Charlottesville City Council held a public hearing Monday night on a proposed pedestrian bridge over Emmet Street near Massie Road.

The bridge, which also would include 2,000 feet of paved walkway and 350 feet of elevated walkway, would connect Lambeth Commons to the area near University Hall.

University Architect Pete Anderson, who called the current situation that requires students who park at University Hall to find other transportation to Central Grounds “a nightmare,” said there is a possibility the bridge could be completed before next school year.

Part of an ongoing project known as “Groundswalk,” the bridge is “a major element” in linking together North and Central Grounds, Anderson said.

Although ideas for a pedestrian bridge were first discussed during a master planning session several years ago, the proposal finally gained momentum after a $1 million federal grant was secured.

The University will fund the remainder of the bridge’s total $3.2 million cost.

“Without the $1 million, I think we’d still just be talking about it,” said Anderson, who described the budget constraints as “extremely tight.”

The plan, which the Board of Visitors approved last October, awaits approval of air rights, from the City Council.

Although the bridge’s base will rest on University property, the walkway will cross over city property, thus requiring final approval from the city.

“This thing is going to be the gateway to the University,” said Charlottesville City Council member Kevin Lynch, who will join fellow members in a vote on the resolution Oct. 7.

“I think [the University] got squeezed for funding and had to make some tradeoffs. I’d like to see the administration put more resources into this,” said Lynch, who raised concerns over the bridge’s appearance.

“The most challenging aspect of the design is how to keep it from looking like you are driving through a box,” he added.

Fellow City Council member Rob Schilling was less critical of the design yet described the bridge as having a “stripped-down” look.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Schilling said. “But there’s really no room for design changes because of time restraints.”

Like Lynch, Schilling thinks the University may have “wanted to do something more grandiose” if not for budget pressures.

“Some people really liked it and some thought it was really plain,” Anderson said. “But anything more than this would push it over the budget.”

Blueprints for the bridge depict it crossing the street diagonally, a provision that initially sparked controversy among BOV members who preferred a perpendicular design.

According to Anderson, the University would be forced to purchase Panda Garden restaurant near the athletic fields if the bridge ran straight across.

Both Schilling and Lynch agree the five-member City Council most likely will pass the resolution.

Construction bids for the Emmet Street bridge will be sent out Sept. 29, and work is slated to begin this fall and will last for approximately 11 months.

Chesterfield challenges racist meeting

Chesterfield County Supervisors Edward B. Barber and Jack McHale asked that an “educational meeting” of The World Church of the Creator, a white supremacist group, be cancelled.
The meeting is scheduled for Saturday at 5 p.m. at the Chester Library.

The Illinois-based World Church of the Creator made news in 1999 following a Skokie, Ill., shooting spree in which one of its members, Benjamin Smith, killed Indiana University doctoral student Won Joon Yoon and former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, who was with his children.

Barber asked County Administrator Lane B. Ramsey in an e-mail to place the issue on today’s board meeting agenda.

The group met all the necessary requirements to use the library space because it was nonprofit, free and open to the public.
McHale said he would hold another community meeting elsewhere at the same time if efforts to bar the group failed.

Professor sues McDonalds over obesity

George Washington University Law Prof. John Banzhaf filed suit Aug. 22 in the New York State Supreme Court against McDonalds saying the restaurant does not make clear the risks associated with eating their food.

Banzhaf filed the complaint on behalf of two overweight eight-year old girls.

He said the girls were drawn to McDonalds because of its playground and toys.

He also said they ate the junk food in order to fit in socially.

He added that the eight-year olds were not responsible for obesity because they could not make health-related decisions for themselves.
He called for clear and conspicuous labels on fast food indicating fat and calorie content.

Banzhaf and his class assisted in another lawsuit against McDonalds two years ago when a student noticed that their fries, marked vegetarian, were cooked in beef fat. Of the $12.5 million settlement, $10 million went to vegan and religious groups and the rest paid for lawyers’ fees.

