Tuesday night, Student Council passed a resolution affirming that it “strongly denounces and deplores violence against any member of our community based on sexual orientation or gender identity” and declaring that it considers any act of violence against anyone here motivated by these biases “an affront to members of the University Community and to the values of the University of Virginia.” This rhetoric is strong, and the statement it makes is clear and relevant to the students at the University today.

Still, talk is cheap. In the past, resolutions like this tend to represent Council patting itself on its back, excitedly announcing to its constituents that it, collectively, holds an opinion it would be self-destructive for its members not to publicly hold at a University with a value system like ours. All too often, resolutions pass unanimously with rhetoric supporting or denouncing one thing or another; only rarely do people stop to ask if Council is putting its money (our money) where its mouth is. By purchasing 1,000 candles for the Stand Against Hatred event, which will be held in the Amphitheater on Thursday night, Council has done just that. As a student without anything to gain or any back-patting to do, I congratulate them. Hopefully, this is a sign of more to come.

I commend Council for backing up their words with tangible actions this time by buying these thousand candles. Now, as a community, let’s make sure each of those candles is being held up on Thursday night as we Stand Against Hatred.

Jason Smith will soon submit an expedited appeal to the Honor Committee. In trying Smith the Committee followed all of its procedures and bylaws correctly, however the fairness of Smith’s trial may have been compromised by the inclusion of hearsay evidence. The Committee should reevaluate its bylaws concerning the admission of hearsay evidence so that hearsay is only admitted to a trial when there is no way to present the information through a first-hand account.

According to section G of the Committee’s bylaws, “Hearsay evidence may be admitted at the discretion of the Trial Chair, Trial Observer and Pre-Trial Coordinator.” Committee Chair David Truetzel said no blanket motion for the allowance of hearsay testimony is ever granted. Instead, if hearsay is present in the investigation log given to the Pre-Trial Panel for review, a decision is then made whether to allow the hearsay testimony. The bylaws further state, “Except as provided below, all relevant evidence necessary to a fair and thorough adjudication should be admitted at trial.” The following portion lists the exceptions to the policy of admitting all relevant evidence. Hearsay is dealt with separately, however, because it is not an exception nor is it always admitted.

Truetzel said as a general rule, all relevant evidence is admitted to a trial, but generally hearsay is admitted only when it can be verified. If testimony is verifiable by a first-hand witness, that would seem to be the occasion when hearsay is unnecessary to include all the relevant evidence at trial. Although it is understandable the Committee might not want to admit hearsay evidence that could not be verified, it does not make sense to admit hearsay evidence when a valid alternative is available.

At Smith’s open honor trial, Mary Siegel was allowed to give testimony about conversations between Smith and Michelle Fox at which Siegel was not present. This evidence was hearsay and approved for admission at trial. Fox was also a witness at the trial and fully able to give testimony about the conversations between herself and Smith. Because in this instance there was a valid alternative to the admission of Siegel’s hearsay testimony, Siegel’s testimony should not have been presented at the trial.

Truetzel said the purpose of the Pre-Trial Panel is to ensure the fairness of the trial. If that is the case, the admission of hearsay should not be left solely to the discretion of the Trial Chair, Trial Observer and Pre-Trial Coordinator without guidance. Instead, the Committee should consider a policy under which hearsay evidence would not be admitted when a first-hand account is available.

The Committee did not violate any of its procedures or bylaws in trying Smith, but that does not mean it provided an entirely fair trial. In the interest of having the fairest proceedings possible, the Committee should reevaluate its bylaws regarding hearsay.

As an out-of-state student, I take a lot of airplane flights. Last summer alone, I took no fewer than six international flights, each one seemingly longer and more uncomfortable than the last. Most recently, I flew down to Mexico for Spring Break, an ostensibly simple and pain-free journey. But increasingly, I find my air travel experience severely hindered by the Transportation Security Administration’s screening procedures. Poorly trained employees, inconsistent procedures, and money wasted on expensive but imperfect equipment are making air travel less convenient, but aren’t really making it any safer.

