Monday’s lead editorial (“10 days to leave (admitting guilt),” 3/16/2009) reflected several misunderstandings about the by-law proposal discussed by the Honor Committee. First, this proposal does not consolidate power in the hands of one individual. Instead, the language in the amendment explicitly allows both the Vice Chair for Trials and Committee chair — the two Committee members with the most knowledge about the trial schedule — to have input in this decision. This is no significant difference from the current system, which places this responsibility in the hands of two Committee members and a pre-trial coordinator assigned at the discretion of the Vice Chair for Trials.

This will not only expedite the process, but will also provide consistency that is lacking under the current arrangement. Moreover, The Cavalier Daily is mistaken to suggest that this proposal will increase the Committee’s reliance on e-mail correspondence. Official correspondence is sent via e-mail as well as certified mail, in order to notify students as quickly and conveniently for them as possible. Each accused student is also assigned an advisor, who often meets with the student in person to help the student write his or her trial request letter and answer any questions he or she might have. This proposal in no way limits the Committee’s communication with accused students to e-mail. In fact, by streamlining the process, it will likely decrease the opportunity for miscommunication, not increase it. Finally, under the current system, a student is considered to have left admitting guilt if he or she does not request a trial within the ten day period. This proposal does not change that, but simply requires that a student select an available date or propose a viable and reasonable alternative within the already existing ten day deadline. This amendment would not remove the honor system’s existing safeguards, and would in fact benefit accused students: it provides them an opportunity to request a different date if they are not available on the dates provided to them, and will prevent confusion by explicitly outlining the procedure for handling such situations in the by-laws.

As the president of the Black Law Students Association, I would like to address University Law Prof. Doug Leslie’s recent actions. His decision to send a mass e-mail soliciting student feedback in connection with a recent, confidential investigation into his teaching performance raises several concerns.

In providing details about the recent investigation, Leslie unfortunately failed to preserve the anonymity of those students involved. Professor Leslie volunteered information reported to the Law School Dean in confidence by students. His e-mail discussed three specific issues raised during the confidential investigation and referenced the students involved by gender, marital status, race, religion, or some combination thereof. For example, given our close-knit environment, identifying the few racial minority students in a specific thirty-member class is tantamount to revealing their actual identities to the law school community.

It is not clear why Leslie opted to circumvent a process designed to protect all parties involved in favor of a broad-based appeal for additional student feedback. Additional feedback could have been solicited in a number of other ways. Specifically, Leslie could have requested that the existing confidential process encompass students from his other classes. Instead, other students may now be unwilling to engage in this investigation out of concern that their comments will be disseminated to the greater law school community and other forums such as law school blogs.

Additionally, an unintended consequence of Leslie’s e-mail is its polarizing effect. A confidential process established to address specific concerns has been transformed into a referendum on Leslie. By sending the mass e-mail, Leslie has inadvertently created a speculative debate about what took place in his classroom, which has isolated some members of the law school community. This result is contrary to the student environment at the Law School and undermines a well-structured process administered by the dean to fairly address the issues raised about Leslie. We hope that Leslie and other administrators involved in this process will respect the privacy of those involved and the integrity of the Law School’s review process.

Last, Leslie’s decision has implications that extend beyond current students. The timing of the e-mail, sent the first day of Admitted Students Weekend, highlights this critical issue. As admitted students, particularly minority students, consider the Law School, they are currently confronted with a unique situation, which is not representative of our student experience. The Black Law Students Association, along with many members of the student community, has worked to dispel the negative stereotypes that undermine the multicultural community of the Law School. Given the public nature of this investigation, it would be impossible for an admitted student to ignore an instance where private student concerns are now trivialized by a professor’s exploitation of authority and electronic resources to create a forum outside of the investigative process.

In response to Monday’s Focus article (“Lawn community takes shape,” 3/16/2009), I would like to comment on The Cavalier Daily’s coverage of this year’s Lawn selection process and its resulting statistics.

Past reporting of statistics from the Lawn selection process often only included the top 10 most represented organizations of applicants and selected residents. This short list failed to recognize and educate the University community on the diverse involvement of the Lawn residents, especially involvement with minority groups.

After living on the Lawn this year, I found this partial reporting an inadequate representation of the Lawn community. As Chair of the Lawn Selection Committee, I saw how this had negative effect on aspiring Lawn residents perpetuating unrealistic perceptions of the community.

