On the heels of Allison Routman’s and Mark Gruntz’s dismissals from the summer 2008 Semester at Sea voyage, several honor-related procedural changes have been made to the fall 2008 Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook.
Routman, an Ohio University student, and Gruntz, a California Baptist University student, were both expelled from the University-sponsored academic program after they were accused and convicted of plagiarizing from Wikipedia. The pair’s honor cases, which garnered national media attention, were heard by a panel of three University faculty members. Routman, Gruntz and others raised concerns about Semester at Sea honor procedures outlined and implemented in the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15.
As a result of what Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang called “the Committee’s consistent re-evaluation of bylaws and procedures,” the handbook for the fall 2008 Semester at Sea voyage — which departed from Nassau in the Bahamas, Aug. 29 — has seen several changes to honor case investigation, adjudication and appeal procedures. Huang said no particular cases directly played into the decision to modify the Voyager’s Handbook.
Chapter Three of the fall 2008 handbook, as provided to The Cavalier Daily by University spokesperson Carol Wood and last revised Aug. 24, reveals that students could play a more significant role in on-board honor cases than they did during the summer 2008 voyage.
The fall handbook states that after an alleged academic honor offense is reported to the registrar aboard the ship, he or she will investigate the facts of the case, interviewing relevant parties and collecting evidence. After the registrar completes his or her investigation, he or she will then “compile interview summaries and other evidence in the form of an Investigation Log (the ‘I-log’) and subsequently “convene a panel of three randomly-selected Semester at Sea students (the ‘SAS I-Panel’).”
Previously, under the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, the registrar, upon completing his or her investigation, would decide whether to formally accuse the investigated student. Under the fall 2008 handbook, that responsibility is now delegated to the “I-Panel,” which will review the “I-log” and decide by majority vote whether to accuse the investigated student.
Additionally, the fall Voyager’s Handbook also adds that “a trained member of the Honor Committee’s Counsel Pool, in Charlottesville, Virginia, will be available by e-mail (or, if possible, by telephone), upon request (and reasonable advance notice),” to discuss the accused’s case, answer procedural questions and help him or her create a defense.
Just as in the revised summer 2008 handbook, alleged academic honor offenses will be adjudicated by a hearing panel. That hearing panel, however, according to the fall 2008 handbook, will now be composed of “four randomly-selected Semester at Sea students.” The new handbook states that the panel will be overseen by a non-voting hearing chair who is a member of the Semester at Sea faculty or staff, selected by the registrar, and a three-fourths majority vote by the panel will be required to convict the accused student.
The fall 2008 Voyager’s Handbook’s increased emphasis on potential student involvement clarifies procedures found in the summer 2008 handbook and is closer to the student self-governance ideal, Huang said. She noted that student involvement was always an option under the summer 2008 handbook, but said the fall 2008 handbook’s language highlights that feature to a greater degree, while still leaving room to handle “logistical problems.”
According to the fall 2008 handbook, the registrar reserves the right to appoint one or more Semester at Sea faculty or academic staff members as either the “I-Panel” or the randomly selected hearing panel.
The fall handbook states that this provision, under which students would not serve on the “I-Panel” or hearing panel, is included for those times when it proves impossible to convene a fair and impartial hearing panel composed entirely of students.
“That being said, if there is ever a possibility to use a student … we would love to have that,” Huang said of the Semester at Sea honor investigation and hearing procedures.
In addition to changes regarding the investigation and adjudication of honor cases, the fall 2008 handbook also includes modifications to the appeals process.
In hearing a convicted student’s appeal, the new document states, the “Academic Dean, in consultation with the Chair of the University of Virginia Honor Committee (or, if the Chair is unavailable, in consultation with an Honor Committee Vice-Chair or other Executive Committee member designated by the Chair)” will make the final appellate decision. Previously, under the revised summer 2008 handbook, that duty solely rested with the voyage’s academic dean.
The fall 2008 handbook also includes a change to the amount of time given to a convicted student to appeal his or her charge or charges. The appeal must now be given in writing to the academic dean within 48 hours — not within 24 hours, as was the case under the old handbook.
Another change included in the fall 2008 handbook focuses on expulsion procedures. Previously, under the revised summer 2008 handbook, a convicted student would be immediately dismissed from the academic portion of the Semester at Sea program as well as the ship. Routman and Gruntz were both dismissed as soon as their voyage’s ship docked in Greece.
The fall 2008 handbook, however, outlines a different procedure: “Following expulsion from the academic program, the Executive Dean, on behalf of [the Institute for Shipboard Education], will determine whether and when the student will be expelled from the voyage; such decision resides entirely with the Executive Dean, on behalf of ISE, and not with the Academic Dean or the University of Virginia.”
Huang said removing a student from the ship does not fall under the Committee’s jurisdiction. She noted that the Committee’s and the University’s jurisdiction aboard the ship is limited to the Semester at Sea academic program.
In addition to the changes made to the Voyager’s Handbook, students participating on the ongoing fall voyage were also required to sign a modified “Honor Certification and Pledge,” Wood said.
Signing the certification confirms attendance at an honor system and proper citation style education session, knowledge of the Semester at Sea honor system as outlined in Chapter Three of the fall 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, and willingness to participate in an “I-Panel” or hearing panel if randomly selected.
Routman and her father, Brent Routman, both said they very much appreciated the changes to the Semester at Sea honor system, but noted that, at least in the cases of Routman and Gruntz, the changes came “too late.”
“I think that’s great,” Allison Routman said when informed of the nature of the modifications. “That’s exactly how it should have been for Mark and I. I definitely think that this is what was needed.”
Brent Routman, though, also noted that the implementation of changes to the Semester at Sea honor procedures implies the need for “a do-over.”
“I would hope that the University and the University community would see that there was a manifest injustice here, and I don’t think it would set a bad precedent, due to the highly unusual circumstances in Allison’s case… to look at this again,” Brent Routman said.
No procedures exist for such a request, however, Huang noted.
“Once an appeal is denied, that’s it,” Huang said.
Allison and Brent Routman added that neither has pending legal action against the University.

The conviction and expulsion of two Summer 2008 Semester at Sea student participants on honor charges of plagiarism caused several parties to question Semester at Sea honor procedures and the fairness of the expulsions, even though Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang has said the procedures were fully in accordance with all rules and regulations.
Ohio University student Allison Routman and California Baptist University student Mark Gruntz both told The Cavalier Daily they would have properly cited Wikipedia in their papers had they known then what they know now. Both Routman and Gruntz, however, also raised concerns about honor hearing procedures, saying aspects of the Semester at Sea honor system did not seem to fit their prior understanding of the University’s honor system.