–compiled by Ben Sellers

A local attorney has asked the city of Charlottesville to sue the University to stop construction of a parking garage near the intersection of Ivy Road and Emmet Street.

Attorney David Franzen said his clients, about a dozen local residents, want to stop construction of the garage, which would be built on the University’s property behind the Cavalier Inn on Emmet Street, until an upcoming study of the garage’s traffic impact is completed.

The University has said construction may start as early as Oct. 1.

City Attorney Craig Brown said he probably will respond to Franzen’s request this week.

In a letter he delivered to Mayor Maurice Cox on Monday, Franzen alleges that in planning the garage the University has violated the Three-Party Agreement, a 1986 agreement between the University, Charlottesville and Albemarle County in which the University promised to work with the city and county in planning major construction projects.

As a state agency, the University is not otherwise subject to local land-use regulations.In a controversial decision earlier this month, Virginia Secretary of Administration Sandra Bowen allowed the University to proceed with construction pending results of the traffic study. Bowen did require, however, that the University adopt any design-change recommendations of the study.

Franzen said he believes the University violated three clauses of the Three-Party Agreement.

The University is required to inform the city and county of its major construction plans and “make every effort to comply with reasonable recommendations” from the city or county, Franzen said.

However, “we believe the University has not consulted adequately with the city” in planning the garage, Franzen said.

The Three-Party Agreement also states that the University will submit disputes over the interpretation of the document to non-binding, third-party arbitration. The University refused a city request for arbitration in May.

Franzen believes the University also violated the Three-Party Agreement by transferring the property in question from the University Real Estate Foundation to itself for the purpose of avoiding city and county land-use regulations.

Foundation property is subject to city and county regulations but University property is not.

“We do believe we have followed all local and state regulations,” University Spokeswoman Louise Dudley said, declining to comment more specifically on the case.

University President John T. Casteen III responded to the request for arbitration in a June letter to then-Mayor Blake Caravati.

The city had asked for arbitration on whether the University made “reasonable efforts” to comply with the city’s recommendations regarding development of the garage.

Charlottesville did not object soon enough to the garage, Casteen wrote to Caravati. The University first informed the city of plans for the garage in February 2001, and consulted with the city “continually” after that date on plans, Casteen said.

But the city did not present objections to the plans until April 2002, Casteen said. By that time, the University had hired a contractor to do the job.

The city also sought arbitration on if the University accepted the transfer of property from the Real Estate Foundation improperly.

The transfer of property from the Real Estate Foundation was not illegal because the property was not an “investment property,” Casteen said, meaning the University did not intend to make money off the property but rather to use it for educational purposes.

The city also wanted an arbitrator to decide whether the University is obligated to involve city representatives in site selection studies of major University facilities.

The University was not required to consult with Charlottesville on site selection of the garage because the garage isn’t a “major facility,” as the term has been used in the past, Casteen said.

Franzen, Brown and Dudley all said they could not remember a case of the city suing the University in the past.

“The city and the University have had disagreements [over the Three-Party Agreement], but to my knowledge nobody has ever suggested arbitration or lawsuits,” Franzen said.

The 1,200-car garage has been the subject of controversy since last spring, when the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Association voiced opposition to it on the grounds that it would cause traffic problems and pose an eyesore. The city asked the University to scale down the project soon after.

Franzen would not give the names of his clients, but said several were residents of the Lewis Mountain neighborhood.

In his letter to Caravati, Casteen pointed out controversy also surrounded past University construction projects.

For instance, the Newcomb Hall parking garage was described as a potential “architectural monstrosity and a traffic hazard,” Casteen said. But the University modified design plans and the garage now is considered “an example of good development,” he said.

If you’ve spent anytime in a first year hall or suite bathroom recently, you may have noticed the helpful hints and thrilling reading known as the “Stall Seat Journal.” If you’re particularly lucky, you may also have received a rape whistle courtesy of the Parents Program. Both initiatives were designed to help keep you safe, either from the evils of alcohol or from sexual predators lurking in the shadows. Neither option, however, addresses a very real danger faced by a large number of undergraduates: sexual attacks perpetrated by a stranger and often involving alcohol.