Flying to France, I decided to bring my toiletry bag in my carry-on so that I could brush my teeth and wipe errant eyeliner off my face after I inevitably passed out thirty minutes into the 8-hour trip. As I was instructed, I placed my travel toothpaste, mouthwash, make-up remover, and hand sanitizer into a little plastic baggy — as though this process somehow strips them of any harmful properties they might have if left simply to the confines of my cosmetics bag. A thin-lipped, severe-looking TSA official inspected my Ziploc, prodding it a few times before removing my tiny toothpaste and saying with a note of satisfaction that did not go unnoticed: “This is 4.1 ounces; the limit is 3. You can’t bring this.”

I stared at her incredulously as she removed it from my bag. “Well, enjoy it,” I said sourly. “It’s spearmint.”

“Oh, we just throw them away,” she shrugged, adding my precious toothpaste to a massive pile of lotions, lip glosses, and other tiny bottles and tubes.

If looks could kill, she’d have rued the day she confiscated my Colgate. She also threw away my bottle of Aquafina that I’d tried to sneak in buried beneath the books, magazines, and boxes of Dramamine in my purse — a trick that, disturbingly, works about three-fourths of the time.

It’s not that I’m unwilling to put up with a few mild inconveniences and lost tubes of toothpaste for the sake of national security. I’d stand in line for hours to have my belongings scanned and my body invasively patted down if it meant preventing a mid-air hijacking or a bombing. What’s irritating, though, is that the TSA’s procedures are reactionary rather than progressive: in attempting to prevent past attack strategies from being repeated, screening procedures become woefully inept at anticipating newer plans. What’s more, TSA spends thousands of dollars on new equipment like full body scanners that often malfunction, effectively mishandling a task that a human employee could perform with far greater accuracy — if properly trained — for about $10 an hour.

In 2001, Richard Colvin Reid, also known as Abdul Raheem, attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes during a flight from Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris to Miami International Airport. Reid’s attempt failed miserably, but not because of any inventive security measure: upon seeing Reid fiddling with a match, a flight attendant reminded him that smoking was not allowed on the airplane at any time. When Reid continued his antics, the flight attendant noticed that he was attempting to light a fuse on a shoe that he’d removed and placed in his lap. He was subsequently subdued by the flight attendants and passengers who used seatbelts and headphones to restrain him while a doctor on board administered Valium. Reid has since received a life sentence in prison.

Since the infamous shoe bomb plot, TSA has insisted that all passengers remove their footwear to go through security screening. It’s comforting to think that, should someone be dumb enough to try the same trick again, TSA officials would supposedly discover the explosives in the scanning device. What’s less comforting is that the chances of anybody being stupid enough to try this exact same plan again, well aware of TSA’s procedures, is so tiny that it almost makes the inconvenience of removing shoes not worthwhile. And even less comforting is a January 2007 report that states that TSA screeners at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport missed more than 60 percent of bomb components smuggled in by undercover agents. Screeners at Denver overlooked explosives 90 percent of the time, and Los Angeles International missed the planted components about 75 percent of the time. (If you’re flying out of California, pick San Francisco: they only overlooked bomb bits 20 percent of the time.)

What’s more, anybody with the right documentation — counterfeit, stolen, real or not — can, in fact, board an airplane with firearms or explosives. In a late March article published in the Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger, journalist Chris Joyner notes that TSA officials allowed Jackson Mayor Frank Melton to carry his personal guns onboard flights despite rules explicitly forbidding firearms. Melton’s documents were genuine, but in March 2007, a couple passed a handgun through TSA security using fake documents at Los Angeles International Airport. In 2005, officials in New York seized 1,300 falsified badges from 35 different agencies being used to sneak forbidden items past TSA and into airports.

