I take serious issue with Amanda Karim’s assertion that “suspicious excuses” in “a pass/fail one-credit class” amount to “triviality” (“A failure of honor,” 3/30/2009). Since graduating from the University, I have taught at two universities and interacted with faculty at many others. At communities without trust, I have observed faculty requiring doctors’ notes, death certificates, and boarding passes to document students’ claims. I have heard of faculty prohibiting bathroom breaks during exams and checking IDs at each desk during finals.

Students may certainly choose any level of effort for any course, but honor is, simply, accepting responsibility for those choices. I agree with Karim that missing an assignment in a one credit course is not a major breach.

Tearing at the fragile fabric of trust is.

I was warned about culture shock and the emotional aspect of living in another country for an extended period of time. The International Studies Office even gave me a handy graph in case I didn’t understand the verbal explanation, which was basically: When you’re feeling good, it’s all roses, but when you’re feeling bad, you want to jump off a bridge. I have experienced these ups and downs during my previous travels to South America and Asia, so I felt a bit more prepared to face it than some people in the group who had never been “culture shocked” before. I also thought that spending more than two months in Ecuador — a country that shares a border and many cultural aspects with Peru — when I was in high school would have shielded me from being quite as jolted by the poverty, pollution and crazy driving habits that both countries experience.

But, boy, was I wrong.

My friends and family have turned into psychologists, advising me about all of the experiences I am having, both good and bad. I’m either telling them about the beauty of Peru and feeling confident that my Spanish skills came back to me so quickly after three years of disuse, or I’m frustrated by the machismo culture and my inability to communicate. The old cliché describes it best — this is a roller coaster ride and I’m sitting in the back, unable to see the drops and curves ahead.

I know that this is all part of the decision I made to put myself out there and go somewhere that was not within my comfort zone. But knowing that doesn’t make it much easier. There are only five students in the University of Virginia Program in Peru this semester, and we’ve all been experiencing similar emotions and reactions at the same time. That makes it great for talking to each other and realizing that I’m not alone, but it also means that there are days when we all want to hop on the next plane home. Most recently, problems with my host family resulted in my moving out of the house under the cover of darkness after a big confrontation. Not exactly how I wanted to celebrate the end of my first month in Peru.

It’s difficult to explain culture shock and the effects of the study abroad experience to those who have never gone through the process. Some people avoid discussing some of the more frustrating or negative aspects of being in a foreign country and instead paint a rosy postcard picture where everyone is eating, drinking and being merry. I am still having fun and am excited to be here, but this whole experience seems like one major contradiction after another.

I’m both excited and terrified to be in this place for four more months. In some ways I feel that I’ve been here for months and other times like I just arrived. I’m pleasantly surprised at my ability to communicate with others but frustrated when they don’t understand or assume they won’t just by looking at my pale skin, red hair and freckles. For the most part, I love the people, but I hate being whistled at when walking down the street. I love my classes but don’t feel comfortable participating because I’m afraid no one will understand what I’m trying to say. I want to know Lima better but am annoyed that I can’t walk around freely to explore it because of safety concerns.

This is definitely not a column that will leave you feeling all fuzzy inside, and I’ve decided to stop before this turns into a whiney Alanis Morrisette song about irony and contradictions. It is, however, what I’m experiencing right now and what I think is important to share. This is real ­— not like “The Real World” type of “real” — and just part of the experience. Although it’s difficult knowing that I’m going to be on this roller coaster for a while still, I know that it will all be worth it in the end. There are definitely life lessons that I am learning, and I still wouldn’t trade this experience for anything. I just wish I had brought my teddy bear with me.

Rachel’s column runs biweekly on Tuesdays. She can be reached at r.gottlieb@cavalierdaily.com

Working Together We Can Achieve More.” “Vote to Win.” “A House for Everyone.” These are some of the slogans of some of the nearly 100 political parties in South Africa that are currently trying to convince the public that they are the party to best lead the country. The April 22 election, now less than a month away, could be the most significant election in South Africa since Nelson Mandela’s election in 1994. So here is a quick rundown of politics in South Africa.

