Recently, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner revealed that he believes that the United States economy may require yet another infusion of cash from the federal government, this time lending as much as $1.5 trillion. The logic behind this move is that the fundamentals of the United States economic system have been damaged and require repairs that will ultimately come from the one place with cash enough to enact them. This most recent suggestion that government money will cure all ills demonstrates the most basic flaw of the premise of “bailing out” an industry: once you begin doing it, it is difficult to stop.

Each bailout thus far countenanced by the federal government has been established to meet an onrushing crisis. The Bear Stearns shotgun wedding to J.P. Morgan (already nearly a year in the rear view mirror) was meant to forestall a devastating run on the nation’s investment system and to prevent a massive, unforeseen credit crisis. While effective in the short run in preventing an out and out panic, clearly it has not kept the nation out of a massive economic downturn. The major concern with the government involvement in the Bear Stearns crisis — in which it extended a great deal of credit to the failing investment banking firm — was that such involvement would destroy the moral hazard born by companies in a competitive industry — that they would lose the incentive not to fail because the government would back them up financially. The “Too Big to Fail” premise has extended further, with government money being doled out to insurance giant AIG, the “Big Three” automakers, and others by the billion. The larger the company, the more likely it is to get money if it finds itself on shaky financial footing. The desire to save jobs and restore the financial industry, while noble in and of itself, seems to be leading the government on a wild goose chase, when each request for money is followed by another. It feels like the equivalent of pouring money into a hole, as the continuously plummeting stock market seems unrestrained by the cash thrown into the various industries or the pockets of consumers.

Fundamentally, the issue is one of short-term vision. Government officials, given only brief elected terms, seek to do what will make their constituents happiest within those windows so that they may return to office two, four, or six years down the line. But at what cost? Short term spending may avert crises temporarily, but they cannot dull the effects, and may indeed exacerbate them down the road by consuming resources that might best be used elsewhere. Each request for money makes sense to someone trying to protect the jobs and welfare of constituents. And it certainly seems heartless to watch jobs float away without stepping in. But none of the measures thus far adopted seem to have had any effect on the worsening economy. The argument might be made that the “stimulus” bill signed only recently has not been given time to be properly absorbed into the economic mainstream. But the continued negative trend within the market suggests that investors have low levels of confidence in its ability to reverse the trend or to increase consumption to the degree necessary to avert continued decline. The infusions of government money reek of artificiality and do not seem to be having any effect in slowing the crisis.

The other issue is simply a lack of knowledge. The enormous complexity of the global economy makes it impossible for anyone to accurately predict its behavior. Any number of factors can play havoc with markets in a scenario remarkably similar to the butterfly effect, in which a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of an ocean causes a tidal wave on the other side. This jumble of markets and money, with so many different influences, argues against any one man, or one group of men, being able to accurately predict the result of money being inserted into the economy. The efficiency of world markets also argues against any government money being applied in time to adequately correct the problem for which it was destined.

What then should we do? Geithner is correct in arguing that there has been significant damage done to our economic system — the Dow Jones Industrial Average recently reached its lowest point in over a decade. But panicked dollars stuffed into the holes are not the answer. The solution will take time, and will in all likelihood come as a result of a fundamental restructuring of the credit industry as lenders take a closer look at the loans they make and at the security they receive for their money. The government needs to check itself in its willingness to dole out money to those in troubled straits and realize that sometimes time is the best answer to these problems.

Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.

In these times of economic crisis, the University is looking for ways to cut the budget without negatively impacting students. A plan with this goal in mind is ITC’s decision to slowly phase out computers on Grounds in favor of remote access to software that is currently featured on University computers.      While having less hardware to maintain would certainly save the University a few bucks, the extra strain it would put on the student body as a whole is not worth the money saved. ITC’s assumption that since the majority of students own a computer they no longer require desktops on Grounds overlooks some important facts about desktop use.  Desktop computers on Grounds are necessary for students without laptops, laptop owners who would rather not have their computer with them at all times, and students who are unfortunate enough to deal with a computer crash.