Despite these risks, air travel continues to be the safest form of transportation available to travelers today. Statistically, you are far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport than you are to die in a plane crash. Nevertheless, the TSA needs to spend a little less time heckling passengers for their toiletries and a little more time adequately training their employees. When TSA can develop effective methods of catching terrorists and bombers, I’ll gladly sacrifice all the toothpaste I own.

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

President Obama has been been impressing me with his courage lately. He not only ordered a risky strike against three Somali pirates that resulted in the most impressive display of military talent in recent memory, but he also went to Turkey and talked about the Armenian genocide. By bring up the subject not because it was politically beneficial, but because it was the right thing to do, Obama showed more courage than Bush did in eight years of a war-time presidency. However, Obama has let me down with his unwillingness to engage another controversial issue. He has done nothing so far to reverse the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and the effects can be felt on Grounds.

The military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not at all the compromise it is often presented as. It’s considered a compromise because it allows gays to participate in the military as long as no one finds out about their sexuality. That’s not a compromise. Closeted gays could always serve in the military, just as they could serve as Catholic priests, FBI directors or Republican senators. For openly homosexual individuals, the honor and benefits that come from military service are unavailable as a matter of policy.

The policy was established by an act of Congress, and that’s the only way it can be repealed. Still, Obama could easily ask Congress to act on the law now. With even top military brass and respected soldiers like Colin Powell saying the policy needs to be reconsidered, it is difficult to imagine that Congress would refuse to overturn the law if the Commander-in-Chief asked.

The policy clearly denies gay individuals equal rights. The military has an important role to play, however, and its policies thus cannot be based simply on what’s “fair.” They should attempt to create the strongest possible force. The important question, then, is whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes our military stronger.

I don’t believe it does. At a time when our military is stretched thin thanks to long-term engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan that weaken the United States’ military options in other parts of the globe, such as the Somali coast, it is simply stupid that the military is forced to turn away men and women willing to serve. Six years ago, in response to falling recruitment levels, the military lowered its academic requirements for enlisting. Still it turns away even the most qualified gay applicants. Even Arabic translators have been removed from the service because of their homosexuality, limiting the military’s ability to provide life-saving information to its soldiers.

The opposing argument, of course, is that forcing the military to adopt a more progressive policy would introduce strife in the ranks. Servicemen and women may not be prepared to accept homosexuals within their unit. Unit cohesion would suffer, and violence against enlisted gays could occur.

This argument is akin to saying that because gays are sometimes harassed at the University, we should not allow them to attend. Good soldiers will accept gays in their unit if a commanding officer orders them to. Those who do not should be dealt with accordingly, but it is the bigots who should be punished, not their victims. When President Truman racially integrated the military in 1948, many people were not happy about it, but the military adapted. It was ordered to.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not simply a military issue that civilians should not meddle in. Its effects can be seen even here on Grounds, where the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is forced to abide by it, denying gay students the scholarships and job opportunities ROTC offers. ROTC’s discrimination against gay students makes a mockery of the University’s policy of non-discrimination. At the same time that the University administration is working to help our community deal with an attack on a gay student, ROTC units on Grounds actively discriminate against homosexuals. The University’s Judge Advocate General school presents the same problem.

If it could, the University would be completely right to expel ROTC from its Grounds until its policies were in line with the University’s values. Of course, no one at the University can do anything about the policy or ROTC’s presence here. Unlike Columbia, Harvard, Yale and Brown, which do not allow ROTC to operate on their campuses, the University is a public institution and thus has no choice.

Likewise, the cadets, midshipmen and officers of the University’s ROTC programs have no choice but to follow “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regardless of their feelings on the issue. They are not to blame. I wouldn’t want students to storm Maury Hall as they did in 1970.

The only real solution to this problem is a change in the military’s policy. Obama has put off the fight about gays in the military because it will be politically difficult and will distract from his other priorities. But equality cannot wait until it’s politically convenient. No matter when it happens, the political fight over this issue will be a hard one. It’s still one worth fighting.