When The Cavalier Daily requested the statistics from this year’s selection process, I advocated for the list of organizations to be more comprehensive accurately portraying the breadth of involvement of the Lawn applicants and selected residents.

As The Cavalier Daily indicated in the Editor’s note, the statistics were provided by the Housing division. These statistics were not computer generated but involved combing through the 251 applications by hand. Unfortunately, this challenging and time intensive process resulted in the unintentional omission and underrepresentation of a few organizations.

The Cavalier Daily accepted the challenge to present the community holistically with their comprehensive coverage of the various extracurricular activities. I would hope the University community can appreciate the efforts to capture this representation that would have been unlikely in the past.

Ben Chrisinger protests the Civility Project (“Cultural differences,” 3/16/2009), an effort to provide students with behavioral guidelines for the twenty-first century, because he fears that such a project will “alienate” foreign students. He says that “the value that an individual places on a behavior or custom is so utterly dependent on their background,” that to impose those values on others is illegitimate.

Chrisinger is wrong on both accounts. First, he insults foreign students by suggesting that they are so sensitive. We all know better. Students from abroad are frequently the most resolute among us. They are brave; otherwise they would not travel so far from home. Further, students study abroad partially so that they can learn about foreign cultures. Chrisinger would deny foreign students what they come all the way to Virginia for.

Chrisinger also errs in his assessment of the moral legitimacy of imposing manners. Manners are an expression of inestimable human worth from one person to the next. They give order and meaning to our daily interactions. The goal of maintaining manners is uniform across a wide variety of cultures. Even if the expression of human worth differs from place to place, its justification remains the same.
So surely we are justified in maintaining a system of manners. Such a system must be uniform within a given community, or one person will not be able to know what another is trying to express. Suggesting that we should not ‘impose’ manners on foreign students, then, is akin to suggesting that we should not ‘impose’ language on them. What right have we to tell foreign students that they need to speak our language?

Next week, the Honor Committee will vote on a proposal to increase the expediency with which honor charges are handled. This proposal will increase the efficiency of the honor trial process but also lacks safeguards necessary to protect students. The Committee is right to continually work toward a faster trial process but should not overlook potential problems in its efforts to do so.

The notification of formal accusation of an honor offense includes five to six dates, selected by the Vice Chair for Trials, on which a trial can be held if the student should desire one. The student must select one of these dates or notify the Committee if he cannot make any of the given dates within 10 days. It seems unlikely that a student would not be able to make one of six dates for something as important as an honor trial, and Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples pointed out that this change is aimed at those students who request a trial but intentionally try to delay it. Currently a student can do this by submitting a request for a trial but not submitting a date for which he is available within the 10 day trial request period. In this case, the Vice Chair for Trials selects a date and if the student would like to change this date, a pre-trial panel must be formed, which Staples said takes at least a week. The proposed change will allow the Vice Chair for Trials to work with the student directly if he would like to request a different date, making the process much more efficient. Additionally, should a student prove unable to establish a trial date within 10 days of his initial notification, he would be assumed to leave admitting guilt.  

This proposal puts a lot of power in the hands of the Vice Chair for Trials. Staples noted, “The Vice Chair for Trials has the ability to determine what is a good excuse,” as well as the best ability to find new dates on which a trial could be held. Staples also said if a student was unable to respond within 10 days for a legitimate reason, the Committee would be understanding of that. The proposed result of not specifying a viable trial date, however, makes it much more important that the Committee ensure such a guarantee exists. While a student can appeal the status of leaving admitting guilt, it is a weighty consequence that should not be taken lightly.

If a student was unavailable for trial on one of the suggested dates, the Vice Chair for Trials should instead attempt to meet with the student to work out a date. In person, it is easier to judge if a student has a legitimate conflict or if he is merely trying to delay a trial unnecessarily. Such weighty decisions cannot be made based solely on e-mail correspondence. If a person fails to respond to the e-mail and does not have a good reason for doing so, it is acceptable to declare he has decided to leave admitting guilt. Miscommunication, however, is always possible, and a face-to-face meeting will reduce this possibility greatly.

By looking for ways to make the trial process more efficient, the Committee is fulfilling its obligation to serve the student body. The Committee, however, should reevaluate this proposal to ensure appropriate safeguards, such as meeting with the student, so a student is not declared to have left admitting guilt without an intention to do so.

“Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident,” said President Barack Obama on March 9, following his decision to overturn the Bush administration’s policy restricting funding on embryonic stem cell research. Though Obama has faced some criticism from the religious community, his decision marks a long-awaited return to logic and science rather than religion and instinct in the White House. Bush’s policy was regressive and outdated; Obama’s new approach to stem cell research places science and logic ahead of emotion by acknowledging the tremendous advances that are possible with continued study. Controversial, embryonic stem cell research is a valuable medical avenue with the possibility of providing enormous medical benefit to a wide range of victims of disease and injury.

Because stem cells are undifferentiated and can develop into hundreds of different types of tissue, they possess the unique ability to repair extensive tissue and organ damage. Ailments that are currently considered untreatable can be helped or even cured with stem cells – these include degenerate diseases, genetic conditions, and extreme physical trauma. Furthermore, research on these cells has given new insight into the development of cells within the human body, helping to understand why, in some cases, these cells develop incorrectly. Finally, stem cells are useful for pharmaceutical and research companies as a way of testing new treatments without the use of live animal or human subjects. Despite the promise that stem cell research offers, a number of groups have raised concerns about the morality of a treatment that destroys potential human lives.

The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research is concerned with the question: is destroying a days-old blastocyst, made up of about a hundred undifferentiated cells, akin to destroying a human life? Since modern science cannot determine absolutely the beginning of human life, the debate rages: is it at birth, conception, or some murky point in between the two? Is a three-day old embryo “alive”? If so, is it wrong to destroy that life in order to improve or save hundreds, thousands, millions of other lives? Religious groups who believe that life begins at conception necessarily believe that the collection of cells — which, if placed in a womb, would naturally develop into a human baby — is a human life that cannot be discarded. But this argument ignores the basic facts of embryonic stem cells.

The embryonic cells used for research are typically leftovers from fertility clinic treatments that would otherwise be discarded. If not used for research, these embryos would be slated for destruction anyway; it makes more logical and scientific sense to use them for potentially life-saving research than to throw them away unused and unwanted or to leave them frozen forever in a vault. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research insist that no new embryos would be created solely for the purpose of research; research groups buy already-created blastocysts from companies that would otherwise destroy them. Therefore, the argument that stem cell research is tantamount to “murdering unborn humans” sets up a false dichotomy by wrongly implying that, were the embryos not being used for research, they would be growing up living happy lives with loving families. This is not the case; these embryos would be destroyed whether used in research or not.

Secondly, to think of embryonic stem cell research as “destroying” unborn babies is deliberately misleading. A days-old embryo is no more a complete human life than is a single skin cell. These tiny clusters of cells have yet to differentiate into any form of distinct tissue — this is what makes them so useful, as they can be nudged in any number of different directions to create new tissue to repair bodies that have been badly damaged by injury or disease.

Of course, embryos aren’t the only source of stem cells available for research; stem cells can also be collected from adult bone marrow or from the umbilical cords of newborns. These two alternate types of stem cell research have shown promise in the laboratory as treatments for a number of ailments, but they lack specific medical benefits that embryonic stem cells can provide. Firstly, embryonic stem cells are younger and more flexible than more developed cells, and can therefore be coaxed more easily into becoming a variety of different types of tissue from brain and spinal cord cells to retinal or liver cells. Secondly, embryonic stem cells do not pose the same immuno-incompatibility threats that transplanted adult stem cells pose — like a liver or lung transplant, a patient receiving adult stem cells may find that his body rejects the new, foreign addition rather than embracing it as new, lifesaving tissue.

When one considers the science, embryonic stem cell research is a beneficial tool that must be taken advantage of. It has incredible potential to heal the victims of diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as those who have suffered bodily or spinal injuries. Obama has acknowledged the concerns of religious groups, but has wisely followed logic and recognized the myriad of uses for this incredible path of scientific discovery.

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

Since this is my last semester at the University, I often find myself evaluating my overall experience at this institution. There are some things I’ll feel nostalgic about when I leave, including the scintillating Lawn and this weekly column. And there are others, like its preppiness and lack of diversity, that I’ll be glad to forget. But then there are those few moments that just make my blood boil. That make me ashamed to be part of this University. That will probably make Mr. Jefferson turn over in his grave.