Students who choose to own desktop computers rather than laptops will be negatively impacted by ITC’s plan. Obviously they are unable to bring their computers with them to Grounds, but now they will be unable to drop in the library between classes and check their e-mail if need be. When it comes to writing papers, they will have to hope that their roommates will be considerate and stay quiet while they write, rather than having the option to head to the library for a quiet night to themselves. The number of students who own desktop computers is a minority, but they will still be hurt by the elimination of computers on Grounds.

Even students who own laptop computers do not always find a need to bring them to Grounds. The distraction that comes from having a laptop at all times can seriously inhibit one’s work. Many people have seen it happen or even experienced it themselves. Someone heads to the library, laptop in tow, ready to pump out a paper. He gets out his laptop, opens up Firefox and iTunes, and then it goes downhill from there. A few hours go by and he wonders why he came to the library at all. Using the desktops at the library allows students to resist the temptation to use personal software that distracts them from their work. Someone can hop onto a computer quickly to check their e-mail or type up an essay, but without access to their personal music library, video games, movies, or whatever else is on their computer, students are more likely to work quickly and efficiently.

Even when it’s necessary, bringing a laptop on Grounds is a hassle. A laptop adds another ten pounds to the weight one is carrying, which can be a drag when walking to class takes you ten to twenty minutes. Also, laptops are expensive pieces of equipment. The wear and tear they take when they are being lugged around shortens their lifespan and they are tempting objects for people who may be looking to make a quick buck on some stolen computer merchandise. Despite the fact that they are portable, laptops are not necessarily up to the strain that college life puts them under.

Aside from these concerns, not having computers in the library is a horrifying prospect for a student whose computer hard drive has just crashed. I had to go through this unfortunate ordeal over the summer, in which I was without my own computer for about three to four weeks. Three to four weeks without a computer in college is a lifetime. The multitude of papers, short answer question assignments, and other writing tasks is overwhelming. Without computers in the libraries, students with malfunctioning hardware will have to depend upon their friends to lend them their computers when they’re not using them, which is most likely a rare occasion.

ITC’s plan to phase out computers on Grounds is not an inherently bad idea. Using the fourth floor of Clemons as a model for responding to students’ needs in terms of workspace and use of technology, ITC seems to be hitting the mark. When asked about students’ responses to the remodeled fourth floor, Donna Tolson, Head of Clemons Library, stated that, “Our perception is that students are big fans of the changes to the fourth floor… We have not received complaints about the lack of desktops – but there are still 30 available on the floor.” If ITC continues to respond to students’ needs in this manner, then perhaps the elimination of desktops on Grounds is not a foregone conclusion.

Reducing costs for the University in the economic downturn is a good idea and the plan to grant remote access to software on University computers will be a nice technological feature for students looking to avoid going broke over software. Not having to pay for an updated version of Microsoft Office every few years would save students hundreds of dollars, but it’s a shame that the trade off for this service is the end of University computers on Grounds.

If University computers and the remote access program could co-exist, ITC would be doing a great service to the University community. The co-existence of desktops and remote access would indicate ITC’s true desire to respond to students’ technological needs.  But the practical implications and limitations that eliminating University computers would put on students is not worth the few dollars the University would save. ITC should continue to respond to students’ needs as they have been, and maintain desktops on Grounds while pursuing the plan for remote access to University software.

Michael Khavari is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.

With the elections now decided, it is time for the newly elected officials of our student government to lay the groundwork for building positive relationships with their constituents, including the organizations of the Minority Rights Coalition. Before we move beyond the campaign season though, there are two key observations to be made of the election process: the low quality of the candidates and the questionable nature of campaign tactics.

Over the course of the campaign, eighteen candidates approached the MRC for an endorsement yet many did not even know which groups constituted it. In fact, only three out of the eighteen candidates running for positions on Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, and the Honor Committee were able to name correctly all six organizations that make up the Coalition — the Asian Student Union, the Black Student Alliance, Feminism is For Everyone, La Alianza Coalition of Hispanic/Latino Leaders, the Middle Eastern Leadership Council, and the Queer Student Union. Just as troubling were the candidates’ inability to name many of the major administrators at the University, with the most commonly missed one being Vice President and Chief Officer for Diversity and Equity, Bill Harvey. This lack of knowledge on the part of the candidates demonstrated an absence of genuine interest or investment in underrepresented communities to the members of the MRC.