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

Let's get one thing straight: the “bias incident” last week was an anti-gay hate crime. "Bias-motivated assault” is a euphemism that masks the severity of the bashing that occurred on grounds on April 4. The survivor was holding hands with his friend when walking back home and was viciously assaulted by five young white males. They did not rob him, so clearly the only motivation for this unprovoked crime was hate.

Hate crimes rarely occur in a vacuum. They require an environment in which unacceptable behavior such as violence against queer people becomes naturalized and acceptable in the general consciousness. A peer and ideological network must exist to support this normalization. Random acts of violence are equally unacceptable, and too often have tragic consequences. A hate crime differs from a random act, however, in that the perpetrators of hate crimes tend to believe that something about their victim like race, religion, or sexual orientation justifies their violent behavior. Hate crimes, unlike random acts of violence, indicate a systematic problem: something beneath the surface, something we must address.

We don’t know whether the perpetrators were students, and in a way, it doesn’t matter. This horrific event has afforded us the opportunity for some serious self-reflection. It is our duty to make sure that our University lives up to its ideals of honor in every way. Non-violence was the original impetus behind the creation of the “community of trust” we proclaim to foster. But if some members of this community cannot trust that they will be accorded the same basic rights to personal safety that others enjoy, then the entire system is degraded. This means that we must eradicate from our midst the kinds of prejudices and hateful thought patterns that excuse violent behavior.

We think the inadequacy and delay of the administration’s response to this most recent hate crime is symptomatic of a systematic problem — an apathy towards the struggles of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer individuals at the University. A mentality that fails to view the queer community as a legitimate and marginalized minority is consistent with the kind of environment queer people face today: a confused and often unhelpful administration, prevalent use of hateful and hurtful rhetoric, and now, the all-too-real threat of violence.

Typically, e-mail notifications on crimes go out the day after a crime is reported, but the administration didn’t think that the severity of this crime warranted notification and so the e-mail was sent out a week later after prompting from concerned students. The fact that the administration did not feel this hate crime was a grave enough threat to notify students is alarming and disturbing. However, Police Chief Mike Gibson said that if something like this were to happen again, he would send out a timely notice and in retrospect, regretted withholding the information from the student body. This is a step in the right direction and we hope that the administration follows through with its promises. While the administration clearly made some mistakes, we do believe that anger toward the administration is ineffective, and misdirected. We hope that you can focus your frustrations on the attackers themselves and the atmosphere that allowed it to occur.

What can we do? Language is one factor in this dangerous equation that every one of us has the power to change. Hateful and hurtful language proliferates a lack of concern for the dignity of those against whom the language is biased. The use of phrases like ‘faggot,’ ‘no homo’ and ‘that’s so gay’ in everyday speech, enforces the dominant cultural mindset: a general sense of fear, disgust, and separateness from the queer community. It reflects a deep-seated cultural intolerance for people who display “nonconventional” sexualities and gender identities. ‘Gay’ is not a synonym for stupid. This type of language is precisely what creates the breeding ground for hatred which leads to violence. So pay attention to what you say and what you hear as you go about your week. If you hear someone being offensive or insulting, call them out. It can be as simple as “Whoa, not cool” or “Really, that test was so gay?” People only use hurtful language when it goes unchallenged. It is your responsibility as a member of this community to stand against hatred.

We have had a slow start in responding to this incident, but let us move forward. Show your strength and your integrity. Send a message to the world: no matter your color, your religion, your gender identity, no matter where you are from or whom you love, you are a welcome and valued member of this University. Show the survivors of this crime that we care about what happened to them, and that we are determined not to let it happen again.

Seth Kaye is the President of Queer and Allied Activism and Lauren Groetch is a LGBTQ activist.

Since successful student activism is so rare at this University, I get stirred by even the slightest rumblings of discontent, no matter how ineffectual or inchoate they may be. So when verbal outrage about fourth-year student Jason Smith’s honor trial crystallized into more concrete forms of protest, I immediately started to track down those responsible for this. What began as an exercise in intellectual curiosity soon became a case study of student activism at the University. And, after intense study, I’ve concluded that the group, now known as “Justice for Jason Smith”, has displayed great strategic vision and prudence in its campaign thus far.

