Margarita Blackwood

Yale organizations pride themselves on their merit, exclusivity and community. Yet while all these descriptors hold truth, there is one confounding fact among them: the organizations have constant turnover. Whether it be through annually rotating executive committees or a constant influx of members joining and leaving each semester, high turnover rates plague campus organizations — creating opportunities for more students to participate, but at what cost? 

Why is it that I only remember the names of the upperclassmen in my club by the time they’ve already left? The problem lies in timing. For most students, the application process for extracurriculars and social organizations begins as early as the first day of school, followed by tedious rounds of cuts and selections in the weeks that follow. Soon enough, new members are inducted into their respective organizations. With group purposes ranging from cooking to finance to sports, students join these organizations, thinking, “Okay, these are my people.”

But spring semester arrives and seniors disappear. Application forms reappear and the friends some had thought they found, vanish before them. It takes humans 66 days to form new habits and adapt to new social environments. That is, new club members are only settled into their clubs for two months before dynamics reshift and turn over in the following semester. This overwhelming transition challenges group culture and institutional memory — making inductions and traditions justified not by purpose, but often by the excuse, “Oh, it’s what we did last year.” Is this the new depth of our institutional tradition? 

This is not to say that high rates of turnover should be minimized. At a school with competitive student organizations that pride themselves on exclusivity, Yale students yearn for opportunities to try their luck with admissions. After all, students here quickly learn that their college admission is the first of many competitive selection processes. So for some students, it only feels right that they can apply to the same club multiple times before satisfyingly accepting defeat or redemption.

Perhaps I’m biased, valuing institutional culture and tradition above all else, but the challenge remains inevitable. Although the ever-evolving dynamics of student organizations affect students in different ways, it’s hard to say whether one approach to clubs is better than another. Reducing turnover fosters exclusivity and limits accessibility, while increasing turnover dilutes the sense of intimacy among members. The key, then, is finding a balance between the two — which, surely, us Yale students can do. 

While often, students in leadership roles take the backseat in club initiatives by the time they are seniors, presidents and executives should reconsider their leadership committee procedures. They should refocus them, to not only maintain participation in their club, but to mentor and teach underclassmen on how to lead and foster community.

This is in the hopes that one day, students will continue their silly initiation procedures — not with the one line justification of “Last year’s seniors made us do it” but with a genuine understanding of what their organization is, and what they represent.