In addition to being highly uninformed about the makeup of the MRC and the needs of the groups these represent, the majority of the candidates also had a poor to no track record as advocates and allies. To illustrate, many candidates for the Honor Committee paid lip service to the imperfect nature of the honor system by citing spotlighting, dimming, and the over-representation of Greek students within the system. What many candidates failed to demonstrate however, was a nuanced understanding of diversity and honor. Spotlighting and dimming refers to the disproportionate rate at which certain students — athletes, international students, students of color — are accused of an honor offense. Candidate representatives for the Honor Committee often referred to previous studies which had shown that when cases actually go to trial, the proportion of each demographic found guilty normalizes, proving that each student is treated fairly, regardless of race and other markers. Those studies were based on data compiled in 2003, six years ago, and there appears to be a growing disparity in guilty verdicts since that time. Between the 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 academic years, there were a total of 129 trials with 45.7 percent of those cases resulting in a guilty verdict. The percentage found guilty for trials of Caucasians was 41.3 percent, for African-Americans it was 46.7 percent and for Asians it was 52.9 percent. Fairness remains an issue plaguing the honor system; spotlighting and dimming are not restricted to rates of reporting.

The second major issue during the campaign was the honor referendum, which had the potential to open up much needed discussions about the single sanction. Instead, what the student body experienced was exaggerated and even misleading arguments. At first, those serving in the Honor Committee in both elected and appointed positions, expressed their concerns with the proposed changes to the single sanction and triviality clause on the ballot through opinion columns and personal e-mails. Students explored other structural problems within the Honor Committee that might be exacerbated with the implementation of the proposed referendum. This opportunity for self-assessment was cut short by some in the Honor Committee, who actively campaigned for the Students for Honor “Vote No” Campaign and used their current positions to validate their stance on the issue. Although this is acceptable for the Honor Committee representatives as they were elected on their views and experience with administering the system, for non-elected officials, this presents a gray area. We do not allow federal bureaucrats to campaign for politicians in their capacity as civil servants, why allow the same for those appointed in our student government? Furthermore, pro-single sanction efforts have relied heavily on alumni support in the past, and judging by the pervasiveness of the “Vote No” beverage insulators and t-shirts, this campaign was likely no different. The lack of transparency in campaign finances brings into question the issue of fairness. Campaigns concerning referenda are not required to report expenditures, but we must ensure the integrity of our elections by promoting ethical campaign finance practices. Bringing referendum campaigns under the regulation of the University Board of Elections is one possible solution to the problem.

Change is a slow process but this campaign has demonstrated that meaningful reform is necessary to produce a fairer process. Overall candidate quality was low, but the MRC chose to endorse the candidates that had a minimum base knowledge and a demonstrated ability to reach out once elected. However, in order for a constructive relationship between members of the Minority Rights Coalition and institutional groups such as the University Judiciary Committee to exist, there needs to be equal, sustained interest from every organization — not just during elections and recruitment periods.

Bernice Ramirez and Carlos Oronce are co-chairs of the Minority Rights Coalition. Their column appears bi-weekly on Thursdays.

The University Hospital will soon begin a series of long-planned renovations and construction projects, including the continued construction of the Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center and the addition of 72 private rooms to the hospital, Chief of Environmental Care Tom Harkins said.

The hospital also is planning for a new pediatric outpatient facility, as well as a bridge over Lee Street connecting the hospital to the new cancer center, which will serve as an outpatient clinical cancer facility, Harkins said.

He noted that a significant number of renovations will take place inside the main University Hospital building, including the refurbishment of all patient rooms, a major renovation to the radiology suite and the construction of new operating rooms and nine new procedure rooms for interventional cardiology.

 The expansions are in response to the growing demands for healthcare, Harkins said.

“The need for beds is a critical need,” said Luis Carrazana, University architect for research and clinical programs. He said the hospital now has many days when it is at capacity.