Previous news stories on Smith’s high-profile trial, which resulted in his expulsion for lying in a pass/fail, one-credit course, had either left out the group “Justice for Jason Smith” or mentioned it without bothering to interview its leaders. As a result, thin analyses often dismissed it as a ragtag group bent on launching ad hominem attacks against the third-year student who initiated the case, Mary Siegel.

To a certain extent, this criticism is valid. Just days after Smith’s trial on March 29, the organization’s Facebook group, called “Remove Mary Siegel from Honor”, was launched. It detailed a range of ad hominem attacks against Siegel, including the irrelevant and obscure fact that her sorority sister had allegedly stolen an i-Pod. The group even linked itself to a petition to remove her from the Honor Committee, which regurgitated similar personal assaults. On the surface, this all seems too personal. Shouldn’t they be directing their anger at the system, rather than the Mary Siegels that are the product of it?

But put yourself in the group’s shoes. The first short-term aim of any activist group is to shore up its base of supporters and find dedicated underlings to further its cause. Tainting the image of the case initiator and demonizing her as a poster child for the vices of single sanction is one effective way of doing so. It puts a vivid face on a systemic problem in a way that another honor reform campaign could not. After all, just weeks after the single sanction referendum suffered a dismal failure, would students really be enthusiastic about hopping into the bandwagon of another honor reform effort so quickly? I think not.

Besides, some of the initiatives are actually smarter than people give them credit for. The petition to remove Siegel from the Committee, for instance, is not merely an exercise in venting frustration. If 10 percent of the student body signs on to the petition, it will initiate a referendum on Siegel’s potential removal. Even if the referendum does not end up passing (it probably won’t since only 300 students have signed it), the group’s leaders, Michael Hamilton, Eric Huang and Joe Liem, explained to me that having this support before Smith’s appeal may help boost his case. That seems pretty smart and constructive to me. Hence, while we may find some of ‘Justice for Jason Smith’s’ actions morally questionable, there is little question that they are strategically shrewd.

Shrewder still was the group’s transition from a group initially directed at Siegel to one now dedicated to justice for Smith and honor reform. After a makeover, the Facebook group is now called “Justice for Jason Smith”. The picture of Siegel has been replaced by a scale representing justice, and most of the personal attacks against her have vanished. The petition now starts off with “this is not an attack on Mary Siegel” before delving into substantive reasons why she should be removed (the i-Pod reference has been dropped). There is even a “clarification of group position” section that waxes eloquently about balancing the Smith case and longer-term honor reform.

The transition was groundbreaking because it illustrated the group understood that Siegel was just part of the system. As group leader Michael Hamilton told me, “The honor system is sick. We realize that Mary Siegel is only a symptom of the virus.” And despite his frustrations, Smith himself understands that the focus on his case needs to be paired with calls for honor reform. “What happened to me could have happened to anyone, and we need to make sure this injustice doesn’t happen again,” Smith said in an interview.

This is only the beginning. Hamilton says the group is trying to collaborate with other reform groups at the University to change the honor system. That’s pretty wise. The momentum from such a high profile case will help galvanize waning efforts at repealing the single sanction. And partnerships between groups with overlapping agendas will help build support instead of fracturing or dispersing it. The group’s aim to foster media attention is also a good idea. When a student was expelled from the Semester at Sea program last year and left stranded in Greece, the Washington Post picked up the story. This case isn’t nearly as spectacular, but with the right packaging, the frenzied media may gobble it up.

All this may turn out to be for naught. Smith’s appeal will probably bite the dust, and single sanction reform will likely continue to gather dust. But at a University notorious for its lackluster activism, “Justice for Jason Smith” deserves credit for at least trying to mount a strategic campaign toward these goals. To dismiss it just another misconceived endeavor would do it a great injustice.