The University’s selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III as commencement speaker is one of those moments. Wilkinson, like the many, many other potential nominees, is a smart man with an illustrious career — he was a former United States deputy assistant attorney general and ex-chief judge on the Fourth Circuit. He also has a deep and abiding commitment to this University.

But respect for intelligence and illustriousness should not lead to veneration. Wilkinson’s vociferous defense of post-9/11 detention policies and inflammatory statements on diversity are radical views would make even the most abashed conservative look like MoveOn.org. By selecting Wilkinson as commencement speaker, President John Casteen III has tacitly endorsed views that run contrary to this institution’s eternal dedication to the rule of law and long-standing commitment to diversity.

Commencement speeches are not the same as discussions or panels where organizations can bring in speakers of any ideological stripe. Commencement speeches are selected by the University to offer words of wisdom to a graduating class, so a nominated speaker says something about whose advice the University values. Also, nominations for commencement nonetheless bestow an honor upon speakers’ accomplishments and their views — which are both inseparable in practice. Lastly, a commencement speech does not give students an opportunity to question a speaker’s past record or challenge his views. And while Wilkinson is an accomplished man, his views are incompatible with those embodied by the University and too baseless to go unchallenged by the students within it.

Take post-9/11 detention policy. Bush-bashing aside, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the “war on terror” is a war and what the president can do in times of war. But, if you read excerpts of oral arguments between Wilkinson and federal public defender Geremy Kamens in the “Hamdi case” involving an American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo, Wilkinson asks incredulously: “What is so unconstitutional . . . ?”, ignoring the fact that the Constitution prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or access to a public defender. He then suggests that the president should have the final authority on these matters, and the judiciary should not interfere.

This is a radical view that not many conservatives or liberals share. Even Bush administration officials such as Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates have tacitly acknowledged that detention policies need to be subjected to some measure of rule of law, whether through military tribunals or closing Guantanamo Bay. Wilkinson, by contrast, doesn’t think we even ought to try, despite the fact that these policies have wrecked America’s reputation colossally as a bastion of liberty across the world. It is downright humiliating for a University with so much adulation for honor and law to honor a man with so little respect, and at times disdain, for these bedrock principles.

Wilkinson’s incendiary statements on race and diversity is another case in point. Again, there’s a lot of room for disagreement on the merits of affirmative action policies and diversity. But when I read Wilkinson’s book, acerbically subtitled “How Ethnic Separatism Threatens America”, I was shocked at his labeling of affirmative action and other pro-diversity policies as modern-day equivalents of racial segregation which will eventually destroy the fabric of national unity. The constructive approach to race relations in this country has always been to find the balance between cultural autonomy and national unity. Condemning diversity as “separatist” erroneously and ludicrously equates patriotism with cultural variety, without contributing much to the substance of the debate.

It also does not augur well for a University who has (at least rhetorically) touted diversity as one of its keystone goals for the 21st century. Carlos Oronce, co-chair of the Minority Rights Coalition, told me the selection “is disappointing to say the least and does not signal praise for diversity.” Manal Tellawi, president of the Middle Eastern Leadership Council, says “this will only serve to alienate minority communities at U.Va.” (But what do these “separatists” know anyway, Wilkinson might say, with their “unpatriotic” notions of “diversity”?) This university cannot promote diversity by honoring those who question this very principle.

Now, one might ask, how could the University select a speaker so contradictory to what this institution stands for? Apparently, University President John T. Casteen III is given a list of 10 possible candidates by a committee which includes University student leaders, but is free to select any speaker he wishes. This process seems pretty contradictory to me. Either a presidential committee makes recommendations from which the president selects, or the president selects any speaker he wants. The University needs to make up its mind; it cannot pretend to be inclusive of other viewpoints while dictatorially being run under the president. Otherwise, it will continue to nominate speakers like Wilkinson, who have close-knit ties with the University but are so antithetical to the values that it represents and embodies. Let the assault on dear old U.Va. commence.

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

Dave Leitao resigned from his position as the Virginia men’s basketball coach yesterday afternoon, according to an athletic department press release.

Leitao met with Athletic Director Craig Littlepage to discuss the future of the program, according to the release. During the meeting, Littlepage and Leitao came to an agreement that resulted in Leitao’s resignation from the position, along with a compensation package of about $2.1 million.

Though the athletic department called the decision a resignation on Leitao’s part, several reports from other media outlets note that the move resembles a contract buyout and termination, citing anonymous sources who referred to the move as a “firing.”