One Canadian university has hit upon that more helpful freshman giveaway, and 40 American universities are following suit. The freebie? A coaster that detects odorless, colorless, tasteless and otherwise undetectable date rape drugs, even in the presence of alcohol.

The handy invention is the brainchild of an entrepreneur whose friend was a victim of an attack involving the date rape. Their company, Drink Safe Technologies, developed a series of products which incorporate an easy chemical test. All it takes is a few drops of a drink, alcoholic or not, placed on the coaster’s test patch. If GHB, Rohipnol or a drug known as “Special K” are present, the patch turns blue; if not, bottoms up.

Well, sort of. There is a risk with any attack prevention measure — rape whistles, pepper spray, drug-detecting coasters — that they provide a false sense of security. There is no way that the coasters can detect any possible drug, and taking a drink from someone unknown is never a good idea. The coasters, however, do provide a useful service.

As with abstinence-only sex education, a little dose of reality can go a long way toward providing safer, albeit not guaranteed, protection. The “Stall Seat Journal” informs you that few of your peers are drinking frequently, but that’s hard to keep in mind at parties or bars when it seems everyone is intoxicated. And rape whistles are all well and good, except that they require that you have them readily available and that there are other people around who will care to respond.

The reality is that although not all college students drink — or drink excessively — many do choose to drink, and many do so despite being underage, and despite warnings against indulgence. The even more sobering reality is that date rape is not uncommon. According to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, 68 percent of rape victims knew their assailant (http://www.rainn.org/stats.html). A study supported by the Task Force on College Drinking found that alcohol contributes annually to 70,000 sexual assaults and 400,000 incidents of unprotected sex.

Adding date rape drugs to the mix makes it even easier for victims to be caught off-guard. Any of the most common date rape drugs induces a coma-like state where the victim is incapable of resisting, or even of saying “no.” The drug also makes it easier for men to become victims, as the drug negates any physical advantage they may have over their attacker.

Encouraging students, particularly underage students, not to drink by sending the message that most college students do not drink in excess is important, but it is just as important to recognize that a significant number of college students do drink. Also significant is recognizing that sexual attacks are just as likely to occur in a social setting as they are in a dark alley, if not more so.

Coasters that test for date rape drugs would be a big step toward recognizing the realities, and the dangers, of the college social scene. In addition to providing an easy way to test for the most common drugs, they also would help to educate new students in particular about the dangers of alcohol and date rape. For only 40 cents apiece, the coasters would go further toward preventing the 68 percent chance of rape by a familiar person, or the 400,000 incidents of unprotected, drunken sex, than a rape whistle ever could.

(Megan Moyer’s column appears Wednesdays in

The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at

mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)

The Idealistic ignorance of the liberal ideology has never been more offensive to me than it was on the eve of the anniversary of September 11. It was on this date that I found myself in attendance at a University “teach-in” hosted by Student Council that was purported to have been a discussion of the terrorist attacks last fall.

I attended the event operating under the assumption that it, like the others scheduled for the days surrounding the anniversary, would be to some degree a session of reflection, continued healing and an analysis of the progress of the nation’s continued perseverancein the face of adversity. My presence at the teach-in was simply an affirmation of my sensitivity to and support for America and her endeavors to secure freedom in the upcoming year. One can only imagine the remorse which would replace my enthusiasm for the program when I was to discover the radically left-wing political nature of the event, a reality which would provide for what I found an offensive display of counter-patriotic fervor on the behalf of the speakers.

Instantly caught off-guard by the radically activist nature of the professors’ speeches, I felt that both my ideology and my patriotic zeal were under a sort of verbal assault by many of the words which dripped so contemptuously from thespeakers’ mouths. Characterized by a truly sarcastic critique of American foreign policy in the hands of the Bush administration, the “teaching” that was done was little more than a declaration by elements of the extreme left wing of their ideological disdain for the harsh reality of the need for realism in American foreign policy.