The dismissed students, found guilty of plagiarizing from Wikipedia by a honor hearing panel composed of three University faculty members, both said they understood the Semester at Sea honor system did not follow all of the procedures that compose the University’s on-Grounds honor system. Nevertheless, the pair said they were frustrated by the lack of “rights” given to them, as neither student’s case was heard by a student jury nor investigated by a student Honor Committee member. Additionally, neither student was provided with trained counsel.
These discrepancies between the on-Grounds honor system and the Semester at Sea equivalent, however, are not cause for concern, according to Huang. The Honor Constitution bylaws clearly state that the Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook will be the authoritative document regarding all Semester at Sea honor cases, Huang said. And, though University students are guaranteed certain rights during honor proceedings on Grounds, Semester at Sea students signed a “statement regarding the University of Virginia Honor System” as a condition of enrollment in the program, Huang added. This statement, portions of which appear above, states that “University of Virginia students hereby waive the “Rights of the Accused” set forth in Article V of the Constitution of the Honor Committee and acknowledge that the form and manner of Honor proceedings for purposes of Semester at Sea will be entirely as set forth in the Voyager’s Handbook.”
Initially, Routman’s father, Brent Routman, said such a policy — having participating students waive their honor constitutional rights and having an additional document apart from the honor constitution that governs honor cases — might suggest violations of the Committee’s constitution, especially because all Semester at Sea student participants are considered University students for the duration of the voyage.
Huang, though, said there is no truth behind such allegations. Because students signed the statement, she said, the Committee did not violate its constitution by instituting the policies outlined in the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15. The handbook is given governing authority in the Committee’s constitutional bylaw for special programs, Huang said, which states that “special procedures governing the reporting, investigation and trial of cases relating to Semester at Sea participants are set forth in the Voyager’s Handbook for the Semester at Sea Program.”
Huang also noted, moreover, that because the Voyager’s Handbook is not a bylaw, but rather an independent document given power by the Committee’s constitutional bylaws, the clause “Honor Committee bylaws shall be consistent with this constitution” found under Article VI of the Honor constitution, does not apply. When putting together the changes to the Semester at Sea honor hearing rules, the Committee was very careful to avoid discrepancies among the documents and worked with legal counsel to avoid the possibility of any threatening legal situation, she said.
Huang additionally noted that the Honor Committee made several changes to the previous Semester at Sea honor hearing procedures to promote fairness and timeliness. A copy of the June 2006 Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook, the first used after the University became the program’s academic sponsor, states that the Honor Committee’s constitution and relevant bylaws shall apply to the investigation and adjudication of honor offenses. Because of the “unique, decentralized nature” of Semester at Sea, though, some bylaws have been modified, the June 2006 document states.
Reported honor offenses under the 2006 guide would have been investigated by the ship’s academic dean, as opposed to the registrar, and accused students would have seen their trials take place in Charlottesville.
At a trial, the 2006 edition states, an accused student’s case would have been heard by a jury composed of University students, as in a typical on-Grounds proceeding.
Huang said these Semester at Sea procedures were changed to make proceedings fairer for all parties involved.
“One thing we are always concerned about is fundamental fairness and timeliness,” she said, noting that the procedural changes reflected in the revised summer 2008 version of the Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15, make sure that all witnesses are able to attend case proceedings, that evidence is readily available, and that the accused do not have to wait a long time to see the outcome of trials.
Huang said changes to the composition and procedure of the jury came as a natural consequence of the Committee’s desire for all investigation and adjudication proceedings to occur while students were still on board the MV Explorer. She also emphasized, however, that having students participate as members of the hearing panel was always an option, per the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15.
“It was that in order to have a fair system on board the ship, we need to have [a hearing panel decide cases] on board the ship,” Huang said. She added that it would prove infeasible and unfair to have a student jury, composed of program participants, judge a Semester at Sea student’s honor case, especially if that student’s case centered around an assignment for a required class in which all students had to participate.
“Here at the University, we call random students to serve on the juries; we have a juror questionnaire; and we seek to put together the most unbiased jury possible,” Huang said. “The ship is a closed environment.”
This environment is most noticeable in a class like Global Studies, Huang explained. Since all of the students registered for the Semester at Sea program are required to take the class, all of them have the potential to know one another, and “it would be very hard to have a jury that would be considered completely unbiased,” she added.
Brent Routman, however, disagreed with such comments.
“Who would better know the facts of the cases than the students on board the ship?,” he said. “And, I gotta tell you, if the registrar picked faculty members with conflicts of interest, how is that better for Allison?”
Brent Routman was referring to his allegation that University Politics Prof. Allen Lynch, University Slavic Languages Chair Julian Connolly — a member of both Routman’s and Gruntz’s hearing panels — and Semester at Sea Academic Dean Karen Ryan potentially shared a conflict of interest while respectively initiating, adjudicating and making the appellate decision in his daughter’s case. Lynch, the complainant in Routman’s case, is the director of the University’s Center for Russian and East European Studies. Connolly is a faculty member of the center managed by Lynch. Ryan, meanwhile, who heard both Routman’s and Gruntz’ appeals and found against them, is a faculty member of Connolly’s Slavic languages department and also serves as a faculty member at the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
In response to Brent Routman’s allegations of impropriety at his daughter’s honor trial, Huang said one would be mistaken to assume that any faculty member chosen by the registrar to adjudicate a Semester at Sea honor case might have been biased while casting his or her vote.
“These faculty members are unbiased,” she said. “They don’t know the student. If you look in the procedures, it says they must be fair and unbiased.”
Gruntz, meanwhile, said he was more concerned about the fact that two of his hearing panel members also served as hearing panel members at Routman’s trial. He said he wondered whether the verdict in Routman’s case could have played into his.
Huang, however, said faculty members, in general, can serve on multiple hearing panels, just as students on Grounds can serve on multiple juries. Previous panel experience is neither a requirement nor a deterrent in regard to the possibility of future selection by the registrar, she said.
Even if he were to accept Huang’s explanations, though, Routman said he would nevertheless remain concerned about a procedural change made to this year’s Semester at Sea honor system. The original Voyager’s Handbook for the Semester at Sea Summer 2008 voyage, as obtained by The Cavalier Daily, states that the hearing chair shall serve as a non-voting supervisor of trial proceedings. Three additional people selected by the registrar would cast votes and determine the outcome of the trial, the original guide stated.
The “statement regarding the University of Virginia Honor System,” moreover, signed by all students as a condition of enrollment in the program, outlined the same procedure found in the original Voyager’s Handbook.
The accounts of Routman and Gruntz and the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15, however, describe a different procedure wherein the hearing panel chair is among the three persons with voting power.