Unlike in America, where we vote for presidential candidates, South African citizens only vote for political parties. There is only one question on the ballot. You mark which party you like the best — or perhaps dislike the least — and that is it. Just imagine if by voting for a party in the United States, you would then by default be supporting everyone in that party. Yikes! The representation in the Parliament is proportional to the percentage of votes that a party gets. Right before the election, each party publishes an ordered list of proposed candidates. For all the seats that the party wins, it will go right down the list and those people will fill the available seats. The party with the largest percentage gets to choose the president and then the president chooses all of his ministers.  

Since 1994, the African National Congress has ruled the country. This year, however, there is a new party that might present a legitimate challenge to the ANC’s dominance. The Congress of the People is a party that broke away from the ANC this fall. This split was in response to the ANC recalling then-President Thabo Mbeki, forcing his resignation. Because COPE is a party of former ANC members, it will likely garner some of the support the ANC previously enjoyed, which has created a divide in the country. Even the name “COPE” is controversial because in 1955, the ANC held a conference called Congress of the People, during which it adopted one of its founding documents, the Freedom Charter. The ANC tried to sue for copyright violations but lost in the South African High Court.

The main reason this election might be a turning point for South Africa is that the ANC’s candidate for president, Jacob Zuma, is currently standing trial for corruption charges stemming from an arms deal while he was South Africa’s vice president. It is believed that Zuma will try to change the constitution so that he cannot be put on trial if he has the chance. To change the constitution in South Africa, there must be two-thirds approval of Parliament. Right now, the ANC is hovering around 60 to 65 percent support according to the polls. This means that if the ANC wins two-thirds of the vote, then it will have that majority in Parliament and thus can change the constitution however it pleases. Hence, the percentage of the country that votes for the ANC is absolutely critical.

Another significant issue for the parties to address is the upcoming soccer World Cup. The World Cup is coming to South Africa in a little more than a year. There are a lot of issues, including crime and transportation, which must be improved if the World Cup is going to be successful, and currently the parties are pitching their plans to show off their country to the rest of the world.

Right now, it is fun being an observer, and I have enjoyed talking to people about how they feel about the election. I think the most surprising thing is some people’s lack of interest, given the fact that the majority of the adult population only has been enfranchised for 15 years. Don’t get me wrong — there are plenty of people who are very passionate about the election. They just aren’t found in the large cities.

Tomorrow, I leave Durban for Ladysmith, a town about four hours away from Durban. I will be performing an Independent Study Project by working in the Emergency Room of Ladysmith Provincial Hospital. It should be interesting being outside the city for one of the most important and controversial elections in South Africa’s history.

Megan’s column runs biweekly on Tuesdays. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com.

One of the biggest surprises for me during Semester at Sea was seeing remnants from World War II in nearly every country visited thus far. In the Bahamas, I saw a memorial to those who fought for the British crown. In Morocco, I saw WWII cemeteries for North African soldiers. In Namibia, I saw old gun posts and headquarters that the German colonial powers built to prepare for war in South Africa. In Thailand, I visited the River Kwai in the far west region of the country to see the work of Allied prisoners of war and to honor their memory.

The POWs that worked on the River Kwai were immortalized in the book and movie, “Bridge On the River Kwai.” I’ve heard many former POWs do not care for the movie because their captors are too favorably portrayed; that’s debatable. In any event, I thought it was important that the labors and pains of Allied soldiers were not forgotten. Most of the POWs were British or Dutch, along with some Australians and Americans. They were used for the construction of a Thai-Burma railroad, the purpose of which was for the Japanese to connect their Thai posts to their Burma personnel and supplies. Today that railroad is known as the Death Railway because more than 9,000 POWs died from disease, exhaustion or torture.

My trip began there, at the Wang Phu outpost on the Death Railway. We waited nearly 45 minutes in the thick humidity for the late train to arrive. When the train finally came, we boarded already dehydrated and exhausted from the temperature. The ride was rocky but beautiful, and the breeze through the window was refreshing and reenergizing. While riding the train, I began talking with a SAS professor. I asked her why she chose to come on this trip instead of heading to the beaches of Phuket like so many other SAS members. She peered at the view sliding by and replied that her father was a British POW from 1941 to 1945 who worked on the railroad. We rode on in silence — each of us trying to imagine the work required to build a railroad through the dense jungle. I looked at track number marks and wondered who placed the beams. What was his story? After riding the train for an hour, we arrived at the famous Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s industrial-looking and surrounded by a flourishing town, unlike in the movie. Floating houses and markets are scattered on the river below. Tourists, mainly Dutch, snap photos in front of the bridge. Nearby there is a memorial wall dedicated to the POWs who built the bridge, and a plaque from the Veterans of Foreign Wars acknowledges the deaths of nearly 700 Americans who died as POWs.