Many of the orators argued that America was largely to blame for its standing in the Middle East (which therefore lended itself to the inference that America was partially to blame for September 11), as it has supported a great many corrupt and evil autocratic regimes in the region for decades. No matter that there are plenty of other instances in our nation’s history in which her statesmen have been willing to cooperate with totalitarianism in order to respond to a higher calling (i.e. an alliance with Stalin and Mao Zedong to fight the Nazis).

These educators would have us believe America’s artful use of power politics, specifically in the Middle East, which played a major role in vanquishing the evils of the Soviet empire, was in fact so great a vice that America ought to hang its head in shame and surrender with apology to those forces of Middle Eastern culture which helped to breed al Qaeda. After all, what were we thinking when we built our Twin Towers in the way of their hijacked airplanes, or unfairly taunted them with the menacing specter of the Pentagon? One could almost be lead to conclude that these ideologues would assert America had this coming!

Disappointingly little was uttered the entire evening in support of American efforts in Afghanistan, in dismantling al Qaeda, or even for the nation’s ability to preserve itself in the face of epic devastation. Obviously these subscribers to the school of one-world order have been little impressed by the newfound resolve and passions discovered to be present in the American spirit, and have instead been alarmed by our nation’s harsh treatment of the poor, misunderstood vermin that crawl around in their underground bunkers and plot the demise of the free world.

In concluding their political diatribe, the speakers at the “teach-in” responded to questions from the audience. I was further disgusted by the nature of the gathering when the Student Council member who had hosted the event, Daniel Haspel, came forth with a question of his own. He requested that the members of the panel inform the audience as to how they might help combat the Bush administration’s efforts to raise support for a possible war with Iraq.

The Council member’s query, the seeming culmination of this left-wing love fest, lends itself to question the objectivity of the event. One may conclude that this program, operating under the guise of a warm-hearted discussion of the events after September 11, was tainted in that it could be construed as a mere form of liberal propaganda orchestrated by certain radical left-leaning elements serving within the student government. I was dismayed that not a single contradictory point of view was provided in the form of a lecture, and further astounded by the unabashed support for the professors’ liberal agenda that the representative from student government had shown.

Clearly there exists a scarcity of tact with anyone who would be so insensitive to the painful memory of the terrorist attacks as to exploit its anniversary for political gain.

No one is arguing that anyone who participated in the “teach-in” ought to be censored or silenced for their opinion or even for their public declaration of it, for they are constitutionally entitled to these things by the very government they malign so greatly. Simply, I would argue that it is the obligation of students to take the time to evaluate the character of those they support in so powerful a position, and to demand a certain degree of balance and sensitivity in their leadership.

(Josh Hess is a first-year College student.)

Cavalier Computers, the University-affiliated computer store, presumably likes customers. Tragically, only one model of laptop is offered for law students. To increase its customer base and to give unwitting law students entering the laptop market a choice, the store should offer other models.

Almost all University law students purchase a laptop upon enrolling. The school requires the diminutive computers so that students may type out their final exam answers. Most students use them to type their class notes.

Students entering law school make a choice. They must put forward around $2,000 of their own money or must convince a neighborly lending institution to do the same. As most folks enter the market with limited understanding of what constitutes a “good” computer, they might be inclined to look at the Law School’s Web site.

To its credit, the Web site clearly states that the school “does not endorse one manufacturer’s products over another.” It does, however, contain one link to a computer dealer: Cavalier Computers.

That, on its own, is not that big of a deal. Cavalier Computers is, at least indirectly, affiliated with the University. The problem lies in what Cavalier Computers offers. The Law School site links to the “Law School Bundles” that “meet the Law School’s computer specifications.” That link gives a student three choices. All three choices are Dell laptops. Here lies the problem.

What follows is my personal experience with Dell. Having spoken with numerous other law students, I can confirm that these problems are not unique.