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

It is always a challenge for high school graduates to come to college and adjust to a completely new environment with a completely new set of people. Although the University attempts to aid students with this transition, the process is significantly more difficult when those students come from outside of the United States.

That is where the Mentoring and International eXchange mentorship program comes in.

MIX is a program run by the University’s International Center that aims to acclimate the more than 150 international undergraduate students who arrive at the University each fall. Once students have attended the University for a semester, they may become mentors themselves.

“This is for all the international students,” MIX coordinator Freyan Soonawalla said. “We’ve recruited mentors from different nationalities … [And] these mentors get assigned to mentees who have applied for the program.”

Soonawalla, who came to the University as an exchange student herself, said she benefited greatly from the program.

“Throughout their first year, with whatever questions they may have, the mentors are there for them,” she said.

The program’s participants also include native students seeking to develop relationships with international students. A second goal of MIX is to create “opportunities for international and American students at U.Va. to interact on a personal level and develop greater global and cultural awareness,” according to the University International Center’s Web site.

“A lot of the American students want to study abroad,” Soonawalla said. “So they join just to get that perspective and learn about the culture” before they travel to universities in other countries, many of which have programs that are similar to MIX.

One such program is Compañero PUCP at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru. Like MIX, Compañero PUCP works with exchange students who visit the school from other countries.

“Compañero PUCP is sponsored by the Area of International Relations of Universidad Católica so Peruvian students can guide and offer advice to the international ones,” said Javier Bendezú, an active member of the program.

Bendezú, a full-time journalism student at Católica, served as a mentor for the program for several years.

“I have the chance to show U.Va. students how the life on campus is,” Bendezú said. “For example, how to choose classes and professors in the same way that I explain how the library system works. Also, I mention how the cafeteria system is and the procedure to be involved in some extracurricular activities.”

Bendezú also looks to makes friend with students from the University, taking his duty one step further than some.

“I have the role of an advisor but mostly I consider myself as a friend that the students can trust,” Bendezú said. “I do some things with U.Va. students during the time that they are not only studying in Catolica but also when they are living in Peru. I not only guide the U.Va. students in their life inside the campus but I also guide them outside it by solving doubts about how they have to manage themselves in this huge city [of Lima].”

Fourth-year College student Jess Batterton, who studied at Católica during her second year, said Bendezú “was the one who did make [the] effort.” Batterton, who spent spring 2007 in Peru, said she had a lot to get used to when she arrived in Lima.

“The actual feel of the campus is different [from the University] because it’s all enclosed,” Batteron said. “To get in you have to show a student ID. They don’t just let random people walk through the campus.”

Another difference between the Peruvian school and Grounds is that Católica’s campus contains architectural ruins and more small cafes as gathering places, compared to the University’s Lawn.

Like Batterton, fourth-year College student Leigh Rayfield experienced a culture shock. She said Católica was very different than the University. Rayfield spent six weeks in South America last summer and encountered Bendezú during her time in Lima.

“When I first met him, I was pretty surprised just because he knew so much our country,” Rayfield said. “He knew so much about our pop culture. I just didn’t expect someone to be so immersed in the American culture.”

For Bendezú, programs like Compañero PUCP involve reciprocal learning between mentor and mentee. The mentee learns about Peru and its culture, while he learns about the United States and the University, he said.

“I learned a lot of things about U.Va., thanks to [the students I worked with],” Bendezú said. “I had the chance to learn how life in Charlottesville is, how they live, what do people at U.Va. do during their free time and the main places all over campus.”

We recently had our first break from classes about three weeks into the semester to celebrate Holy Week, or Semana Santa, one of the biggest holidays in Peru. After consulting my Lonely Planet guidebook and multiple Internet sites, I convinced my group that we should to go to the Andean town of Ayacucho to celebrate this momentous occasion. I read that the town is popular with Peruvian tourists but not very well-known by most gringos. It has more than 33 churches and traditional celebrations in addition to the city’s modern discotecas and wonderful selection of restaurants.