Our tour guide took us to the Allied War cemetery that the local government constructed for the countries of those perished. There are not any U.S. POWs buried there today because the United States’ policy is to get all deceased military out of areas of former enemy territory. There were more than 6,000 graves at the site we visited. I did my best to read the headstones to recognize each name. The most poignant for me was D.R. Briggs, Corps of Military Police, age 20. His family wrote, “Some corner of a foreign field that is forever England.” War is when countries are forever intermingled because of death.

The following morning we took a brief boat tour on the river before entering the JEATH Museum that tourists created in the early 1970s to appreciate the labor of the POWs. JEATH stands for all the nations involved in the Japanese POW camp: Japan, England, Australia/America, Thailand and Holland. This museum is a replica POW hut with thatched bamboo tables. Each POW had 2.5 feet of sleeping space and received small daily rations of rice and water. The camp mantra was, “Work or Starve.” The hut also was filled with pictures diagramming torture methods and detailing all the imaginable horrors associated with living in a POW camp.

I’ve seen vestiges of WWII in nearly every port. As I peered up to the Burma-Thai mountain range, I thought about the sheer magnitude of WWII. I don’t think I ever absorbed the words “world war” before. Now I realize that death and destruction were once an incomprehensible scale — but the war ended and peace returned to a ravaged world. Perhaps there’s always hope to be found.

Katie’s column runs biweekly on Tuesdays. She can be reached at k.rember@cavalierdaily.com

Inflexible adherence to policy and lack of communication help explain a recent incident at the X-Lounge, which has come under fire for denying a Sikh student entrance to an Indian Student Association party because of his refusal to remove a head covering worn for religious purposes. The events that followed expose the complexity of a situation in which both parties had good intentions, and the actions of ISA members and of the X-Lounge’s staff suggest ways the University community can deal with similar challenges in the future.

Last Thursday’s incident at the X-Lounge brings to light old problems; in 2006, University students protested a controversial dress code implemented at Jabberwocky (now No. Three) that prohibited plain white t-shirts and baggy jeans and seemed to discriminate against individuals who dressed a certain way. Clearly, the establishment of dress codes has been problematic in a college town that brings together people of many different backgrounds and cultural traditions.

Dress codes exist to ensure the safety and comfort of a venue’s patrons, and fundamentally, an appropriate dress code will make sense. Yes, weapons can be concealed in certain articles of clothing, but unless t-shirt manufacturers begin designing shirts with hidden pockets or other ways to disguise one’s intent to do harm, banning white t-shirts to “protect” customers or “preserve an atmosphere” wouldn’t make sense.

In this particular case, the X-Lounge’s policy itself made sense, but the staff’s application of the policy was misguided. Like many other venues, the X-Lounge’s policy targets hats. X-Lounge staff explained the policy in an e-mail, saying, “We have a no head wear policy in place after 9pm as we feel that it was appropriate for the style of our establishment.” The policy goes on to clarify that head wear is prohibited in all circumstances “unless it is absolutely apparent that it is required for religious or medical reasons.” The current policy makes room for the appropriate exceptions, but X-Lounge staff and management demonstrated a regrettable lack of common sense in applying their own rules Thursday night. Here, application — not clarity — was the root of the problem.

Despite everyone’s good intentions, such incidents are unlikely ever to disappear thanks to murky phrasing and misinterpretation, but students can continue to make progress toward preventing similar problems by taking preemptive action and asking for full disclosure of a venue’s rules so that they do not face the same predicament when hosting a party. Proactively working with a third-party venue in advance of an event is preferable to reacting to a problem once it has occurred, and the best way to do this is to be fully aware of what a restaurant or club’s rules and regulations entail.

