited resources or member spots forces high-demand clubs to be selective. However, this does not excuse the extreme amount of pressure placed upon students. Clubs should be able to limit the number of students they accept without dragging candidates through the mud, both in terms of the length and rigorousness of the process. Students who do not make the cut should be able to feel accomplished in the fact that they tried and they gained invaluable experience, not wary of ever attempting an application again.
The University needs to set new guidelines for CIOs to address these concerns before they get even worse. We have seen other schools have similar issues and fix them accordingly. The Wharton School invoked the Stop Campus Hazing Act, which prohibits any activities that cause undue stress on students that could be categorized as hazing. This school has established new standards for their clubs’ recruiting process, including banning multi-stage interviews, and our University needs to follow suit.
Although there may be pushback towards the University taking a stance against the independent operation of these clubs, a line must be drawn with operations that negatively impact the student experience here. The same club processes that an Ivy League school has banned should not be allowed on Grounds. Already, these selection processes impress upon students that club organizations are competitive spaces to advance and get into, not educational or community spaces to grow hobbies and skills within. In order to encourage CIOs to remain spaces for collaboration and pre-professional skill-building, the University must adopt common-sense policies that protect students from undue stress within the CIO application process.
The University and its community is recognized for its notable numbers and competitive climate. However, it is important that our CIOs are not extending beyond being considered accomplished and into a burnout-inducing environment unsafe for its members and hopefuls. For the well-being of our community, the University needs to follow in Wharton’s footsteps and outline protocols that CIOs and other groups are obligated to respect.
Adeline Garvie is an opinion columnist who writes about health, technology and environment for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
TAYLOR: Charlottesville’s asylum seekers are trapped by a DHS legal loophole
By Nat Taylor | 18 hours agoWith more immigrant constitutional rights being under fire from loopholes like automatic stay provisions, communities that take many asylum seekers like Charlottesville suffer.
BROWN AND FORD: U.Va.’s Board of Visitors cannot escape accountability with silence
By Ann Brown and Chris Ford | YesterdayWhile the faculty, alumni, students and multiple university organizations call for accountability and demand the resignation of the Board’s leaders, the remaining members of the Board — 11 persons in all — remain silent, unmoved, perhaps inactive.
KING: The absurdity of Wilkinson’s veto
By Michael King | YesterdayOn search committees such as the one for a provost, it is imperative that all members feel equally qualified to debate the merits of candidates without undue influence, and it was this imperative that Wilkinson deliberately undermined.