Such a change, Routman said, could be considered a procedural irregularity great enough to call into the question the verdict and the appellate decision, if the change was not agreed to by the student body or brought to that body’s attention in a timely fashion.
According to Allison Routman’s account, the first time she became aware of the change was when Casteen presented her with a copy of the revised summer 2008 handbook, after Routman was formally accused. Routman said she does not recall signing any document reflecting the procedural change. Brent Routman, moreover, said Semester at Sea officials told him the only document they have on file with his daughter’s signature is the original statement signed before the voyage began. Semester at Sea officials declined to comment about specific cases when contacted by The Cavalier Daily.
Huang, though, said the procedural change was made before the adjudication of Routman’s and Gruntz’ cases and said students were appropriately notified of the change in a daily bulletin, the Dean’s Memo. University spokesperson Carol Wood noted that Semester at Sea officials told her the Dean’s Memo was distributed to students via e-mail, with printed copies also available aboard the ship. Relevant excerpts from the June 16 Dean’s Memo appear on page A6. The change also appeared in the June 17 Dean’s Memo.
Allison Routman said she does not remember ever receiving notification of any honor-related change in a Dean’s Memo, but admitted that it was possible she could have overlooked it, given that it was distributed every day.
Routman’s father said notification of the procedural change via the “Dean’s Memo” was not satisfactory. He added that he wondered whether the Honor Committee had the power to make such a change through a “mere e-mail,” after all of the original documents — including the statement — had been signed by his daughter.
“Who gave them the authority to change it?” he said. “If they think that waiver is legally binding [in regard to participants having to waive their constitutional honor rights], where is that authority to change it?”
The statement contains no reference to the Committee’s ability, or potential ability, to change procedures, Brent Routman said, noting that any changes not requiring his daughter’s re-signature could be perceived as a breach in contract.
When informed of Routman’s concern, Huang said the change was analogous to almost any other bylaw change the Honor Committee normally makes during the academic year, even though this was a change to an independent document, rather than to a bylaw.
“When we have a bylaw change here, [students] don’t sign on to anything,” she noted, saying there was no breach in contract and the change to the summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook would not have required a student vote. “All 20,000 don’t have to acknowledge it.”
Aside from the concerns outlined above, Brent Routman and second-year Law student Sam Leven, founder and current president of Hoos Against the Single Sanction, said the program’s requisite “waiving of rights,” as set forth in the statement signed by all participating students, could be perceived as going against the spirit of the University’s honor system even if Huang said condition of enrollment was constitutionally allowable.
“It is also potentially a breach of their duty to force people to waive their constitutional rights,” Brent Routman said. “In the Honor Committee’s constitution, it says that they ‘shall embody the interests and attitudes of the current student generation of the University of Virginia.’ I have to ask: Is getting people to waive their rights ‘embody the interests and attitudes of the current student generation’?”
Leven, who also serves as a University Honor consul, similarly said he believes there are fundamental flaws with the Semester at Sea honor system as it operated in summer 2008 and the required waiving of rights.
“It is just as baffling to me that Honor can legally set up rules and bylaws that violate its own constitution,” Leven said. “It strikes me as actually unconscionable that you would hold students to the exact same standard and honor system that you hold regular students at U.Va., without the same rights that students under the U.Va. system have.”
When informed of Huang’s defense — that students signed the paperwork of their own free will and agreed to the terms and conditions of the statement — Leven said he was “baffled.”
“To say that we can waive the constitution and make waiving your rights a condition of participating in this program… violates just about every aspect of the ethics our school is supposed to be run by,” Leven said.
Additionally, Leven expressed concern about where the Committee could draw the line regarding the waiving of students’ rights.
“What is to stop the Honor Committee from making that a requirement of admission here?” Leven questioned.
In response to Routman’s and Leven’s criticism of the Semester at Sea honor system and the statement, Huang declined comment. Earlier, though, Huang did speak to The Cavalier Daily about whether changes could be made to the Semester at Sea honor system as a result of the concerns raised by several parties. She noted that, like any other honor system policy, the rules and conditions are subject to constant revision.
“We just looked at it and tried to make it the most efficient and fair policy,” Huang said, later noting that even though all Honor procedures were properly followed during the summer 2008 Semester at Sea voyage, revising the Semester at Sea honor system procedures is always a possibility.
As of Aug. 24, several changes to honor case procedures were included in the Voyager’s Handbook for the fall 2008 voyage, which set sail Friday, Aug. 29.
Routman and Gruntz said they have no pending legal action regarding their respective expulsions.

Ohio University student Allison Routman and California Baptist University student Mark Gruntz were expelled during the Summer 2008 Semester at Sea voyage for committing an academic honor offense — plagiarizing from Wikipedia. Both Routman and Gruntz, however, have since denied that they wrote the allegedly plagiarized portions of their papers with dishonest or deliberate intent, and both said they had “no idea” that what they did could be considered an honor violation. Honor and University officials, though, have maintained their definitions of plagiarism and said differing opinions on the matter have no bearing on the two students’ cases.
Routman said her understanding of plagiarism may have been different than what was expected of her, noting that she had been told throughout her academic career that rephrasing information in one’s own words was acceptable.
“When they asked me … about how it looks very similar in structure [to the related Wikipedia article, which appears with excerpts of Routman’s paper, pictured left], I kind of told them, ‘How different can it be, if it’s a summary of a movie,’” Routman said. “But then they said, ‘You chose to talk about some of the same themes.’ And I said, ‘Well yeah, those are the important themes to what we are learning about.’ I can understand how people say it follows Wikipedia to a certain extent, but it never occurred to me that it was wrong. I didn’t take it word for word, and I wasn’t intentionally using the summary without watching the movie.”
Portions of Routman’s paper, which was about the film “Europa Europa,” and the Wikipedia article about the film share similarities. Three sentence fragments appear nearly word-for-word in both documents.
Routman’s paper contains the fragments “when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa,” “German-speaking minority outside Germany” and “who had just been released from a concentration camp,” while the Wikipedia article, as edited at the time of the incident, stated “when the Germans attack the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa,” “German-speaking minority outside Germany” and “who has just been released from a concentration camp.”
Routman defended the use of such sentence fragments, saying “how different can two summaries of a movie be?” Her father, Brent Routman, meanwhile, noted that because such word-for-word fragments were so small as to be potentially seen as trivial, a guilty verdict in an honor case and subsequent expulsion from the ship, as experienced by his daughter, might not have been an appropriate penalty.