“Literally all the beds in the hospital are full and that happens more often then we would like,” Carrazana said.

The expansion includes the addition of a nursing unit and single-patient beds per floor, Carrazana said. The beds will be multiple acuity, meaning they can shift from a standard bed to an acute care bed.

New technology is another driving force behind the expansions.

The University Hospital is more than 20 years old, which is about the lifespan of a hospital system, Carrazana said.

As new equipment becomes available, the hospital needs to ensure it has the latest technology available for its patients, Harkins said. The hospital will need differently sized rooms and different mechanical systems to support the equipment, he said.

A budget of $500 million was allocated for all the projects, Harkins said.

He added that the Emily Couric Cancer Center will be completed next year and that the hospital bed expansion will be complete by the end of 2011. The pediatric outpatient facility will be completed in 2013.

Construction of the cancer center is currently underway.

“It’s a state of the art cancer center,” Carrazana said. “People come from all over the state to get treatment here.”

The benefits of the expansion therefore are not limited to the local area, Carranza said.

“It will give us the opportunity to see more patients who are members of community and provide absolute state-of-the-art care in the hospital,” Harkins said.

—Kate Colwell contributed to this article.

A bill that would have simplified voter registration for Virginia college students was voted down in a House of Delegates subcommittee Friday afternoon.

Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt, introduced the bill, SB 829, to let students choose where they would register to vote, either in their home districts or at school.

Aide David Suetterlein said Smith sponsored the bill because he felt “the courts have been clear about student’s right to vote.”

In 1993, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution assessing the need for a clarification of voter registration laws, especially for student voters. Today, clarification of a college student’s ‘domicile’ for voting is still a heated issue.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia recently accused Registrar Tracy Howard of blocking Radford students from voting, as his office did not register students with impermanent addresses listed on their voter application forms for last November’s elections.

Howard said he felt he was being singled out when he just tried to follow the law. Thus, he said he approached Sen. Smith about introducing a bill to clarify the law.

“I felt we needed a registration laws that would benefit both student voters and administrators in charge of their registration.”

The bill passed unanimously in the Senate but was killed in a House subcommittee, Howard said.  

As of now, the law still stands as it did before the 1993 resolution, stating that a resident must have a permanent address to register to vote.
The Student Voter Registration Coalition gives University students the option of using either their current or home address, said Bruce Vlk, deputy director of programs at the Center for Politics. Furthermore, he said he believed the Charlottesville and Albemarle registrars did not mind impermanent addresses, for the most part.

He added, however, that he thought the laws were in need of clarification, as the definition of a domicile is often contested.

A representative aide for Smith said the State Board of Elections has switched its definition several times. At one time the Board said a domicile was simply where one slept but now it implies a permanent residence.

The difference between the definitions of “domicile” can have real political repercussions because most college students traditionally vote Democratic, Howard said. A Republican administration could have motivation to impose a stricter definition of domicile, such as making it dependent on where a voter pays taxes. This would make it harder for students to vote.

Because the governor handpicks the members of that Board, “voter registration policy has a partisan charge,” Howard said.

Smith’s bill would have taken the ambiguous responsibilities of the State Board of Elections and solidified them in the Virginia General Assembly.

His aide added that “the point of the bill was to clarify the problems that the General Assembly recognized in 1993.”

Despite the confusing state laws, Vlk said he believes that overall, Charlottesville has relatively few problems with student voter registration compared to other localities.

Barack Obama’s presidential administration announced Monday that it plans to nominate University Law Prof. Jon Cannon as the next deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Allyn Brooks-LaSure, EPA deputy associate administrator for public affairs, said Cannon’s nomination first will be presented to Congress before it is confirmed.

“[Cannon] has a very strong record in supporting environmental issues that positively impact human health in the environment,” Brooks-LaSure said. He added that those who are currently involved in the EPA are looking forward to working with him, should he be confirmed.

Assoc. Law Dean and Prof. Jim Ryan said Cannon has “had a great deal of experience in the past working with the EPA with great distinction.” He said Canon worked with former EPA Administrator Carol Browner.

Ryan said Cannon, since leaving the EPA, has been considered one of the top environmental lawyers and environmental law scholars in the country.