After the decision was reached, Leitao met with players and coaching staff, The Cavalier Daily was told by a source close to the situation, who wished to remain anonymous.

The team “talked about the past and good memories,” the source said. “No real reason was given” for the change in coaching staff.
The source also said Leitao, rather than calling the move a resignation or a firing, “presented it … that he was no longer employed as head coach.”

Leitao wished the team luck and told players that he is “just a phone call away” if they ever need anything, the source said.

“I think people were surprised,” the source said when asked about the team’s and staff’s response to the announcement. “I mean, it was an emotional time because it was unexpected.”

Steve Landesberg, father of ACC Rookie of the Year Sylven Landesberg, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that his son was very upset about the move and had a close relationship with Leitao and Leitao’s staff.

Landesberg was one of the bright spots during Virginia’s 2008-09 season and one of the talented players Leitao coached during his up-and-down tenure as Virginia coach.

Leitao, who led the Cavaliers for four years while assembling a 63-60 overall record, was selected as the ACC Coach of the Year in 2007 after winning the conference’s regular season. That year, the Cavaliers were awarded a fourth seed in the NCAA Tournament.

Beginning with the 2007-08 season, Leitao’s team began to struggle. In spite of high expectations after Sean Singletary returned for his senior year instead of declaring for the NBA Draft, the Cavaliers finished 10th in the ACC, winning only five conference games. The team settled for a berth in the inaugural College Basketball Invitational.

The 2008-09 season saw lower incoming expectations and even worse final results. The Cavaliers placed second-to-last in the ACC while assembling a 10-18 overall record that nearly matched the team’s worst record in a half-century. Though the final stretch of the season saw the team return to competitiveness, the Cavaliers did not qualify for a postseason berth.

Despite mixed success in terms of wins and losses, Leitao leaves behind a legacy of nurturing several elite Virginia players, most notably Singletary. Leitao also oversaw the team’s inaugural season at John Paul Jones Arena in 2007-08.

A national search for a new coach will begin immediately, according to the release. When contacted, Littlepage declined to comment about the search’s potential time frame.

“Our intention is to hire the very best person to lead the University’s basketball program consistent with our overall department goals,” Littlepage said. “Our team has a promising nucleus of young players who we expect will continue to develop.”

The Virginia baseball team looks to continue its run as the only undefeated team in Division I at least one more week as it welcomes Marshall and Canisius to Davenport Field this week.

The Cavaliers have been nothing short of dominant this season, as Virginia (15-0, 4-0 ACC) opened its season with an average margin of victory of more than nine runs. This figure suggests the well-rounded excellence, both on defense and offense, that the Cavaliers have demonstrated thus far. As a team, the Cavaliers are hitting .400 and slugging an astronomical .604. Though Virginia’s numbers will likely decrease as the bulk of ACC play begins, the current marks are almost staggering. Were the season to end right now, the Cavaliers would surpass last year’s NCAA-best team total batting average by .045 and would have the nation’s second-best slugging percentage.
Attempting to cool off Virginia bats first this week is Marshall. The Thundering Herd (7-8) has struggled to find consistent results so far. Marshall has yet to win more than two games in a row but just won a series against Youngstown State. Despite its inconsistency, Marshall has a few key players who could spell trouble for the Cavaliers’ win streak. Two underclassmen, freshman infielder Thor Meeks and sophomore outfielder Ben Jurevicius, lead the way for Marshall. Meeks is leading the squad in home runs with four and slugging percentage with an excellent .690. Jurevicius, a speedy outfielder with three steals this season, is leading the Herd with a .400 average.

After hosting Marshall, the Cavaliers will greet the Golden Griffins of Canisius College. The Griffins (6-7), despite struggling through the early portion of their schedule, have shown improvement during the past several days and enter their matchup with the Cavaliers riding a three-game winning streak. Canisius has the benefit of strong senior leader outfielder Connor Burke, who holds the Griffins’ second-best batting average and on base percentage. The Griffins also have several emerging players who are growing in skill and confidence as the season progresses — and may give the Cavaliers some problems. At bat, sophomore infielder Steven McQuail is near the top of all major categories for the Griffins with a .364 batting average and a .614 slugging percentage, while fellow sophomore Josh Marshall leads the pitching staff with two of the team’s six wins.