But having decided where we would to go, we then had to figure out how to get there. Luckily, the host mother of a girl in my group belongs to an organization of teachers who travels to the city all the time. She gave us the teachers’ information, and we were able to sign up for a tour with them.  

After five weeks in Peru and three weeks of classes, we were all looking forward to this adventure as a chance to get out of Lima, the concrete city. The following Tuesday morning, we got up at 5 a.m. Clutching our bags full of food that we packed for the bus ride, we met our tour guides in one of Peru’s sketchier neighborhoods. We boarded the bus and tried to make ourselves as comfortable as possible in its small seats.

As other passengers began boarding, we realized that we were the youngest people on this trip ­— by at least 40 years. But that didn’t mean that our travel companions were just a bunch of old retirees. In fact, a lot of the time, they had more energy than we did!

We were told the trip would require an eight-hour drive, but eight hours slowly became 11. Given our little sleep the night before, the high altitude and the curvy switchbacks of the road, we were all relieved when we arrived in Ayacucho in one piece.

The excitement in the air was immediately palpable. The people of Ayacucho, who were devastated by a violent wave of terrorism during the 1990s, welcomed us graciously. Every person that we encountered was incredibly kind and wanted to know what they could do to make our experience better.

Although no one in my group is Catholic — and Semana Santa in Peru in completely based in Catholicism — the celebration was a cultural experience well worth the distance covered. The trip was definitely an excursion I will never forget. Each day spent in the city made me realize that despite many of Peru’s obvious flaws, I am falling in love with the country. Each night in Ayacucho there was a different procession for us to watch, complete with elaborate floats, music and dancing.

The highlight of the week was the all-night celebration Saturday evening to mark the resurrection of Christ. We stood on the roof of our hotel watching fireworks and drinking wine before staying up all night with the rest of the town dancing and celebrating. Partaking in such activities, I realized that everything really will be OK. Not only will I be able to survive the next three months in Peru, I also will enjoy them.

We spent one day watching the running of the bulls. The run was a bit anticlimactic as it consisted of three tired-looking bulls attached to a rope. My group and I, however, bought into the hype and donned red shirts and scarves. And like everyone else in the streets that day, we pretended that our lives were in danger.

Admittedly, I have had some complaints and frustrations lately about my study abroad experience. Even though hanging out with a bunch of retired people for a week in a small mountain town probably isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, it was the perfect place for my epiphany. I received multiple invitations from our elderly travel companions to come for dinner and even more offers to meet their grandchildren who are about my age. It’s amazing how matchmaking seems to be in the forefront of every Peruvian’s mind.

The mountain air, enthusiasm of the people in Ayacucho and a break from my normal routine were the perfect medicine for the culture shock and frustration that I had been experiencing before. Now, I feel completely content and know that I wouldn’t change a thing about my trip. Though my contentedness may not last for the duration of my trip, I will always look back on this time fondly and remember the peace and happiness I found in the Andes during Holy Week.

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

The University’s Sigma Psi Zeta Sorority hosted VOICES 2009: Dancing Through Barriers Friday at 8 p.m. in the Runk Green Room. The event featured the Boogie Bots, a hip-hop dance crew that performed during the second season of MTV’s “America’s Best Dance Crew.”

The purpose of the event, which has been held annually since 2004, was to emphasize multiculturalism and diversity through dance, Sigma Psi Zeta president Juliette Cho said. The Boogie Bots, whose members represent black, white and Filipino ethnicities, “use their culture[s] as inspiration,” Cho said. The event also featured an interview session during which dancers spoke about the ways in which their cultural backgrounds have been influential in affecting their artistic pursuits.

Every year, the chapter holds a different event in line with this same theme of multiculturalism. Last year’s VOICES program was a career panel that allowed students and various successful Asian-Americans in different professional fields to interact. Other events in the past include a program with geishas and another presented by Wong Fu Productions, an independent production company that started with an amateur music video made in a University of California, San Diego dormitory.