“If you look at the three sentence fragments — there are only so many ways to say the same thing,” Mr. Routman said. “‘When Germany invaded…’ What are you going to say? ‘When some aggressive northern European country, without permission, crossed the border?’ I’m not sure what the answer is.”
Gruntz, meanwhile, said he cited the Wikipedia article for “Burnt by the Sun,” the other movie Global Studies students could choose to write about, twice in his paper, which was not made available to The Cavalier Daily.
“It wasn’t a great paper, but that doesn’t mean I plagiarized,” Gruntz said.
The allegedly plagiarized portion of his paper was lacking proper attribution, though, he said. Gruntz said Lynch accused him of intentionally leaving out the third Wikipedia citation.
In an e-mail, Lynch declined to comment on specific cases, citing honor trial confidentiality, but stated generally, “plagiarism is, simply, the use of the work of others, either by appropriating their language directly or paraphrasing it without attribution, so that it appears to be your own original work.”
Other University staff members who dealt closely with Routman’s and Gruntz’s cases similarly declined to speak with The Cavalier Daily about the two former students’ honor proceedings.
“I cited Wikipedia twice,” Gruntz said. “But [Lynch] said, ‘I believe you had the intention of not citing it a third time.’ What I want to know is how does he know my intentions? What evidence does he have?”
Both dismissed students added that they did not know what they did could be considered an academic honor offense. Routman said she “had absolutely no knowledge what I did would get me in trouble.”
Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang, though, said several educational sessions about the University’s honor system, as well as proper research and citation methods, were offered on board the ship.
Similarly, Lynch stated in an e-mail that, “I will note as matters of general policy that we had an extensive and detailed set of briefings on the Honor Code on the ship before sailing and we offered seminars on correct citation, again before classes began.” Mary Johnston, Semester at Sea library coordinator at the University, verified Lynch’s statement, noting that Semester at Sea library officials gave “thorough” presentations on how to accurately cite scholarly articles.
Additionally, according to Huang and the revised summer 2008 Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15, ignorance of an honor violation is not a valid argument against the prosecution of it.
The Voyager’s Handbook states that “dishonest intent” is “established with respect to a particular Act if the actor knew, or should have known, that the act in question was or could be considered an Academic Honor Offense.”
The Voyager’s Handbook’s definition of dishonest intent, as well as the hearing panel’s determination that Routman and Gruntz committed honor offenses, though, does not sit well with Alan Briceland, a retired Virginia Commonwealth University history professor who helped start that institution’s honor system almost 40 years ago.
“Intent doesn’t mean ‘should have known,’” Briceland said.
Briceland noted that, in his opinion, plagiarism has become one of the most misunderstood of the potential honor offenses, not just at the University but at virtually every single higher education institution. He outlined three different possible types of plagiarism — “deliberate,” “inadvertent” and “ignorant” — but said only the deliberate variety should be considered an honor offense.
Deliberate plagiarism, Briceland said, occurs when a student makes a conscious and informed choice to circumvent the rules of academia. Because of this “choice” feature, deliberate plagiarism is a moral transgression, and is open to scrutiny by a university’s honor system, Briceland noted. The other types, he said, may lower the quality of a paper to abysmal levels, but they do not constitute an honor violation.
“What has happened is that the people in charge think the physical paper, the plagiarism, proves the moral,” Briceland said. “And it does not.”
However, Katie Povejsil, an expert on plagiarism and vice president of marketing at iParadigms, which provides the Turnitin.com plagiarism detection service, noted it is ultimately up to the institution and the human beings who run the adjudicating system to define plagiarism and to determine whether any intent was involved.
“It’s the institution’s choice,” she said.
Huang said the University’s honor system holds students to the standard of “should have known” because virtually all students attending the University either have been given multiple presentations on proper citation and plagiarism, and/or have had the opportunity to educate themselves on such matters. Moreover, she said, it is the Honor Committee’s definition of an academic honor offense that truly matters, because it is that definition to which students agreed prior to boarding the MV Explorer. As a condition of enrollment in the Semester at Sea program, she continued, participating students had to acknowledge the University honor system’s definition of dishonest intent as well as its definition of an academic honor offense. The dismissed students both said they did sign the “statement regarding the University of Virginia Honor System” before the voyage.
Stephen Satris, former interim director for the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson University, however, said it was possible that students signed off on Semester at Sea Honor-related forms without truly understanding the system or what constituted plagiarism.
“It could have been like when you are installing software on a computer,” Satris said. “And you have that long thing to read, but you don’t really read it, you just gloss through it and check the box, because that’s what you have to do to install the software.”

In football, a common saying is that ‘It’s not about the Xs and the Os, it’s about the Jimmys and the Joes.’ The Jimmys and Joes on California’s team proved far superior to Virginia’s when the Cavaliers lost their season opener 7-52 Saturday.
“USC was a big, powerful fast team with superior quarterback play today,” Virginia coach Al Groh said. “We were anything but big and fast.”
While USC has numerous All-Americans on its roster, the fact that it had its way against Virginia still hurt Virginia senior linebacker Clint Sintim.
“To know when something is coming and still not make any dent into it is very demoralizing,” Sintim said.
USC junior quarterback Mark Sanchez had a coming-out party Saturday. Sanchez, a former five-star quarterback who had to wait behind Matt Leinart and John David Booty for three seasons, played up to his billing coming out of high school. Sanchez completed 26 of 35 passes for 338 yards and three touchdowns.
Sanchez “was very poised back there,” Sintim said. “He made some nice throws and he’s very mobile, considering the injury to his knee.”
Sanchez’s counterpart on Virginia ended up being Peter Lalich. While it wasn’t much of a surprise that Lalich ended up getting the starting nod, what was surprising was how well he played, especially considering the competition he was up against in his first collegiate start. Lalich went 18-35 for 155 yards. He did throw an interception and lost two fumbles, but those three incidents did not occur until more than halfway after the third quarter, when the game was out of reach.
“This is my first start, and I’m hoping to improve every week,” Lalich said. “That’s just my main goal as a football player.”
Virginia senior tight end John Phillips noted how well Lalich played and mentioned other aspects of the game in which he did well.
“He’s very comfortable in the huddle and he wasn’t nervous at all.” Phillips said. “He’s grown up in a year.”
One major difference in Virginia’s offense besides the quarterback was the formations used. Shotgun formations and three and four receiver packages abounded; a far cry from the I-Back and two tight end packages Groh is known for. Whether that offense will run through the rest of the season, however, remains to be seen.
“You prepare for a team game by game, week by week,” Phillips said. “So, for this game, that is what we decided to do.”
Lalich said he has confidence whether he lines up via shotgun or under center, but did note the advantages the formation had against a team such as USC.
