To the Editor,
As a proud alumnus of the University, I was intrigued by Adeline Garvie’s column, “Let clubs be about interests, not interviews.” While I understand her frustration with competitive student groups, her idea to ban multi-stage interviews could mix up discomfort with danger. This approach risks blending selectivity with hazing, which is a mistake.
After the Stop Campus Hazing Act, some institutions have started viewing stress as a red flag. Multi-round interviews and selective recruitment are sometimes grouped with abusive initiation rituals, but that’s not accurate. Hazing involves mistreatment; interviews are about maintaining standards.
This difference is crucial. If we start seeing rigorous selection as harmful, we risk lowering standards, leaving students unprepared for the real world, where evaluations and rejections are part of life. The University’s role should be to prepare students for these challenges, not create an environment where any form of selectivity feels uncomfortable.
Additionally, tying hazing allegations to standard recruitment processes can lead to damage without proof. Increased scrutiny can put student organizations under a cloud of suspicion, tarnishing their reputations even before any fault is established. Once damaged, reputations are hard to rebuild, especially when alleged misconduct simply points to being selective.
Over-policing benign practices might push genuinely harmful behaviors underground. Changing rules won’t eliminate bad practices; they’ll just change form and go unnoticed. If everyone is focused on policing harmless recruitment, we take attention away from actual hazing.
This isn’t to say we shouldn’t confront hazing. However, clarity and restraint in defining what truly causes harm are essential. The University should aim to cultivate students ready to meet expectations. When we mistake interviews for cruelty, we move away from promoting excellence.
Clubs should indeed focus on interests. Those interests often thrive on commitment and seriousness. Blurring the lines between seriousness and hazing ultimately doesn’t benefit students or uphold the spirit of laws meant to protect them.
In recent research, over 50% of colleges reported experiencing issues related to hazing. However, only a fraction of these cases involved actual abusive practices. This highlights a growing need for focused definitions and responsible regulations. Conversations around these topics must remain open, allowing clubs to be both inclusive and challenging without descending into harmful territory.
Best,
Scott Gleason
Class of 1972, College of Arts and Sciences
contact
The views expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Cavalier Daily.
