Keeping the Rules Committee Accountable

The Undergraduate Council’s announcement regarding procedural changes in the creation of student organizations is an interesting development, given recent discussions of how student groups impact student life. The decision amended the UC’s Constitution to give its Rules Committee the authority and responsibility to “review and recommend” student organizations, as well as a partnership with the Office of Student Life to determine the criteria for the application vetting process. This is a welcome change, but one that must be exercised with great caution.

Of the 442 recognized independent student organizations, we believe there are many whose admission criteria and active status ought to be more heavily scrutinized. Certain clubs have comp processes that are unreasonably difficult or demanding; others rely heavily on popularity contests and unfair methods that do not serve as adequate markers for admission. Another concern is that many clubs do very little, and “unchecked growth” in the amount of student organizations is actually detrimental to student life. Given financial, space, and student-club relations concerns, the UC must make sure that recognition is granted appropriately.

By giving themselves the responsibility to approve student organizations, the UC Rules Committee has agreed to take a larger role in shaping the way that clubs are organized, created or disbanded on campus. This responsibility is necessary not only when judging when a club is created but in keeping clubs’ actions and comp processes accountable through the UC's recommendations to administrators. The UC stands to fundamentally reshape the club creation process, a potentially beneficial development, but only should this result in greater change and responsibility within student groups.

While we encourage efforts the UC will take in this direction, we caution them from assuming too much authority over which clubs are created or disbanded. This could potentially be abused to prefer certain student groups over others. Given that this has been voiced as a concern already, we would urge the UC to use discretion in setting the scope of their decision-making.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.