Who Are You, VU?

“Those people who would argue that the Commons is intended to somehow or another to eviscerate ‘Old Vanderbilt’ are entirely missing the point,” [Dean of Commons Frank] Wcislo said. “The Commons actually is designed to leverage the very best strengths and traditions of ‘Old Vanderbilt’ and, in fact, intensify and enhance those strengths.”

–InsideVandy interview, November 26, 2006

As the legacy of former Chancellor Gordon Gee, the Commons has probably divided the Vanderbilt community as much as it has united it. By shifting the focus of freshman life away from main campus and onto a geographically distant location on the Peabody campus, the Commons seeks to create a new coherent residential college experience for incoming Vanderbilt students starting, with the class of 2012.

The goal of the Commons is fourfold, according to the official Vanderbilt University Commons website at commons.vanderbilt.edu. To quote the Commons website (emphasis mine): “Four years at Vanderbilt begin with a first-year experience where students can: encounter the scholarly and artistic knowledge found at an internationally distinguished research university; learn to be creators of that knowledge; find a common experience of diversity, one where individuals of diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to explore the differences we all share; shape the skills required of leaders in the diverse, democratic, and global communities of the 21st-century.”

Note the word “an.” I’m certainly not going to advocate that we start referring to ourselves as students of “The” Vanderbilt University, but at the same time, the use of the indefinite article to refer to “an internationally distinguished research university” perhaps reflects a wider crisis of identity as Vanderbilt seeks to improve the quality of its undergraduate experience. I would assert that Vanderbilt’s research and prestige both stand on their own distinct merits; to identify ourselves rather passively by positive association with other such “internationally distinguished research universities” perhaps does Vanderbilt something of a disservice. Vanderbilt seems happy to keep up with the Emories and Rices without advancing its own personal identity.

Of course, one turn of semantics is not the only sign or symptom of this erosion of identity. The architecture of the Commons espouses the sort of anonymous modernism associated with generic college campuses today. As Teresa Cambria lamented in the Hustler back in August of this academic year, “The [Commons Center] structure is impressive, but it lacks the Vanderbilt spirit. The students and buildings on this campus make Vanderbilt stand out. That’s why we love it here. I felt none of myself in that building, and I suddenly felt irrelevant to my own campus.” While it is perhaps difficult to pin down what exactly the Vanderbilt spirit is, it is rather easier to notice how the architecture of the Commons does not fit in with the rest of campus. The style of the Commons is rather antiseptic and lacks the architectural character of its elder brethren, like the Old Gym or Calhoun Hall, for example.

Unfortunately, the undergraduate application process is starting to mirror this trend first evinced in architecture. Notably, the “Why Vanderbilt?” essay question was removed for this year’s applicants. In an email interview, Director of Admissions John O. Gaines stated, “As an office, it was generally agreed that the ‘Why Vanderbilt?’ essay rarely contributed substantively to the overall evaluation of the applicant’s file.  In many cases, the ‘Why Vanderbilt?’ essay read like a rehash of our recruitment brochures.  In others, the question answered seemed not to be ‘Why Vanderbilt?’, but rather ‘Why college in general?’, or even ‘Why Medical School?’  or ‘Why Law School?.’”

The evidence that went into making the decision to eliminate the question outright perhaps reflects as much on the applicant pool as much as it does on Vanderbilt. The quality of the Vanderbilt undergraduate experience is enough to attract the notice of any applicant, and the completion of the Commons will undoubtedly make Vanderbilt even more appealing. But at the same time, Vanderbilt must preserve its identity by demanding similar quality from its prospective students. Vanderbilt should demand students who will bleed black and gold, who will lend loud vocal support to our athletes, who will contribute to the scholastic and artistic life of the university, who will bond with their fellow students, and who will make Vanderbilt, Nashville, and the world a better and more interesting place.

It is certainly possible that the Commons will be a nucleus for the revival of Vanderbilt’s unique identity, and I hope that is the case. But if no such renaissance occurs, Vanderbilt could become just another “internationally distinguished research university.” And while that prediction perhaps does not sound particularly dire, once gone, Vanderbilt’s character would be next to impossible to replace.