“He is a first-rate intellect and a first-rate person, and I can’t imagine they would have picked anyone better for the job,” Ryan said.

Brooks-LaSure said Cannon’s potential role in the EPA would make him responsible for the agency itself, as well as for implementing the processes necessary for the agency’s head administrator to follow the president’s environmental agenda.

“This is a really big deal,” Ryan said. “He really is the number two person at the EPA.”

Though Cannon could soon fill a significant role within the nation’s government, Ryan also expressed some sadness that Cannon will be leaving the University for an extended period of time.

“We should all be happy that they picked him,” he said. “The only sad part is that he won’t be here for a while.”

Cannon said he is very thankful for the nomination, which will soon be presented to Congress.

The Virginia College Savings Plan extended its deadline Monday for families to enroll in the Virginia Prepaid Education Program to March 15 because of an increase in the number of families enrolling in the program. Compared to last year, about 15 percent more families this year are participating in the commonwealth’s cost-saving payment plan, according to a VCSP press release.

Launched in 1996 to help families counter the rising cost of college tuition, VPEP was among the first higher education savings programs in the country governed by section 529 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, a VCSP spokesperson said. VCSP offers four different 529 programs, including VPEP, which allow families to receive tax deductions and benefits while saving for college.

VPEP allows individuals saving for college to invest money free of federal taxes in an account at a rate consistent with yearly college tuition changes, allowing families to negate inflation by paying for future college expenditures at today’s prices, the spokesperson said.

According to VCSP, families usually only have a three-month window to enroll in VPEP, as actuaries at VCSP must determine the yearly college inflation rate from college tuition fees across the country. This year’s two-week extension is intended to allow more families to take advantage of the program.

Yvonne Brown, director of guidance at Albemarle High School, said she agreed with VCSP’s decision to extend the deadline. She said she has seen an increase in the number of families struggling to pay for college, and noted that the extension could help families in need.

“A lot of parents tell me they do not have the money to pay for college,” Brown said. “If students want to go to a top school, a lot of them must re-evaluate which schools they can get into and how much they’d have to pay to go there.”

The University, however, has yet to notice significant increases in the number of students not attending for financial reasons, Financial Aid Director Yvonne Hubbard said.

She also said, however, that she expects more students and families will accept loans from AccessUVa, the University’s financial aid program. The University is preparing for the possibility of decreased enrollment during this year’s summer session as well, she said.

“We’re ready for all the different ways families will want to spend less and borrow more,” Hubbard said, noting that the recent economic downturn will continue affecting college students and their families.

The University’s environmental science department — now in its 40th year of existence — and major program has seen significant growth and diversification in the past several years because of factors including increased participant interest and a growing curiosity among students in the department’s lower-level classes, chair Joseph Zieman said.

“A few years ago, I called it simply the Al Gore effect, but the reality now is anybody with half a brain can’t pick up The New York Times without having to know something about the environment,” department chair Joseph Zieman said, noting that more and more students continue to express interest in the department’s programs. Classes in the department are quickly growing in popularity, he said.

Assoc. Ecology Prof. Tom Smith said he believes that the growing focus on environmental concerns during the past decade is a result of global climate change and the decline in biodiversity of the planet because of human activities. This growing interest in environmental issues naturally increases interest in the University’s department, he added.

“I believe that there is an increased awareness among students because of the focus on these in the popular press and it’s the courses in our department that address the scientific basis of these issues,” Smith said.

Smith also said he believes that when College students need to fulfill science requirements, they may choose the environmental sciences because these fields often can be more easily applied to current events.

“When students are tasked with selecting courses to meet those requirements, I think there’s an increase in students moving toward the environmental science courses that provide them with the foundation for understanding these environmental issues,” Smith said.

The high demand for the department’s introductory-level courses also created increased diversity among the department’s course offerings, Smith said. More University students seeking to obtain knowledge about environmental issues means the department must provide more classes with more variety, he added.

“We’re oversubscribed, so what we’ve tried to do is increase the number of offerings,” Smith said.