The problems with my Inspiron 5000 began with my monitor. It stopped functioning in October of my first year. After convincing a technical support worker that the computer was plugged into the wall and the darkness I was seeing did not suggest a larger retinal problem, Dell replaced the monitor. One year later, the monitor again stopped working. Again, it was replaced.

Two days prior to classes starting this year, the rest of the computer elected not to start. After two 45 minute conversations with technical support, they agreed to send me a new hard drive. Interestingly, they demanded that I return the hard drive that I was prepared to discard. Upon looking on the outside of the label of the hard drive they shipped me, I realized what was happening.

I had received a “refurbished” hard drive. That is, another individual, in a similarly desperate situation, had mailed back his or her defective hard drive. After laying hands on the thing, Dell either shipped that formerly fallen hardware to me or purchased a similarly-reconstructed hard drive from another manufacturer. Despite the reborn hard drive, my computer continued not to work. After talking with two other technical support agents, Dell agreed to ship me an entirely “new” computer. Given that my prior computer had the lifespan of a carnival goldfish, my expectations were quite low. The newer computer has failed to meet them.

The replacement — an Inspiron 8000 — appears to work. Unfortunately, there is a graphic problem that prevents the desktop from appearing on the screen. Important things, like the “start” menu, are off the screen entirely. After three more tech support conversations, Dell agreed that the video card — the video card on my replacement computer — must be defective. I have a new computer, but the problems are the same.

I am now in my fifth week at school. During this time, I have taken notes by hand, borrowed a laptop from a generous classmate, and contemplated how large a class action Marks and Harrison could put together. I have also wondered why I wasn’t attracted to the talking cow instead of the Dell surfer spokesman.

Essentially, Dell has manufactured a subpar product. It has replaced its defective, subpar parts with refurbished, previously-defective, subpar parts. The Dell Service Contract states, quite clearly, that “Dell uses new and reconditioned parts made by various manufacturers in performing warranty repairs.” I have never had a part shipped to me that was not reconditioned. As the video card on my replacement computer doesn’t work, it appears that the replacements themselves do not necessarily work.

The tech support people have generally been polite and have tried very hard. Unfortunately, their approach is not to solve problems like providing an overall working computer. Their task is to fix each problem, one component at a time. This approach has flaws, as far as taking time away from the customers is concerned.

My woeful tale is a plea for the Law School and Cavalier Computers to list other manufacturers and other offers.

Of course, people have the freedom to make choices on their own. Presumably, law students have enough acumen to look at choices other than those offered at one store. Dell’s laptops, however, are hideously inadequate to deserve exclusive billing from a University-affiliated store. Cavalier Computers would increase the possibility of having happy (and repeat) customers by offering some other brands.

(Seth Wood’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)

I am in the debt of the state of Virginia. This past Saturday morning, at 8:30 a.m., I had the exhilarating opportunity to attend a driver improvement clinic in a luxurious conference room of the Holiday Inn on Route 29. To be fair, I must admit that at first I didn’t see it as an opportunity, per se. I foolishly thought of it more as an act of compliance with a threat of violence made against me by the Department of Motor Vehicles. “Take this class or we, the government by the people and for the people, may very well physically arrest you and incarcerate you next time you try to drive your car down the street,” was the message I got at first. But after eight hours of sitting in a rigid chair listening to a man tell me not to drive too fast, I now realize I was wrong. The bureaucracy of the DMV actually did know what was best for me!

My first lesson came almost immediately upon my arrival at the clinic. “The law is stupid, class,” our instructor told us as we blinked the sleep out of our eyes, “but it’s the law.” I instantly took the lesson to heart: It does not behoove one to ask why he is following a certain law. It doesn’t matter whether the law actually benefits the citizens who live under it; what’s important is that if you don’t follow it, the government will punish you swiftly and without hesitation.

I now see that a theory like this works out well both for me and for legislators. I can stop bothering myself with all the questions that come to mind and the resentment I usually feel when people tell me what to do, and the lawmakers lose all the stress that comes from worrying about what types of laws they should make. Whatever statutes they decide to enact, no matter how stupid, will still be the law. It’s a beautiful system.