ISA members demonstrated wise judgment by responding to the situation in a composed manner; most students at the party indicated their dissatisfaction with the X-Lounge’s policy by promptly leaving the event and by making the incident known to the broader student body in the next few days. By engaging in dialogue with the X-Lounge and the University community, the ISA has set up a structure for positive change.

Neither the ISA nor the X-Lounge set out to make trouble for the other party Thursday night, but both groups have responded to the situation with admirable speed and action. If such an incident happening again is indeed inevitable, the fallout from Thursday’s event offers guidelines for improvement both sides could learn from.

Late one cool April night, you’re seated in the Amphitheatre surrounded by a few friends and hundreds of strangers. You hold out a hand in front of your face, but the night is so black that you can’t see anything as you wiggle your fingers. A few candles flicker in the hands of the students around you. Suddenly, a voice cuts through the darkness, timid at first but gaining strength with each new syllable: “I am a survivor of sexual assault.”

Welcome to Take Back the Night’s candlelight vigil, one part of a week-long campaign to raise awareness of sexual assault at the University. The program, now in its twenty-first year at the University, is described by public relations chair Nora Eakin as “a highly public event that really speaks to the consciousness and awareness among students of the problem of sexual violence, and an active desire to prevent it.”

Sexual assault is an issue that is all too easy to push to the fringes of our consciousness. It’s easy to think that it couldn’t happen to you, because you don’t drink that much, or you don’t dress in short skirts, or you’re always careful when you’re walking at night. Unfortunately, the reality is that sexual assault can happen to anyone, and that more often than not — as frequently as 7 times out of 10, according to United States Bureau of Justice statistics — the attacker is somebody that the victim knows. The fear of a stranger jumping from an alley is a real one, but what’s far more likely is a familiar face in a familiar place taking things just a little too far.

Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 20  to 25 percent of college women will experience rape or attempted rape during their four years at a university. At the University of Virginia, a study done in 2006 of about 800 college women found that 19 percent were victims of rape while at the University, 10 percent victims of attempted rape, and 34 percent victims of unwanted sexual contact.

These statistics are staggering, but considering the college culture in which we live, they’re less surprising than they seem at first glance. Our generation has been termed the “hook-up generation” for our tendency to shy away from serious relationships while remaining sexually promiscuous. This new style of courtship, to use the term quite loosely, grew out of the sexual revolution, when new forms of contraception, like the birth control pill, decreased stigma regarding premarital sex and the availability of legal abortion resulted in less anxiety about the consequences of casual intercourse. As a result, we no longer equate emotional connectivity and responsibility with sexual encounters.

These “casual sex” situations can get messy quickly, especially when alcohol is involved, and one or both parties wake up with only a partial memory of what occurred. A girl may have no recollection of giving consent — and, technically, consent given while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not legal consent —and a boy may not remember if he used any kind of protection. And while these kinds of gray areas, which are often painful for both parties, are all too frequent, malicious sexual assault — such as engaging in sexual acts with a girl against her explicit wishes or while she is drunk, drugged, or unconscious — is still a disturbingly common reality at college campuses across the country.

Take Back the Night is designed to help students understand the causes, consequences, and realities of sexual assault on college campuses. Last year, the candle light vigil alone was attended by over 600 students, faculty members, and community members. The vigil is proceeded by a rally with food and a capella performances and a march to demonstrate support and solidarity for survivors of sexual assault. Other campaigns include a panel on how to date someone who has been sexually assaulted in the past and a Sexual Assault Board mock trial that will help clarify the process involved in reporting a rape, attempted rape, or assault. “Hearing survivors’ stories makes sexual assault real in ways statistics and facts don’t — especially when those stories come from your peers,” said Eakin. “Getting people to realize that someone sitting next to them may have gone through this really makes one think twice about discounting our beloved Grounds as immune from these issues.”

Too often, victims of sexual assault are afraid to speak out. They blame themselves: If only I hadn’t worn that outfit, if only I hadn’t had that last drink, if only, if only. Furthermore, these women are often scared to report their attacks because their attacker was someone they knew or trusted, they’re afraid of being labeled a “slut,” or they want to believe that the whole thing just “wasn’t that big of a deal”. The truth, however, is that sexual assault is never the victim’s fault. Reporting it does not label one promiscuous or careless. Take Back the Night strives to show survivors of sexual assault that it is not only safe but right to report the violence they have experienced, and that there is a large community of people willing to offer help, hope, and support.  