“Sometimes in the shotgun, especially against fast defenses, it’s easier to hit the dump-off passes because you’re not worried about a guy that’s coming two inches from your face,” Lalich said.
While USC may be more talented than Virginia, it still was a concern for the Cavaliers that the offensive and defensive lines’ performances fell below expectations. The defensive line did not force a single sack all game and let Sanchez direct the offense with relative ease.
“We never got any pressure on [USC’s] quarterback and they got a lot of pressure on our quarterback,” Groh said. “Those are two of the ingredients that usually foretell the result of any game.”
Virginia was also hurt by the loss of sophomore cornerback Ras-I Dowling out of the game with a leg injury. Redshirt freshman cornerback Chase Minnifield played for the first time in Dowling’s absence, and it was not the ideal team to get his first action against.
“It won’t get much tougher than that,” Groh said. “I thought that there was about six or seven of those receivers that came in on a continuous rotation, and if they looked big to you in the press box, you should have seen the size of them from where we were standing.”
Virginia now prepares to face Richmond Saturday, battling former defensive coordinator Mike London, who is now Richmond’s head coach. The Cavaliers intend to build on their experience this week in getting ready for their next challenge.
“We got humbled,” Sintim said. “Losing by 40-some odd points is very humbling, but it let us know exactly where we are as a team and what we need to do to get better.”
Though Virginia moved on from last year’s season-opening loss to an inferior Wyoming team to win nine games, how the team reacts to this loss remains to be seen.
“It’s going to be up to us as a team to decide what we are going to do with what we experienced here today and what we make out of it,” Groh said.

Allison Routman and Mark Gruntz may not be traditional University of Virginia students, but when they signed on for the summer 2008 Semester at Sea program, sponsored by the University, they also signed on to a modified version of the University’s honor system. So, when they were charged with and later convicted of plagiarizing from Wikipedia, the University’s single-sanction system was carried out, and the students were dismissed from the Semester at Sea program as soon as the program’s ship, the MV Explorer, docked in Greece.
Routman, a 21-year-old Ohio University student, and Gruntz, a 20-year-old California Baptist University student, told The Cavalier Daily that honor hearing panels composed of three faculty members found each of them guilty of plagiarism on the same assignment: the first paper assigned for the mandatory, 101-level “Global Studies — Europe: East and West” class taught by University Politics Prof. Allen Lynch. According to both Routman and Gruntz, students were told to watch one of two films and to write a paper relating the film they selected to their Semester at Sea port experiences and class lectures. The two movies, “Europa Europa” and “Burnt by the Sun,” both detail World War II-related events. Routman chose “Europa Europa,” while Gruntz chose “Burnt by the Sun.”
Both students said they were confused after watching their chosen movie and wanted to check some facts for the purposes of writing their assignments.
“The movies — they are difficult movies,” Routman said. “They cover a thick subject matter [and] many of them are in subtitles.”
As a result, Routman and Gruntz consulted movie summaries available on Wikipedia, they said.
“I wanted to make sure I had things in the right order and had the right terminology for the World War II events,” Routman said, adding that she “thought using Wikipedia to check some facts wasn’t a big deal” because the assignment was not a research paper.
In composing their essays, Routman did not cite Wikipedia, while Gruntz did so twice, according to the students. Routman and Gruntz admitted the papers that led to their honor accusations were not the highest-quality work they have ever produced.
“It was not the best paper I’ve ever written,” Routman said, while Gruntz noted that he didn’t spend much time on his paper.
Nevertheless, both Routman and Gruntz said they were satisfied enough with their work to turn the papers in on time.
“I didn’t even think twice before turning in my paper,” Gruntz said in reference to whether he considered that his paper could lead to honor accusations.
Routman expressed a similar sentiment.
“It never occurred to me that what I was doing could be considered plagiarism,” Routman said.
Looking back, she said, the first sign of trouble might have been when Lynch devoted an entire class to proper citations after students turned in their papers.
Neither Routman nor Gruntz, though, thought they had done anything wrong, they said, noting that they felt Lynch’s statements did not apply to them. Similarly, Routman and Gruntz said they thought Lynch was not addressing them when he later announced in class that some students were under suspicion of plagiarism. Lynch said, according to the students, that if students came forward and admitted guilt via a “conscientious retraction,” possible honor charges would be nullified before they were even filed. In an e-mail, Lynch declined to comment about specific honor cases, including Routman’s and Gruntz’s, citing trial confidentiality.
The next day, Routman and Gruntz said, students received their grades.
“When I got my paper back, it said that I had gotten a ‘D,’” Routman said. “It said that I hadn’t followed directions and that I needed to be more careful about citations. From that, I was like, ‘OK, fair enough. I understand what they are saying.’ But I figured that if I was getting in trouble for something, I would have gotten an F, or I would have been talked to.”
Portions of Routman’s paper, obtained by The Cavalier Daily from Routman and printed below, are underlined. A proofer’s mark corresponding with an underlined portion on the first page reads “from Wikipedia.” Routman said the written comments on her paper were made by either Lynch or by a teaching assistant, noting that she was never told who wrote the comments. The writer stated, “Overall you attempt to tie in the the [sic] theme of the movie to your personal experience which is a start. However, keep in mind that the assignment was intended to be a reflection of your experience so far in the course with appropriate references to the movie, course materials and/or port experiences. Also, be extremely careful about your writing and the use of sources without citation.”
A copy of Gruntz’ paper was not made available as of press time, but Gruntz said the comments on his paper focused on one passage in particular, allegedly plagiarized from Wikipedia without proper attribution. Gruntz noted that he had cited Wikipedia twice previously but said he unintentionally did not do so a third time.
Both Routman and Gruntz said they were not informed when they received their graded papers back that honor charges would be pressed against them. But they soon received word of such charges.
“So, then, from out of nowhere, I get an urgent letter from the registrar [Laurie Casteen], saying to come see her,” Routman said.
Routman’s and Gruntz’s honor investigations, unlike those on Grounds, were coordinated by University staff members. Committee Chair Jessica Huang said the “unique nature” of Semester at Sea has led to the implementation of several modifications to the honor system in a guided effort to make the system more feasible aboard the MV Explorer.
Pursuant to Honor Committee constitution bylaws, the Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook provides special procedures, the language for which is generated by the Committee, for the reporting, investigation and trial of Semester at Sea-related cases. According to the revised summer 2008 Semester at Sea handbook, effective June 15, all Semester at Sea student participants were subject to the University’s honor code during the voyage, whether they were seeking a degree at the University or at another institution.
The general procedure for all Semester at Sea honor cases, the revised summer 2008 handbook states, is as follows: Anyone may report a suspected offense by contacting the registrar; the registrar will then investigate the case, conduct interviews and collect evidence.
