“No new clubs” rule buries inactive club culture

Illustration by Lucas Lim and Taryn Schilz

It’s the first day of Club Fair. As you walk past the multiple stalls, a student shoves a cardboard photo frame in front of you, pitching themselves as a “nonprofit organization.” I take a photo, blindly fill out the interest form and get a candy. A few steps later, another student approaches, waving a QR code flyer and advertising themselves as a “community service group.” I don’t know who they’re serving, but it’s sure not me. The more clubs I visit, the more they all start to look the exact same.

Over the years at Walnut, there has been a pressing issue over the creation of clubs. Clubs created now are essentially just another version of an existing club, rebranded under a different name. This year, however, the Associated Student Body (ASB) established a new policy: no new clubs.

As someone who has advocated for restrictions and stricter guidelines for new and existing clubs, this is encouraging news. Too often, clubs with meaningful missions like supporting those in need or contributing to our community are created but then left inactive. The goals are honorable, but when a club does not follow through, its potential impact is lost.

Compared to the previous year, when there were over 100 clubs, this year, the tentative number is 75. That means over the course of one semester, 25 clubs were deactivated. The numbers prove that dead clubs are a legitimate problem on campus. Not only is it harder for ASB to manage such a large number of clubs, but teachers too are stretched thin with multiple responsibilities as advisers. Fortunately, ASB is implementing monthly Interclub Council meetings to track club events and member participation, as compared to the bi-semester meetings  that happened  last year.

If you think being a club president of a dead club will help you stand out to the top universities, forget it. A club is only a pretty name if it has no impact on students or the community. Here’s the thing: no one is going to admit they did nothing. Instead, on their activities list, they’re going to say something vague along the lines of, “I was the president of a club that supported community initiatives through service” or “I helped increase membership and participation through outreach initiatives.” Actions amounting to nothing wrapped in a gift package of fancy words accurately sums up this trend.

Even hobby-driven clubs are better. People gather together to play music, games and share their passion over a common topic. Not every club has to be a nonprofit; what matters is that they are active, hosting events and giving members opportunities to connect.

While I’m sure the restriction may upset some students and possibly prevent the creation of unique clubs, it is a necessary action to curb duplicate clubs. Perhaps once inactive clubs are removed, ASB can resume new club applications with renewed stricter guidelines.

I am not against creating clubs or the missions each club strives to accomplish. But consider this when you fill out that club application form: Does what I’m doing already exist on campus? Can I differentiate my club amongst the other 75 clubs? What impact can I make on my community? If your only answer is “well, it’ll look good on my college apps,” then sorry–clubs aren’t just free resume padding anymore.