It really is a good thing I understood this new way of thinking so early on, too, or I might have had problems with the clinic all day long.

I might have been wary in the past when the clinic instructor put on a road rage video that included cameos from George Bush the elder and Jerry Seinfeld. I might have put my guard up when the video narrator told me that I had to replace my old beliefs about driving with new ones, and that the key to safe driving was to remember a simple slogan: Instead of trying to make good time, make time good! A helpful exercise, the narrator continued, would be to make flash cards with old driving attitudes on the back, and new ones on the front. Now why didn’t I think of that?

If some of the methods of driver improvement the clinic employed sound a little less than effective, rest assured that all of us in attendance had to pass a test at the end of the day to ensure that we had all become safe drivers. The instruction had been so effective that even the guy who didn’t understand English and had spent the day sitting wide-eyed in the back of the room passed the test. Never mind that everyone graded his or her own exam. The Holiday Inn was close enough to Grounds that it basked safely in the warm reflected glow of the University’s honor system. And besides, what possible motivation could there be for someone to cheat in order to prevent having his license revoked? Oops, sorry. That was a question.

Words can’t express how much my new “question nothing” credo has helped me in life. Before, it used to irk me that I was sentenced to driver improvement school for my first speeding ticket, before which I had never been involved in an accident or cited for any traffic violation. It would have bothered me in the past that none of the information presented to me on Saturday even remotely helped me improve my driving, and that too few people know about court-imposed driving school for the impositions to act as deterrents against speedy driving.

But I have been enlightened, and now I understand. The law is stupid, wahoos, but it’s the law. No questions, please.

(Anthony Dick is a Cavalier Daily associate editor.He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)

The October 19 open honor trial of Adam Boyd is the first in two years, and is considered a rarity for the honor system. Honor trials generally are held privately and discreetly. The open trial, however, gives students an inside look into the workings of the system, and by theory, if a student is innocent they should have nothing to hide. The Honor Committee should do more to encourage open honor trials, and hopefully these will become more common.

On Feb. 23, 2001, the Committee released the results of a poll, that, while unscientific, was designed in such a way to be statistically representative of the student body. This poll showed that students are losing faith in the honor system. Over a quarter of the students surveyed felt negatively about the honor system, and over half believed that the honor code offers few benefits. In addition, proposals concerning revamping the single sanction and last year’s Bloomfield scandal have brought into question the moral grounds of honor at the University.

Open honor trials could strengthen honor’s fragile state. Students attending an open trial are able to see how the normally mysterious honor system truly works. This not only restores faith in the system, but also gives students the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the approach currently being used is effective, and whether the verdicts are fair or not. After all, the honor system is supposed to be an integral part of every student’s experience at the University, and it is only fitting that students should be allowed to see what exactly is going on.

An open trial can do much for an accused party at the University. In theory, if a student is going to trial, it is because he believes himself to be innocent of the honor crimes of which he has been accused. If he truly is innocent of the alleged honor violation, he has nothing to fear from a jury of his peers or from the exhibition of his trial to everyone and anyone that can get a seat. On the contrary, an open trial should in most cases be seen as a benefit because the accused has the opportunity to ultimately and publicly clear any doubt associated with their alleged guilt. With the closed trial system, there is the potential for rumors to surface concerning a student that may be on trial. A public trial would make known all the facts involved.

There are some drawbacks to the open trial. To begin with, a student that undergoes an honor trial could be concerned that knowledge of the charges against him might permanently tarnish his reputation.

An open trial also puts a great deal of pressure on student jurors. Their participation in an honor trial is done as a favor to the honor system, as they have to take time out of their own schedules to uphold the standards of the honor system. In an open trial, they would have to deal with even more stress as they would be placed in the public eye, their decisions possibly subject to scrutiny by any member of the University.