“Upon completion of the investigation,” the revised summer 2008 handbook states, “the Registrar… shall determine, based on the results of the investigation, whether or not to formally accuse the investigated student of an Academic Honor Offense.”
If the registrar determines that an honor hearing is in order, an accusation letter will be sent to the implicated student, informing him or her of the charges. Routman’s accusation letter was provided to The Cavalier Daily and appears in print below. A copy of Gruntz’s was unavailable as of press time.
At the scheduled hearing, a hearing chair and two other hearing panel members will review evidence and question both the case’s plaintiff and defendant, the revised summer 2008 handbook states.
A majority vote by the three hearing panel members, including the hearing chair, is needed to either sentence the accused to expulsion from the ship and the program, or find the accused not guilty of any wrongdoing, the revised summer 2008 handbook states.
If found guilty, the accused has an opportunity to appeal to the academic dean aboard the ship. A dismissed party may appeal if the established procedures were not followed or if new, supporting evidence not available at the time of the hearing is made available. This appeal, according to the revised summer 2008 handbook, “does not provide a second hearing of the case;” rather, it “will be based on the existing record and any additional information or new evidence provided to the Academic Dean.”
If the academic dean receives a properly constructed appeal, he or she has the authority to affirm the decision of the hearing panel, determine that improper procedures were used and refer the case back to the registrar, or determine that new evidence exists and either refer the case back the hearing chair for a new hearing or dismiss charges.
Routman and Gruntz both said they filed appeals after having been found guilty of plagiarism by the honor hearing panel. Routman’s appeal was provided to The Cavalier Daily, while Gruntz’s was unavailable as of press time; portions of Routman’s appears in print below.
If the academic dean dismisses the accused party’s appeal, however, as was the case for Routman and Gruntz, that party will be immediately expelled from the MV Explorer, and no further avenues of appeal will remain open, according to the revised summer 2008 handbook.
Huang said all trials occurring on board during the most recent Semester at Sea expedition happened in accordance with the revised summer 2008 version of the Semester at Sea handbook.
“All procedures were followed,” Huang said.
There was one discrepancy, however, according to Routman, who said she was not immediately dismissed from the ship, but was kept on board until the MV Explorer docked in Greece. The reason for this, Routman noted, was that her father, Brent Routman, was concerned about her safety in a country not originally included on the trip itinerary: the ship’s planned docking in Turkey was substituted for a trip to Egypt. With this exception, the outlined procedures were closely followed, according to the accounts given by the expelled students. Gruntz was also dismissed in Greece, but his expulsion in that country was expected, according to both students, because of the time at which his appeal was denied.

The lively Lithuanian is moving on.
At a press conference at Blue Ridge School Thursday, former Virginia basketball player Laurynas Mikalauskas, who was kicked off the men’s basketball team last week, took full responsibility for the academic ineligibility that resulted in his dismissal and announced his intention to turn pro overseas.
“I could not see myself transferring to another school or playing for another college basketball team,” Mikalauskas said. “Therefore, I have decided to forego my last year of NCAA eligibility and pursue my dream of playing basketball at the professional level.”
A teary-eyed Mikalauskas was accompanied by his agent, Michael Lelchitski, and his former high school coach at Blue Ridge, Bill Ramsey, and Ramsey’s wife Margaret. The Ramseys also served as Mikalauskas’ legal guardians when he came to the United States in high school.
Though Mikalauskas did not blame Leitao for his decision, he did say his removal from the team, which he said occurred Sunday, Aug. 17, was not particularly timely.
“I wish had a chance to find out earlier in the summer so that I would have a chance to get more exposure overseas,” Mikalauskas said. “But it is what it is now, and I just have to deal with it.”
An Aug. 18 press release announced Mikalauskas’ removal from the program. The would-be senior made an appeal to the University, but was denied.
“There are standards to be a member of this basketball program, and Laurynas has not lived up to those standards,” Leitao stated in the press release. “I will have no additional comment on this situation.”
The loss of Mikalauskas comes as a big blow to the Virginia basketball program, because the Lithuanian had the best shot at the starting center position in the coming season. His departure will also likely disappoint many Wahoos, as Mikalauskas was a fan favorite throughout his career.
“I especially want to thank the fans — go Wahoos!” Mikalauskas said. “I really hope that they felt the emotion that I played with and saw that I gave it my all every time I stepped on the court in a Virginia jersey — number 11.”
Though the press conference gave Mikalauskas the opportunity to say good-bye to students and fans, he said he is not yet through at Virginia.
“I would like to come back and finish my degree,” Mikalauskas said, noting that this would probably occur over the next two summers. He also added, “I would like to come back and watch the games.”
For Ramsey, the news of Mikalauskas’ departure was unsettling.
“These last three years have been very special, to be going to his games and traveling to the ACC Tournament,” he said. “It was kind of a shocker, and it’s happened real fast, but I feel like he’s got some great opportunities already.”
Mikalauskas now sets his sights on European basketball. Though he will not play in his native Lithuania to start, he said he has set a goal of playing for the Lithuanian national team at the 2012 Olympics in London.
As for the present, Mikalauskas said he is healthy and eager to play after rehabbing his shoulder. He had surgery on the shoulder immediately following last season but said he is close to 100 percent.
“I’m still working on my strength and shooting,” he said. “Like every other day, every basketball player has to work out. I can’t just sit here and hope to get professional offers. I have to work out like a pro now.”

At the University, a student may swim at the Aquatic & Fitness Center, bike up O-Hill, run down Rugby, motor through McCormick or crawl on the Corner. But students predominantly walk when they need to get somewhere. When it comes to driving, the Department of Motor Vehicles  gets to toot its own horn about rules of the road. So why doesn’t the University give out a list of sidewalk standards to ensure safer and far less uneventful walks to class for all? Since no one else will, I hereby take up the crusade to come up with a code of conduct for the concrete. It is especially important to lay down the law early in the year so the new first-year students don’t develop these bad habits.
First up, how many times has this happened to you? You’re walking down the sidewalk when you look up to see another person coming straight at you. Naturally, both of you decide to hold your ground and play a game of chicken because you both have the right to your piece of turf. And, just as you both decided to play the game, you both decide to give up on it at the same time and step out of the way. Sadly, since there are only two options, left and right, half the time after you sidestep you end up with the same problem. So instead of zigging and zagging, I propose always going to your right. This is America after all. Those backwards Brits lost their empire because they didn’t drive on the right side.
