What should USC prioritize, inclusion or status?
When you take a walk at USC Village, you’ll immediately see an assortment of boutiques, restaurants, salons and shops. You’ll see students lined up waiting to get CAVA — a fan favorite — and doing their weekly grocery run. Just this past year, USC Village revamped a few stores and decided to include Lululemon, an exciting addition. Although, this might not be as exciting as it sounds.
USC’s beloved nickname — “The University of Spoiled Children” — reflects a truth that runs deeply while simultaneously ignoring the realities of so many. When it comes to the demographics of USC students, financial circumstances vary, but seems the school doesn’t always recognize this.
Despite USC’s expenses, its financial aid opportunities and world-renowned education draw students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, creating a unique dynamic of split experiences.
Although wealth isn’t a necessity to fit in at USC, it certainly bolsters a student’s experiences and self-confidence with the fashion on campus making this quite visible. It takes one walk through campus to see what’s in style, and it usually isn’t cheap. From athleisure brands, such as Madhappy, Lululemon and Alo, to shoes like Golden Gooses and Jordans, designer brands and famous names tend to dominate USC trends.
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with supporting or wearing these brands; however, what is most interesting is the way the University itself has chosen to play into the expensive aesthetic of its students. USC Village was built in 2017 to house USC students while providing restaurants and amenities to students and the neighboring community. Just this past year, USC Village added a Lululemon store, one of the few places to buy clothing in the USC Village.
One pair of pants at Lululemon cost nearly $100. For a student working 15 hours a week for a total of $15 an hour, this would cost nearly half of their weekly income.
The issues begin when we take a step back to examine the demographics of students who lack the ability to afford a USC lifestyle.
The issue is not the Lululemon itself but rather the message sent to students who do not have the disposable income to spend on expensive brand-name clothing often sported by wealthy students. For a student struggling to afford meals and pay student loans, there is already enough financial pressure alone.
The issue doesn’t stop at fashion. The lifestyle at USC is not cheap. But clothing can be the most personal and intimate form of self-expression when students go to class and feel they are judged for what they wear or don’t have the resources to compete with wealthy students.
By putting a Lululemon as one of the sole clothing retailers in the USC Village, USC shares its support for a wealthy aesthetic and tendency to prefer the students who provide the most profit. USC is already an academically, socially and financially competitive university, making feelings of isolation more than common for students. There needs to be a stronger emphasis on student well-being and inclusivity in an area built to support USC students and the South Central community, whether it be a clothing donation center or affordable clothing. Rather than tone-deaf choices, USC Village should serve the entire student body and surrounding community.
The University needs to embrace socioeconomic diversity when they send messages to the students they are supposed to support. Whether it be an assortment of options, better-paying work-study or an effort to reduce living costs for those who can not afford the school, it is important the University be a welcoming place for those of all socioeconomic statuses. A student who needs to provide for themself is already facing an intensified level of hardship and every message, no matter how discreet, matters.