According to Committee Chairman Christopher Smith, a student is offered the choice between having a private or public honor trial when filling out a trial request form. The Committee sees no difference between the two trial styles.

Yet, in a phone interview with Adam Boyd, the student whose public trial is slated for Oct. 19, he claimed that his suggestion for a public trial was met with apprehension from his honor advisor and others within the system. He says he was repeatedly asked whether he was sure he wanted to go through with the proceeding, ultimately contacting Smith to articulate his serious desire to carry through with an open trial and his knowledge of the implications involved.

Perhaps the Committee is hesitant to endorse public trials because of the media scrutiny directed both at the honor system and the jurors in the case.

Still, honor educators and advisors should be more supportive of the open honor trial option, emphasizing student awareness of the existence of the public trial and its benefits.

Even though there are shortcomings generated by open honor trials, the positive aspects involved outweigh the negative. This arrangement clearly tests the honor system to its limit under the public eye, and, through that exercise, makes the honor system grow stronger. Although there should never be a decision that makes open trials mandatory, the Committee should encourage accused honor violators to file for an open trial to publicly prove their innocence.

(Alex Rosemblat’s column appears

Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.

He can be reached at

arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)

Q: What makes you a regular at Clark?

A: I usually get my work done here a lot better than I do at Clemons, but not now because it’s so noisy with the construction. But in some ways, it’s still better than Clemons because

everyone I know goes there so I just end up

socializing.

Q:Does the construction keep you from getting your work done here?

A: It’s kind of annoying when you try to get your reading done. I’m an Econ major right now, but I may be switching to Bio-Chem. So I do a lot of my research in Clark because all the science journals are here.

Q: Are you aware that this used to be the law library?

A: No, I wasn’t aware of that but it makes sense. You can’t find some normal aspects of a science library in here — there are no labs or equipment you could use, just lots of journals.

Q:What do you think of the nude murals on the walls in the entry hall?

A: They’re definitely interesting — they give the building character. If I was visiting the University, I would wonder what the point of classical naked paintings would be since this is a science library.

Compiled by Lytle Wurtzel

Starbucks turned me down, thereby dissolving my grandiose plan of spending my weekday 9-5 slots doling out frappuccinos and iced lattes to the Northern Virginia elite.

Unable to fulfill my retail aspirations, I struggled to find a job in the right field with adequate pay and relatively interesting work. The truth was I didn’t want to spend a summer catering to the caffeine cravings of obsessive-compulsive joggers. But I also didn’t want a D.C. internship where I’d be pushing paper and answering phones for slave wages.

That’s when I decided to do something radical — to follow my gut and pursue a summer devoid of extraneous paperwork and corporate serfdom.

I always have been passionately committed to human rights, but terminally frustrated by the daily barrage of headlines and news stories detailing the gross abuses of fundamental human rights throughout the world. This time, instead of flipping the page or turning the channel, I decided to take action and actually do something about my concerns. At the same time, however, I wanted to escape the perfunctory daily routines of American suburbia — I wanted an adventure.

On a whim, I sent my resume to the Irish Section of Amnesty International.

A week later I received a reply and an invitation to live and work in Dublin for the summer as an intern for the Irish Section.

Despite the vehement protest of my parents, two weeks later I was on a plane.

It rained my first day. Actually it rained the day after that, and the two weeks after that. But despite the monsoon, the temporary loss of my luggage and a crippling case of jetlag, upon stepping off the plane, I knew that I was about to take part in an experience that would undoubtedly change me, hopefully for the better.

I found an apartment in Christchurch, a close walk from the legendary tourist district of Temple Bar. My first day of work, I wandered desperately through the crowded streets of Dublin for two hours searching for the Irish Section’s headquarters.

I had no idea what to expect, and evenless of an idea how to navigate the narrow alleys and crooked lanes of this 1,200-year-old city.

At long last I found my way into the bright, cheerful Sean MacBride House, the headquarters of the Irish Section of Amnesty International.