Fans of “The Mighty Ducks” might want to try out the flying V formation to increase their chances of scoring and to show their school pride, but this is not recommended when walking on the sidewalks. Going three abreast, or in any other formation for that matter, is the easiest way to clog up traffic and earn you and your friends the ire of everyone behind you who is trying to rush to class. In particular, walking side by side in the Bryan Hall Colonnade should be a capital offense. The limit should be two people side-by-side, or preferably in a straight line, because your friends in the Engineering School will tell you walking in a straight line is not only more aerodynamic but also less likely to get you pushed aside.
My next target is all those people who decide to run after buses with reckless abandon, bowling through the crowded sidewalks in the process. After missing a bus, instead of chasing after it, shouldn’t you just accept your tardiness? But instead, you choose to be late and sweaty. If these people had shown the same sense of urgency earlier in their travels, they wouldn’t have needed the bus at all. Instead they could have joined the rest of us in a leisurely walk to class.
Another way to become really popular on the sidewalk is to stop and talk to a friend. This veritable road block causes the stream of traffic to flow around your little get-together and starts new conversations of four-letter words directed at you. A corollary to these chatty Cathys are those people who feel the need to say hello to every other person they pass, and offer up the generic question “how’s it going?” How’s it going!?!? It (me) is going this way, and you’re going the other way. The Doppler effect would seem to apply. A simple wave and “hi” would suffice.
Last but not least are the overly apologetic walkers. The sidewalks around Grounds tend to be crowded — dangerously packed, you might even say. In this great sea of humanity it is only natural that people are going to bump into each other. Yet even the slightest nudge warrants a quick “I’m sorry” from each of the parties involved. First of all, Timbaland was right. “It’s too late to apologize.” First, chances are if I bumped into you it’s because I’m in a hurry and don’t have time for a proper apology. Second, on the sidewalk everybody’s personal space is being violated, so no one is at fault for the occasional run-in. If I really meant to hit you, you’d know it. Constantly saying “I’m sorry” only dilutes its true meaning and shows us all to be merely superficially polite. By no means do we need to turn into heartless New Yorkers. The South has it charms after all, but when we say “I’m sorry,” let’s mean it.
Now then, I don’t mean to be a strict as say Aerosmith who implored you to “Walk This Way.” I merely seek to provide you with a set of guidelines to make the walking experience more pleasurable for all. So follow these simple standards for walking with your fellow Wahoos or you’ll be sleeping with the fishes.
John’s column runs biweekly Mondays. He can be reached at j.gregory@cavalierdaily.com.

Thirteen members of the University’s chapter of Theta Delta Chi fraternity were arrested Aug. 20 for breaking into the Union College Theta Delta Chi fraternity house and damaging more than $2,000 worth of property through actions including urinating on two couches.
“Our campus safety folks were on routine patrol when they noticed an individual outside of the house and asked what he was doing,” Phil Wadja, director of media and public relations at Union College. “He said he had permission to be in there.”
Wadja said campus security was suspicious because Union College was not yet in session, and the house was unoccupied for the summer.
Campus security contacted the city police in Schenectady, N.Y., where Union College is located, and all 13 Theta Delta Chi members present were charged with trespassing, Wadja said.
“There was some damage to the house, about $2,000 dollars, including two couches that they had apparently urinated on,” he said, adding that the students had broken into the house through a second-story window.
Theta Delta Chi fraternity members visit Union College quite often, Wadja said, in part because the fraternity was founded at Union College. He noted, however, that when students do visit, “it is generally during the school year and not in the middle of the night.”
Schenectady District Attorney Robert Carney said the students were originally charged with misdemeanors, but because they agreed to pay for the damage, the charges will be adjourned for six months and subsequently dropped if the students stay out of trouble. Ultimately, the students will have no criminal record.
Carney also noted that Union College officials and Schenectady police were particularly upset because the students were not honest from the beginning.
“Some or all of them said they were from William & Mary,” Carney said.
According to Alex Koch, president of the University’s chapter of Theta Delta Chi, the brothers’ visit to Union College was part of a yearly tradition.
“Every year the incoming pledge class takes a road trip to some of the other charges around the Northeast,” Koch said. “Unfortunately, Union College operates on a trimester schedule, so no brothers were at the fraternity house, and the guys made the poor decision to stay at the house anyway.”
Koch said they had received permission to stay at the house from a Union brother at Theta Delta Chi’s national convention, “but communication with Union was obviously insufficient.”
Since the incident, Koch said attempts to contact Union College brothers have been well-received.
“They have been very understanding and supportive,” he said. “Nothing would make us happier than to visit them and put this embarrassing incident behind us.”
Michael Citro, assistant dean of fraternity and sorority life, said officials at Union College notified the University’s Office of the Dean of Students of the incident.
“We coordinated a follow-up with the fraternity to learn more exact details,” Citro said. The incident has since been referred to the Inter-Fraternity Council Judiciary Committee.
Citro added that his office is working closely with IFCJC and the University’s chapter of Theta Delta Chi to resolve the issue, noting that the fraternity has been “extremely cooperative.”
When an incident involving fraternity members occurs, any member of the University community may file a complaint with the IFC, IFC president Taylor Richardson said. In this case, Citro reported the incident.
Once a complaint is filed, a group of IFCJC officers investigate the incident to determine whether it necessitates a trial, said Lansing Lee, IFC vice president for judiciary.
If a trial is deemed necessary, the presiding judges will determine guilt or innocence, as well as the appropriate sanctions. Any consequences are imposed upon the whole fraternity, not just the individuals who committed the act in question, Lee said.
Though fall rush is fast approaching, Richardson said he does not think the incident will affect Theta Delta Chi’s recruiting.
“They made a mistake, and they’ll learn from it,” Richardson said.
Koch, on the other hand, said the incident certainly could affect recruiting, but added that Theta Delta Chi hopes to be able to move forward and have a strong rush.
“We apologize for the damage we have done to the reputations of Theta Delta Chi, ourselves and, most importantly, the University of Virginia,” Koch said. “We hope to work with all relevant parties and reach a positive resolution.”
Citro said it is important for fraternities to remember that any actions they may take on and off Grounds can lead to both positive and negative reactions.
“My sense is that the core of the fraternity members are committed to the values of the fraternity,” Citro said. “They are going to work through this incident to ensure that their fraternity continues to succeed.”
Wadja said the incident was most likely a lapse in judgment on the part of the students involved.
“I’m sure they regret it now,” he said. “It was just a foolish thing to do.”

Now that the University Unity Project has announced its theme for the school year, “Beyond our Grounds, Within our Community,” Student Council is working to reach out to students in order to facilitate involvement with the project.