The Cavaliers, therefore, despite the impressive start to their season, cannot disregard their latest opponents. An overall improvement in batting power has been the key to the Cavaliers’ success, as they have already slugged 17 home runs in comparison to the 25 totaled last year. Even after losing their two top home run hitters from last season — Jeremy Farrell and David Adams — the Cavaliers are on track to easily surpass last year’s power output.

Virginia coach Brian O’Connor is well aware of the hard work his players put in to produce such impressive statistics.

“[The 17 home run mark] is pretty amazing,” O’Connor said. “Losing a couple of guys who were supposed to be our power hitters last year, that shows off-season, last summer, how guys like Jarrett Parker, and Franco Valdes and Danny Grovatt worked really hard. That’s what it takes to improve as a player, and it’s showing for those guys.”

Although Virginia has batted with power, it has shown balance at the plate as well. If the Cavaliers continue this level of play, they will surpass last season’s totals in doubles, triples and hits. In addition, every starter has an on base percentage of more than .400. Sophomore utility player Dan Grovatt, who is leading the team’s starters in batting average, said he is similarly impressed with the current level of play.

“It’s awesome, “ Grovatt said. “It’s a lot of fun to be a part of. Up and down the order, I can’t really tell you what’s going on.”

The Cavaliers must not overlook their midweek opponents as they strive to keep up their torrid pace. They will, however, take this final midweek tune-up to enjoy their historic start before powerhouse Miami comes to town and the heavy portion of their ACC schedule begins.

“Right now, it’s rolling for everybody,” Grovatt said. “It’s a lot of fun.”

The No. 4 Virginia women’s lacrosse team will host in-state rival William & Mary tonight at Klöckner Stadium. The Cavaliers look to recover from their Saturday loss to North Carolina, while the Tribe hopes to break its eight-year losing streak to Virginia.

William & Mary (3-3) recently dropped out of the top 20. They have played a tough schedule this season, facing three top-20 opponents — losing to Duke, Boston University and Stanford. The Cavaliers (5-2, 1-2 ACC) have struggled against top competition as well, losing to then-No. 3 Maryland and then-No. 3 North Carolina.

Virginia has a bevy of offensive talent, but it is the defense that has helped the Cavaliers succeed this season. Tonight Virginia again must use several key players, including junior midfielder Kaitlin Duff, if it wants to continue its dominance of William & Mary.

Duff is Virginia’s best lockdown defender, leading the team in every defensive category this season. She is among the best in the country with 17 turnovers, creating havoc against opposing teams. Duff also has 16 ground balls to lead the team. Having started every game in her collegiate career, she also brings plenty of experience to the defense.

“I think we have a lot of the key players with good experience under their belt stepping up and that really helps everyone who plays alongside of them,” coach Julie Myers said.

Redshirt sophomore goalkeeper Lauren Benner anchors the Cavalier defense between the pipes. Benner is third in the conference in goals-against average, affording only 9.84 nettings per game. Excluding the defensive lapses against Maryland and North Carolina — in which the Cavaliers allowed 17 and 12 goals respectively — Benner is allowing less than eight goals per game.

Benner “has had a really good season; she has really stepped it up,” senior defender Katie Shannon said. “She has had some really good games and has come up with some big saves.”

The key to the game, however, could come down to the draw controls. Junior midfielder Brittany Kalkstein arguably is one of the most underappreciated players in the country, with one of the most important jobs on the team in controlling the draw at the beginning of every half and after every goal. Like Duff, she is also a durable and dependable player, starting every game in her career. Kalkstein has 28 draw controls this season and is second on Virginia’s all-time draw controls list.

She “has become one of the best defenders in the game,” Myers said.

William & Mary, meanwhile, has a defensive stalwart of its own in sophomore goalkeeper Emily Geary. She was one of the top freshman goalkeepers in the country last season and was named to the All-CAA Second Team. Geary is averaging just less than 11 saves per games. For the Tribe to be successful tonight, Geary will have to slow down Virginia’s offense, which averages about 14 goals per game.

She is not alone though. William & Mary handles draw controls by committee with four players recording at least 11 this season. The Tribe is among the top 10 in the country in draw controls per game, averaging about 15 per contest.

The Cavaliers will need hold off the Tribe and get back to their winning ways by playing solid defense for 60 minutes. There is no doubt that goals will be scored tonight; the team that overcomes the other’s defense the most, however, will be the one that emerges victorious.