On the ground floor sat the vibrant Freedom Cafe, selling fair trade products and serving breakfast and lunch to tourists and Dubliners alike. The three floors above the cafe housed the offices and conference rooms of Amnesty International.

I immediately was accepted into a welcoming team of committed international experts, academics and professionals whose provenance ranged from Northern Ireland to South Africa, and I was the only American.

I was one of two interns, the other a 26-year-old arms specialist from Toulouse.

I was assigned to the ambiguously titled “Development Section” where I worked on both campaign development and the Irish Section’s priority countries and issues.

During my tenure, I worked on conflict diamonds, the Angolan civil war, corporate social responsibility, prisoners of conscience cases and the illicit trafficking of small arms in Africa. Instead of photocopying or answering phones, I attended press conferences, designed Web sites on which to present my research, wrote news briefs, created strategy in campaign meetings and coordinated action on prisoner of conscious cases.

After my first month, I started to focus on campaigning on the Irish section’s priority country of Indonesia.

Despite having a relatively strong background in international affairs, all I knew about Indonesia was that there had been a human rights crisis in East Timor in 1999.

Like most people, I was under the impression that those issues had been resolved.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

For most University students, our biggest concern is fitting in, passing organic chemistry or surviving the hellish roommate.

For thousands of students in the Indonesian province of Papua, their primary concern is survival.

For nearly the last half century, Papuans have had their pursuit of independence met with police brutality, intimidation and arbitrary “disappearances” of activists and human rights defenders.

Since 1969, 100,000 Papuans, roughly 10 percent of the population, have been killed in the violence and civil turmoil — many of the dead are students and innocent civilians.

Through my work and experiences with the Indonesia Campaign, I came to learn of the vast injustices that are committed against the people, in particular the students, of Papua.

While researching and campaigning on Indonesia, I interviewed John Rumbiak, coordinator of the Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy in Papua, met with many Irish journalists and Amnesty campaigners specializing on human rights abuses in Papua, participated in strategy meetings and devised the central concept for the advertising campaign.

Despite the fact that I was a good 7 years younger than any of the other campaigners in the Indonesia Strategy Group, my ideas eagerly were solicited and valued by all members.

I was given the additional tasks of compiling the Irish Section’s review of human rights developments in Indonesia, and devising group action packs for the Irish membership to guide members in turning their concern into concrete action.

The 2001 Abepura Killings are one of the most poignant illustrations of the severity and danger of everyday life in Papua.

In the early hours of the morning Dec. 7, 2000, armed police officers raided student dormitories in Abepura, a city in the province of Papua. The officers broke into student rooms, beat students with assault rifles, stripped them, jailed many of them without food or rest for 36 hours, all while ordering them to confess to crimes of which they had no knowledge.

The officers assaulted, brutalized and arbitrarily detained nearly 100 students in retaliation for violent acts in which they took no part.

It is so easy to depersonalize things like this incident, to see them as merely statistics and news stories instead of real people. The fact is, many of the victims of violence in Papua are students just like us.

Two students in Abepura, Johny Karrunggu, age 18, and Orry Doronggi, age 17, both died as a direct result of torture.

None of the perpetrators of this senseless brutality has been brought to justice — a clear testament to the crippling yet pervasive culture of impunity (no accountability for human rights violations) in Indonesia.

This summer experience was invaluable.

In addition to working directly in my chosen field, the position gave me an empowering and enlightening opportunity to become directly involved and have a concrete effect on a very serious human rights issue through campaigning, lobbying and educating.

My work with Amnesty International in Dublin wasn’t just a “summer thing.”

I’ve been back in Charlottesville for four weeks now, and have started working with the University’s chapter of Amnesty International, as well as taking on a volunteer position as Amnesty USA’s on-site coordinator for the Human Rights Education Service Corps.

Never underestimate the power of awareness.

It is deceptively easy to assume that simply because something is happening far away, you can’t make a difference.

Trust me when I say you can.

—————————————

You can join the University branch of Amnesty or contact me for more information at mdoherty@virginia.edu.