“We want students to embrace a sense of ownership in the community,” Student Council President Matt Schrimper said. “Their … well-being in the community is in our hands and is something we can address together.”
One of the project’s main goals this year, according to Schrimper, is to improve off-Grounds safety through proposed initiatives such as a free ride program for students, and the Lighten Up program, which would improve lighting in off-Grounds areas, as well as late-night free parking on Grounds.
To fund these initiatives, Schrimper said the project received a “generous donation” from the University Bookstore, and he hopes the project will receive additional grants through the University Parents Committee, as well as from student organizations such as the Inter-Sorority Council and the Inter-Fraternity Council. Schrimper also said Council would be requesting more money from the University.
Schrimper added that Council plans to reach out to graduate students through Council’s graduate representatives, as well by publicizing the project at the various schools at the University. Schrimper also highlighted the need to reach out to all student organizations on Grounds, especially non-philanthropic groups.
“We have no illusions about the fact that if we don’t proactively reach out to these groups and student organizations, this is something that could prove to be a disappointing undertaking,” Schrimper said.
Still, Schrimper noted that nothing would be required of any specific student organization.
“At no point do we ever want to mandate anything of the student body,” Schrimper said. “The main thing we want to do is highly publicize and reach out to student groups and let them know the opportunities before them and let them know how best they can contribute.”
Inter-Sorority Council President Stuart Berkeley and Inter-Fraternity Council President Taylor Richardson said the ISC and the IFC would be helping the project by donating to the “Free Ride” program, which would provide students with rides home at no cost.
“Off-Grounds safety is something that’s really important,” Richardson said. “I think it’s neat that students are taking a role in that. I think that’s one of the most important issues facing us right now, and [the project] will make a big difference and will be utilized.”
Opera Viva, the University’s student opera program, also expressed a desire to get involved with the University Unity Project; Opera Viva General Director Steven Young said the group is investigating ways to get involved in the wider University community as well as the Charlottesville community.
Some groups, however, said they currently have no planned involvement with the project.
Tea Club President John Stranahan said the project “didn’t seem well organized, [and] the essence of the project seems to be overwhelmingly rooted in a vague sense of unity, in an unspecified ‘common vision.’”
The Latino Student Union also has not planned to join the initiative; Latino Student Union President Chris Blank, said the project is not one of the group’s priorities.
“We are trying to focus more on University involvement with Latinos at U.Va.,” Blank said. “We haven’t really considered what any community outreach would be.”

After Saturday’s deflating blowout football loss to Southern Cal, Virginia’s sports weekend only got worse Sunday. The Virginia men’s soccer team was beaten at Klöckner Stadium by Southern Methodist University 3-1 Sunday evening in the final game of the Virginia Soccer Classic. The Mustangs dealt Virginia a second straight loss at home while the Cavaliers failed again to capitalize on scoring opportunities. Following Friday night’s 1-0 loss at the hands of St. John’s, Virginia now drops to 0-2 on the season.
“The story of the weekend was us not finishing our chances,” Virginia coach George Gelnovatch said. “Part of it is being young, part of it is being unlucky and part of it is our fault, and we need to step up and take responsibility for that.”
The first half of Sunday’s game got off to a lightning-quick start as Virginia controlled the early action. The Cavaliers kept up the intensity for the first five to 10 minutes, setting the pace of play. Sophomore midfielder Jimmy Simpson nearly created a scoring opportunity in the fifth minute when he played a through pass to junior midfielder Neil Barlow 10 yards in front of the goal. SMU sophomore goalkeeper Craig Hill, however, sprinted out of the goal to deny the Virginia shot.
Eventually the frantic pace set by both teams began to slow as both groups settled into the game. Much to Virginia’s chagrin, SMU shook the dust off and began putting pressure on Virginia sophomore goalkeeper Dan Louisignau. The Mustangs got a great look a little more than 15 minutes into the half when a free kick came dangerously close to Virginia’s goal. Louisignau, however, swooped in to defuse the situation and bail out the Virginia back line.
In the 27th minute, the Mustangs got even closer to putting home the game’s first goal as they peppered Louisignau with two shots on goal and a corner kick. Louisignau, however, came up with two back-to-back saves, one of which came on a one-on-one shot from 10 yards out. As SMU’s corner kick sailed over most everyone’s heads, Virginia was able to breathe a sigh of relief.
Five minutes later, however, disaster struck for Virginia. SMU midfielder Arthur Ivo played a brilliant through-ball that midfielder Gabe Arredondo was able to drive home. Arredondo’s goal gave SMU a 1-0 lead with less than 13 minutes remaining in the half. SMU hung on to its lead for the remainder of the period, despite rough play and the issuing of two yellow cards. The first half ended with SMU leading Virginia 1-0.
Virginia started things off quickly again in the second half when junior midfielder Matt Mitchell got off a good-looking shot in the opening seconds. Mitchell’s attempt, however, was stopped by Hill.
The Cavaliers appeared to catch a break in the 61st minute when freshman forward Chris Agorsor played a beautiful pass to freshman forward Brian Ownby just outside of the box. Ownby was tackled from behind, and Virginia was rewarded with a free kick from just outside of the box. The Cavaliers’ attempt, however, was blocked before it could reach the goal. One minute later, Virginia had its best opportunity of the game when the Cavaliers were awarded another free kick from just outside the box — but it too was blocked and cleared before the Cavaliers could capitalize on the rebound.
Minutes later, following a great shot attempt from Ownby, SMU added its second goal of the evening as junior forward Dane Saintus drove the ball into the bottom left corner past Louisignau to give the Mustangs a 2-0 lead.
After the Mustangs added insult to injury by recording their third goal of the night, Virginia finally got on the scoreboard. In the 73rd minute Mitchell played a centering pass to Agorsor, who was streaking down the field, five yards in front of the goal. Agorsor beat every SMU defender to the ball and slammed the ball past Hill to record his first career goal and Virginia’s first of the season. The remainder of the game saw several opportunities for Virginia, but the Cavaliers were unable to take advantage of any situation.
“When you lose two games you feel like crap,” Gelnovatch said. “But I know this is a good team.”
Friday night, Virginia suffered a disappointing one goal loss, as the Red Storm shut out Virginia. The Cavaliers were unable to get on the scoreboard despite outshooting St. John’s 17-7 and holding an 8-1 edge in corner kicks. Ownby had two shots on goal in the contest, including a close call in the 88th minute that would have tied the game. The freshman star was unable to capitalize, however, and Virginia walked away from Klöckner with a season-opening loss.
“It’s never fun losing two in a row,” Louisignau said. “Seeing how many opportunities we had was difficult but we know we’re a good team and we’re still keeping our heads high.”