Zieman, however, emphasized that — even taking into account the department’s recent growth — he believes the department must become even larger and play a more significant interdisciplinary role on Grounds.

“We made our reputation by being a hard science-based department and we need to partner with other people around the University, to branch out in more policy and more economic issues, while keeping our department centered on what we do well,” he noted.

Zieman said the department’s efforts to expand may explain why it has some of the most uniquely faceted 100- and 200-level courses of any University science department.

“One of our goals of this diversity of lower division courses is to help make the student body more environmentally literate,” Zieman said.

Following the Virginia women’s basketball team’s big win against Florida State Tuesday night, the men’s basketball team gets to take its own shot at another Sunshine State squad tonight at John Paul Jones Arena.

The Cavaliers (9-14, 3-9 ACC) will have the chance to damage the NCAA Tournament résumé of the Miami Hurricanes (16-10, 5-8 ACC) in much the same way they did against Virginia Tech last Wednesday, winning 75-61.

Miami is coming off a crucial 69-58 win against Boston College Saturday, ending a tough three-game skid after falling to Duke, North Carolina and Florida State. The Hurricanes own a paltry 3-7 record during their last 10 games, a statistic they will want to improve by Selection Sunday, given the importance the NCAA Selection Committee usually places on recent performance for tournament berths.

After Virginia, Miami finishes up its regular season against Georgia Tech and N.C. State. Including tonight’s game against Virginia, these games against the ACC’s weaker teams are must-wins for the Hurricanes. Though Miami has a ratings percentage index of 46, ahead of fellow ACC bubble teams Maryland (54), Boston College (55) and Virginia Tech (66), all of those teams currently have .500-or-better records in conference play. Miami, however, will have to win all three to achieve an even 8-8 ACC mark.

The Cavaliers, meanwhile, have been relegated to the spoiler role. Virginia, coming off a 72-67 loss to N.C. State Saturday, will have to bring more energy against Miami than it did against the Wolfpack. N.C. State led 24-6 before Virginia closed the first half with a 23-9 run to make it 33-29 heading into the locker room.

“I thought early in the game, we settled for jump shots,” Virginia coach Dave Leitao said. “I told them during one of the timeouts I didn’t want any more jump shots. I wanted to attack, which was our game plan anyway. It has been more of our thought process recently to be more attacking and if you attack more, you get to the line, you get easy baskets and high percentage shots.”

Being back on the home court could help the offense in the early going tonight, but getting out to a quick start will mean slowing down Miami senior guard Jack McClinton, who is averaging 20.1 points per game this season, placing him fourth in the ACC. Miami only has one other player averaging in double figures, junior forward Dwayne Collins at 11 points per game — but the Hurricanes boast five other players averaging at least five points. Collins is a presence on the inside, grabbing a team-leading 7.2 rebounds per game, just slightly behind Virginia sophomore forward Mike Scott, whose 7.3 put him at 10th in the ACC.

As a team, Miami sports the third best scoring defense in the ACC, giving up only 66.2 ppg. Additionally, the Hurricanes are tied with N.C. State for the league lead in three-point percentage (38.4 percent) thanks in large part to McClinton’s incredible 47.7 percent accuracy from long range, far outpacing Clemson sophomore guard Terrence Oglesby (39.5 percent) for first place in the conference.

Leitao has used a revamped starting lineup since the second half against Boston College, but it was largely ineffective during the first half against the Wolfpack. Leitao then retooled the lineup, but he was disappointed in the bench production as well.

“I don’t think [the starters] as a unit came out with the same kind of energy that we had recently,” Leitao said. “Then guys came off the bench and didn’t give us energy boosts either. So it wasn’t specifically the starting lineup.”

Despite the subpar play from the entire team, senior forward Mamadi Diane, who has been largely absent from games this year, was a bright spot, scoring 11 points in the second half and sparking a comeback for the Cavaliers in which they nearly erased N.C. State’s 17-point lead. Earlier in the game, the embattled senior could sense the impending troubles Virginia later faced by watching his teammates’ body language.

“Our bodies were lackadaisical,” Diane said. “Everything we were doing was lackadaisical. When you start out like that, there’s no way you’re going to win.”