Planning for this year’s event was a semester-long process, Cho said. Once the Boogie Bots agreed to perform, Cho said she enlisted University dance groups X-tasee, Mahogany and Panda Fresh Crew — a group that formed out of the Chinese Student Association — to showcase their own skills.

The Bots are “one of the best dance crews in the country,” said Marc Hall of X-tasee.

Since the group’s fourth-place finish on ABDC, the best of any East Coast dance crew on the show to date, the Boogie Bots have been dancing at different venues throughout the country. Two weeks ago, they performed at Virginia Tech.

The group, which formed in 2005, first met through Culture Shock, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit hip-hop dance troupe dedicated to dance education and outreach to diverse communities. The crew began with Bryan “BOOGIEMIND” East, Mike “Magic Mike” Arellano and Miguel Almario, but has since grown to at least eight dancers, five of whom appeared at VOICES.

East in particular said he loves that the group’s popular recognition allows the dance troupe the opportunity to serve as a voice within the community. In filling that role, he said, Boogie Bots can raise awareness about issues like cultural diversity.

“We loving coming out to places and inspiring kids to make [the] dance scene bigger and better,” East said.

—compiled by Stephanie Glover

Durham, N.C. — The Virginia men’s lacrosse came across a road block in its undefeated season in Durham, as Duke defeated the Cavaliers 15-10 Saturday. The Blue Devils have won their last six meetings against the Cavaliers.

Duke is “a good lacrosse team. They have been very good the last few years; they are very good again this year,” Virginia coach Dom Starsia said. “We’ve lost some close games to them; we’ve lost some games that haven’t been so close.”

The key of the game, senior defenseman Matt Kelly said, came down to speed and hustle.

“To be honest, they out-hustled us to the ball — the loose balls,” Kelly said. “We got mixed up on a couple things defensively.”

Though the Cavaliers (11-1, 2-1 ACC) recovered 35 ground balls to 31 by the Blue Devils (9-3, 2-1 ACC), Starsia said he felt it was a level of effort and toughness that his team lacked that cost them the game.

“The only piece I’m really disappointed in is that Duke made most of the tough plays,” Starsia said.

The game stayed within Virginia’s reach for the first half of the game, as the Cavaliers faced only a 6-3 deficit at halftime. As the third quarter started, though, Duke began to pile on.

“We came out in the second half on the back of our heels,” Kelly said.

The Blue Devils won three face-offs to start the second half and converted the possessions to three straight goals, bringing the score to 9-3.

Virginia got its first possession of the game with 10 minutes left in the third quarter and managed to make it interesting. The Cavaliers scored three consecutive times, two from senior attackman Danny Glading.

“I thought we had some chances to get back into it,” Starsia said. “I thought we showed some glimmers. But we just weren’t tough enough [Saturday] to sustain that for 60 minutes — too many mistakes.”

Though Glading notched four goals, it was not enough to dig the Cavaliers out of the hole they fell into during the third quarter. After Virginia’s three-goal run, Duke once again usurped control of the game, scoring five times in a row.

“You have to be tough the whole game; you have to be willing to take that extra step,” Glading said. “I think we continue to rush things the way we have been rushing things the past couple weeks.”

One of the indications of this rushed play came in the form of poor shots from Virginia compared to efficient shot selection by Duke. The Cavaliers outshot the Blue Devils 43-28 but still found themselves behind the Blue Devils by five when the final whistle blew.

“I give credit first and foremost to Duke,” Starsia said. “I thought they were flying around really on top of the game.”

Duke will face Army on senior night Saturday. Virginia will get another chance to face Duke, however; with the loss, the Cavaliers are now the three-seed in the ACC Tournament and will play the two-seed Blue Devils in the first round.

“I have to look at this one again to kind of pull this one apart, to see if there are things we want to fix and see whether or not there are things in terms determining the pace of play we want to adjust a little bit,” Starsia said. “I would just say in general, though, that we can play better.”