“We want to raise awareness and get people thinking about these issues, so they can support the survivors they know,” said Eakin. If you or somebody you love is a survivor of sexual assault, or if you’re simply moved by the frequency of sexual assault on college campuses, get involved in the University’s Take Back the Night programs next week.

Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.

The new Honor Committee elected its Executive Board last week. When newly elected Committee Chair David Truetzel and the rest of his board take the reins April 6, it will have a number of decisions to make as it defines its goals for the year. One of the most important decisions will be whether to reinstate the single sanction ad hoc committee.

In the past several years, most Honor Committees have kept the ad hoc committee intact, but a few have opted not to, arguing that the committee accomplishes little of value. Whenever it has existed, however, its role has been essentially the same. As Truetzel described it, the committee’s goal has been to “give the space to debate things and hash things out.” He’s right that the ad hoc committee has accomplished this. It has held forums and taken part in educational campaigns dealing with the pros and cons of sanction reform.

Though I support the creation of a multiple sanction system, I don’t think the new Committee should reestablish the ad hoc committee as it is. Providing a forum for discussion is fine, but that seems to be all the Committee has been willing to do. It is almost patronizing that the Committee supports student discussion about the issue and then vehemently opposes (for the most part) any actual suggestion of reform.

Instead the Committee should create a new committee with a more concrete goal: “the ad hoc committee to propose a multiple sanction system.” The name is negotiable.

The ad hoc committee has existed for several years and has accomplished essentially nothing. Most importantly, it has not fulfilled the Committee’s obligations from the spring 2005 referendum in which 59.4 percent of students voted that the Committee should “seek alternatives to the single sanction.” The ad hoc committee has discussed alternatives, but it has not sought them, and neither has the rest of the Committee.

The only serious suggestions for an alternative system have come from Hoos Against the Single Sanction. Among this group’s proposals was the failed referendum from this spring’s elections that would have created a multiple sanction system, which was defeated by a wide margin. Part of the reason for that defeat was a well-funded and articulate opposition that seemed to find fault with two aspects of the plan. The first was that it would have required punishments for even the most minor offenses, and the second was that it did not allow convicted students to appeal their sanctions. I suspect, however, that these arguments were only excuses to oppose this referendum made by people who oppose any sanction reform at all.

I was at the meeting where HASS president Sam Leven officially revealed his proposal in the fall. He offered an earnest plea for suggestions. It was his goal to propose the best possible system, and if his proposal was not that system, he wanted the Committee and anyone else interested to let him know. That did not happen. Leven said in an e-mail both of these objections were raised to him, the first in passing and the second only after it was too late for the referendum to be changed. “Had it been raised to us, by people who had our language as early as November, that they had a problem with this, we would certainly have changed the proposal to make it more clear,” Leven said.

One of the problems of discussing sanction reform is that only the Committee really understands how the honor system works. Those of us outside the Committee haven’t seen how the system really works and thus are not as capable of determining what reforms are needed.
On the other hand, the members of the Committee often oppose sanction reform. This overwhelming consensus has less to do with what they’ve observed on the job, however, than with the interest in the honor system that led them to join the Committee in the first place. For the most part, students who get involved in the honor system already agree with the single sanction.

Still, whenever a new proposal for a multiple sanction system arises, the Committee seems to say, “Even if you wanted a multiple sanction system, you wouldn’t want this particular system.” This is not only disingenuous, it’s a way for supporters of the single sanction to oppose reform proposals by attacking their details, rather than defending the single sanction — a much harder task.

In order to fulfill its obligations to the students who voted in 2005 (which unfortunately now includes only a handful of undergraduates still at the University), the new ad hoc committee should ask itself this question: “If we had to create a multiple sanction system, what would it look like?” It should write that proposal, put it on the ballot, and then have a real debate about the merits of the single sanction, rather than minor, fixable faults in a referendum.

Truetzel said he wants the Committee to focus on promoting a sense of “little-h” honor at the University. The idea that honor means more than not getting brought up on honor charges is great, but the Committee should set an example by doing what’s right, even if it doesn’t want to. On the issue of the single sanction, that means fulfilling its responsibility to the students who wanted it to seek an alternative.

