Keep the Outdoors open

We are disappointed to learn that the University has decided to shut down the Outdoors Club (JHOC) without giving the decades-old student organization a chance to defend itself. The University, of course, is warranted in its efforts to ensure the safety of the students, but it seems distinctly unfair to disband a student group on the grounds of excessive risk when the University has not informed the club of any incidents or complaints lodged.

Why would the University allow JHOC to correct this problem in 2002 and not 2006? What regulations could possibly have changed in the course of the last few years? The real reason behind the forced dissolution of JHOC appears to be the University's desire for a monopoly on sponsoring wilderness trips through the Outdoor Pursuits program. Outdoor Pursuits' trips are inexpensive, but they attract students to outdoor leadership training, which, through the University, is far from cheap. With JHOC providing free excursions, who would sign up with Outdoor Pursuits, and how would the University justify its high-cost certification program?

JHOC is a storied student organization with committed members and a substantial history. If the University is concerned about safety on its outings it should hire experienced, certified trip-leaders to assist those already involved with the Club while allowing its officers to continue in their executive capacities. And, if Zook-Friesen, the director of the Experiential Learning program, cannot abide taking responsibility for JHOC, then perhaps the University should find someone who will or at least clarify the oversight situation.

What concerns us most is the negative precedent this move might set. If the University can shut down one group without providing adequate explanation, what is to prevent it from doing so?

What is more, this situation seems like one ripe for compromise. There is no reason Outdoor Pursuits and JHOC cannot coexist. And if the University does intend to negotiate, it should nonetheless be ashamed of its tactics. Bullying a student group by forcing it to disband and then benevolently resurrecting it seems a particularly sneaky and pernicious way to treat students. Regardless of the outcome of this controversy, the situation itself should give student groups reason to be wary of the administration. We'd like to think they're on our side, but sometimes, the facts suggest otherwise.