Virginia will have to become more energetic if it hopes to knock off a Miami team fighting for an NCAA Tournament berth. Only three Cavaliers scored in double figures against N.C. State, while five and four reached double figures in wins against Clemson and Virginia Tech, respectively.

I have covered men’s basketball for The Cavalier Daily the last two seasons. Last year, the women finished in the top 25 in the nation, while the men finished in the bottom three in the conference; this year looks like it will end about the same. And last year, two stories ran after the men’s games, while one story ran after the women’s; this year, again, is about the same. The difference in coverage sure seems unfair, doesn’t it?

In a way, it is. But I am here to defend it.

The main argument for why the men’s team should get more coverage than the women’s is obvious: More people care about the men’s team at this University than the women’s team, period. The attendance at John Paul Jones Arena clearly illustrates the point. Even this season, when fans have absolutely zero expectations of a postseason for the men, the attendance at men’s games is nearly triple that of the women’s games. You can be sure that many more people have heard of Sylven Landesberg than Monica Wright, and I would bet even money that the name recognition of Will Sherill versus Britny Edwards on the bench differs by a similar ratio.

I am not narrow-minded enough, however, to suggest that the attention the general public pays to a sport is the only factor that should determine coverage. The media has a responsibility to cover what has the community buzzing. This relationship, however, can work in reverse. If the media gives sufficient attention to a sport, that attention will make that sport bigger. Just as I am sure that the writer of the opposing column today, Dan Stalcup, would not say that media coverage should be determined solely by win-loss records of the teams in question, I will not claim that public perception should entirely shape coverage. The media can have a degree of flexibility.

Where Dan and I differ, I’m sure, is where we land on that spectrum; I tend to think that while media can generate talk, that relationship can only go so far. Consider the following analogy. A grocery store decides to market a new product — call it product A — while it does not market another product, though it is also on the shelves, product B. The store puts up a banner in front of the store raving about product A and stations employees inside handing out samples of product A. Product B, though still on the shelves at the store, is not promoted at all.

The increased exposure of product A to the general public is obviously designed to increase sales of that product. What if, however, product A is broccoli and product B is Snickers? The store can hand out all the free broccoli they want; most people will still pay to eat candy. By a similar vein, The Cavalier Daily can give all the attention to the women’s basketball team it wants. But the large difference in the fan bases would only be diminished by a relatively small number.

Then, I’m sure, Dan has another counterargument. He has likely said a winning team deserves to get covered more — to a degree. The women’s team, after all, works just as hard as the men’s team does, and if the women get the results, that ought to be rewarded.

But this argument has no merit in and of itself. Teams don’t “deserve” coverage from unbiased media, and The Cavalier Daily — perhaps unbeknownst to some — is unbiased media. Once you start talking about a team deserving something because of all the hard work it puts in, you are no longer an unbiased journalist. You are a fan. This argument only has relevance in that, given two teams of equal stature, fans will prefer a winning team to a losing one. But that goes back to the difference in public perception, which clearly outweighs the effect of the contrast in win-loss records of the men’s and women’s basketball teams. The factor of why the public cares more about one team or another, so long as it carries no ethical dilemma, is irrelevant. All that matters is the end result.

Clearly, I am not the only person with this opinion. The Daily Progress covers men’s versus women’s basketball in exactly the same manner that The Cavalier Daily does. Men’s basketball gets a column and a game story after games, while the women get just the game story. The Richmond Times-Dispatch, which covers the men’s team regularly, doesn’t send a writer to the women’s games; not even when they are at home.

But, you say, this is The Cavalier Daily we’re talking about here! Surely student-writers should have some compassion for their peers of all sports, right?

Wrong. The Cavalier Daily, like most student newspapers nationwide, is as independent of the subject matter it covers as any other professional newspaper. I would be lying if I said there weren’t Virginia fans among the Cavalier Daily staff. This is an inevitable byproduct of students covering the school they know and love.

Other than a staff of students who are largely unpaid, however, The Cavalier Daily is no different than any other professional newspaper. Thus, in as much as possible, we should therefore act like one.