Daniel Colbert’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at d.colbert@cavalierdaily.com.

Even as a foolhardy, delinquent ninth grader in the Philippines, I vividly remember watching President George W. Bush’s groundbreaking ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002. In that address, Bush famously asserted that Washington’s new post-9/11 security threat was the nexus between nefarious regimes and the vices of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

But today, I think America has much more to fear from an axis of failure than an axis of evil. Just listen to what the top policymakers and academics are saying. Last year, the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy emphasized the need to “build the capacity of fragile or vulnerable partners”. This February, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told Congress that he ranked the global economic crisis as Washington’s No. 1 security threat (above terrorism and proliferation). And this month, British historian Niall Ferguson writes in Foreign Policy that he sees an “axis of upheaval” emerging from the ashes of global economic calamity, just like it did during the tumultuous 1930s.

What gives? Well, the world financial meltdown has rendered Bush’s national security doctrine deficient. Today, we have to focus not only on noxious regimes but the toxic forces of economic and political discontent that can topple governments, trigger waves of instability or tire U.S. allies. National security is more about regime capacity than regime type. More about the weakness and desperation of states rather than their strength or hostility. More about failed states than bad guys.

Though definitional debates about failed states have persisted, the most detailed study on the subject is from a Brookings Institution report entitled “Index of State Weakness in the Developing World”. Using 20 indicators, the rigorous report concludes that there are 3 “failed states” (Somalia, Afghanistan and Congo) and 25 other “critically weak” states, including Iraq, Pakistan and North Korea. The havoc these states have wracked is staggering — Somali pirates hijacking ships, Afghanistan housing the Taliban, Congo’s civil war dragging in 9 other nations . . . the list goes on.

President Obama seems fully aware of the ‘axis of failure’ and the threat it poses to Washington. He has embraced the Millennium Development Goal of slashing extreme poverty and hunger in the world and backed this up by doubling foreign assistance. This, he eloquently notes, “will help the world’s weakest states build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets and generate wealth”. Intellectually, Obama’s longtime foreign policy adviser and current ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was one of the co-authors of the Brookings report on failed states.

But dousing the flames of global instability will require more than just personnel shuffles and aid showers. Washington must draw on past lessons in order to paint a future strategy for the axis of failure. A few fundamentals are in order. First, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Take Somalia. The United States supported a botched Ethiopian military intervention in 2006 to defeat Islamist militants in Mogadishu rather than empowering moderate Islamists. That policy was an unmitigated disaster. Washington must come to grips with reality: propping up failed states sometimes means working with the least bad forces in order to undermine the rise of more heinous ones.

Thwarting an axis of failure also requires more blood, sweat and tears. While the American electorate often grows weary of nation-building efforts fairly quickly, unfinished missions have a way of coming back to haunt Washington. Afghanistan is the poster child for this. The CIA successfully armed the Afghan mujahideen to victory against the USSR in the late 1970s but failed to rebuild the country. The resulting vacuum transformed Kabul into a cradle of Islamic fundamentalism under the Taliban, a shelter for Al-Qaeda and a breeding ground for 9/11. While nation-building may be costly in the short-term, it is often crucial to preserving long-term U.S. security. This should be ingrained in U.S. foreign policymakers minds as they think about Afghanistan and Iraq today.

Lastly, the variegated nature of failed states demands maximal flexibility and discrimination. Washington should be creative about using multilateral tools at its disposal, such as the UN Peace Building Commission which helps rebuild post-conflict states like Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast, or working with other powers like Britain, France and Germany to secure a solution. U.S. capacities should also be boosted, through efforts like President Bush’s Africa Command for the U.S. military, which will facilitate Washington’s future need for a military presence for combat, peacemaking or humanitarian reasons. Deciding which tools to use will hinge on the prudence of the President in determining the extent of threat, degree of international support and the capacity of American forces.

Of course, an axis of failure does not relegate concerns about proliferation or terrorism into the attic of Washington’s memory. But what it does do is to force the United States to adopt a more sophisticated view about the relationship between instability, governance and transnational threats instead of simply rooting out the hydra-headed beast of terrorism in whack-a-mole fashion. And the extent to which Washington grasps this new paradigm shift will determine its success in curbing this axis of failure.

Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Tuesday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.

Virginia’s search for a men’s basketball coach is finished.

A source close to the team confirmed yesterday multiple reports that Tony Bennett, the men’s basketball coach at Washington State last year, will coach the Cavaliers next season.

According to the reports, Bennett turned down offers from Marquette, Indiana and LSU before accepting the post in Charlottesville.

The 38-year-old Bennett served as the head coach for three seasons at Washington State, compiling a 69-33 record. Bennett guided the Cougars to 26 wins in each of his first two seasons as well as consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances, making a trip to the Sweet 16 in 2008 before being bounced by top-seed North Carolina. The Cougars faltered this past season, going 17-16 and losing to St. Mary’s in the NIT.

Bennett took command of Washington State after serving as an assistant and associate coach for his father, former coach Dick Bennett. Tony Bennett immediately exceeded expectations; in his first season in 2006-07, the Cougars were picked to finish last in the Pac-10 before winning a program-best 26 games and finishing second in the conference at 13-5, as Bennett was named the Associated Press Coach of the Year.

Prior to coaching Washington State, Bennett served as an assistant at Wisconsin, also for his father; the Badgers retained Tony Bennett after his father retired. Tony Bennett then joined Washington State’s staff in 2003 when his father came out of retirement to take the head coaching job with the Cougars.

As a player, Bennett played for his father at Wisconsin-Green Bay before three years as a guard with the NBA’s Charlotte Hornets.
Bennett replaces former Virginia coach Dave Leitao, who resigned March 16.

—compiled by Paul Montana

In a brief respite from the grind of ACC play, Virginia will take on Radford and Norfolk State. Virginia will look to rebound after a tough weekend series in Raleigh, N.C., where, despite strong play, the Cavaliers fell to the Tar Heels twice.

Radford will be the first to face the Cavaliers (22-4, 6-4 ACC) this week. The Highlanders (10-10, 4-3 Big South) enter the matchup riding a two-game winning streak after taking the final two games of a three game set against Winthrop last weekend. Senior infielder Alex Gregory is the offensive catalyst for the Highlanders this season, leading starters with a .425 batting average and ranking second on the team with 31 total hits. On the pitcher’s mound, however, Radford might find itself in trouble against the Cavaliers.

Of the 13 pitchers on the team’s staff, the Highlanders only carry three left-handers, and of the three, only freshman Paul DeVito has started any games, compiling a mediocre 6.56 earned run average. Three of the top four hitters in the Cavalier starting lineup — Dan Grovatt, Jarrett Parker and switch hitter Tyler Cannon — can hit from the left side of the plate, which bodes well for Virginia’s offense.

Following its matchup with the Highlanders, Virginia will welcome Norfolk State. The Spartans (4-9, 1-2 MEAC) have struggled as of late, losing four of their past five games. One bright spot for Norfolk State this season is the play of senior second baseman Anselmo Cantu. Cantu is leading the Spartans with a .426 batting average and 20 hits. Cantu also leads the club in total bases with 33 and ranks second with a .702 slugging percentage. On the mound, junior Quinn Bright has totaled half of the team’s wins with a 5.14 ERA.

Virginia must look out for Cantu if it hopes to perform well in these mid-week matches. With the toughest portion of its schedule behind them, the team hopes to continue its strong play heading into the second half of the season.

Going into the March 13 series with Florida State, the Cavaliers knew their next three series opponents — Florida State, Miami and North Carolina — would be a litmus test to prove whether they could compete with the powerhouses of the ACC. The Cavaliers were undefeated entering the challenge, but they played a relatively light schedule until that point.

“As it’s rolling out now, and it’s starting to show, that there are a lot of other really good teams in this league,” O’Connor said. “We knew that this was [going to] be a tough stretch for us.”

The Cavaliers’ most recent losses were all within a couple of hits or pitches though, indicating that they could compete against the three schools. Moving forward, Virginia will look to learn from its mistakes and handle what is expected to be a slightly less challenging portion of its schedule.

“We’re right there,” Grovatt said. “We very easily could still be undefeated. We’re one thing away — that’s baseball, it’s [going to] happen. The biggest thing is how we handle it, and if we make adjustments down the road, I think we’ll be fine.”