While the University’s Center for Politics may think that “politics is a good thing,” Hollywood has never agreed. Even Mr. Smith had to fight corruption when he went to Washington. The District and its political arena are central to State of Play, which was adapted from a 2003 British television serial of the same name. Though the location has been changed, the film retains the most important aspects of the source material: a gripping, well-told story and quality acting.

The day that Rep. Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is set to lead a hearing against PointCorp, a private defense firm, his research assistant, Sonia Baker (Maria Thayer), dies while waiting for the Metro. When Collins breaks down on camera and his romantic relationship with the woman is revealed, Collins turns to his friend, Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), a veteran reporter with The Washington Globe. McAffrey begins investigating the woman’s death with Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), a young reporter at the paper. As the journalists dig deeper they discover that Baker’s death may be connected to a far-reaching conspiracy and that their own lives may be at risk.

State of Play is smart and complex, but it isn’t hard to follow. The film takes advantage of a number of anxieties about powerful people and organizations. It seems that most people expect politicians to be morally bankrupt to some extent, not to mention beholden to special interest groups and the party to which they belong instead of their constituents. The politicians’ loyalties in State of Play are difficult to pin down.

PointCorp, a private military company similar to the U.S. Department of Defense contractor Blackwater, is depicted as a ruthless mercenary force concerned only with profit. Between the controversies associated with defense contractors and the general distrust of corporate executives, Pointcorp makes a very effective villain.

While the conflict of the film resides in the gray area between right and wrong, the heroes are above reproach. McAffrey and Frye are made out to be the Woodward and Bernstein of a new generation. They have their own personal issues, but the journalistic integrity of the two never falters. Throughout the film the reporters fight not just for the truth, but also for the honor of their profession, refusing more than once to write the tabloid gossip stories that sell the most papers.

The stars of State of Play have been the subjects of such stories themselves, but none of that is carried onto the screen. Throughout their careers, these actors have all garnered considerable praise for their work and they do not disappoint in this film. Crowe, Affleck and McAdams all live up to the audience’s expectations. They each have their stand-out scenes, but they don’t hog the spotlight. The performances are understated and convincing.

Like the performances involved, State of Play isn’t stylized or flashy — it’s a smart political thriller with a couple well-executed twists and turns.

I’m going to tell you about a sitcom, and I want you to guess what show I’m talking about: A handful of 20-somethings from a northeastern city congregate daily to catch up with each other and enjoy their favorite drink hole. Each of these characters has a niche and a distinct personality, from the big, oafy guy to the snarky yuppie. The show centers around the dark-haired, lovelorn sap who is a bit too sensitive for his own good. He pines after a gorgeous blonde.

This show primarily focuses on the romantic lives and varying philosophies about love among the characters, but also takes time for each of the characters to deal with their jobs and develop professionally. Much of the script is driven by sexual comedy that is both praised and criticized as edgy, but the show elevates itself from the guilty pleasure territory with real heart from actors and writers.

Did you figure out which show I was describing? As you probably guessed, there was a trick behind the guessing game. It turns out that I was describing a whole subset of shows, popularized by classics like Cheers and Friends.

There’s another one of these types of shows on the air right now — How I Met Your Mother. On the surface, it treads tired and derivative ground. How did such an obvious Friends clone ever catch on? How has it survived through four seasons, and how do its ratings keep increasing?

The odd thing about How I Met Your Mother is, despite a premise that verges on plagiarism, it is a very original and atypical sitcom.

To really get a handle of the ways How I Met Your Mother is distinct from its often formulaic genre and see why the show is legitimately worthwhile, one must take a step back and gain some perspective about some of the changes that television as a medium has seen during the past decade. What happened to television between 1994, the debut of Friends, and 2005, the debut of How I Met Your Mother, that breathed new life into the genre?

The Sopranos revolution of 1999 is what happened. With the premier of HBO’s TV gangsters, the bar for television quality was raised. The Sopranos was stunning both in its brilliance and consistency. Though the show was gritty and violent on a pricey premium cable channel, it had a widespread impact on the paradigm of television as a medium.

Network television and the comedy genre finally figured out how to harness this sophistication and storytelling depth in 2003 when sitcom Arrested Development kicked off. The show, which survived three seasons, took advantage of some incredible comedy devices. The show used a narrator to add a layer to the comedy, it toyed with a non-linear chronology and it used meta-humor to call out and make fun of some TV cliches. The most important characteristic of the show was a dense web of interlocking and self-referential jokes.

CBS picked up How I Met Your Mother, led by Jason Segel and Neil Patrick Harris, in 2005, and it is one of unfortunately few sitcoms to actually experiment with this comedy inspired by Arrested Development. The show unfolds as a blend of progressive, post-Sopranos storytelling, along with tried-and-true comedy atmosphere that includes a laugh track and snarky asides.

It is this blend between the immediately familiar sitcom feel and the novel television techniques that makes How I Met Your Mother unique and wonderful. Consider this season’s episode “Three Days of Snow.” Two characters find themselves in charge of their favorite bar for a night, and two others struggle to come to grips with the fact that cheesy rituals are fading from their romance.

It all seems like fare that could be on any sort of unspectacular comedy, until you actually see the episode. During the first 10 minutes alone, about 15 flashbacks, flash-forwards, paused scenes with clever narration and in-joke callbacks to previous episodes occur. Then, in the closing minutes of the episode, the writers pull out an extremely satisfying and hilarious twist that takes the continuous timeline of the show and turns it in on itself.

Another episode that takes advantage of clever storytelling is this season’s “The Front Porch.” Its plot progressed in real time, but weaved in a series of interlocking stories narrated by the characters.

Joke-wise, the show covers well-worn and mostly unoriginal ground. Think three-parts Friends to one-part Seinfeld. The writing is regularly hilarious, though, even if the show is not perfectly consistent episode-to-episode. Even considering the show’s flaws, the clever plot devices and the excellent acting have allowed How I Met Your Mother to emerge as one of the most satisfying and exciting comedies on television.

When you go to see a Shakespeare play, you may expect to see long dresses, balconies and swords. What you may not expect to see are Solo cups, Sperry’s and pant suits. Colleen Kelly, guest director of the University’s drama department’s production of Two Gentlemen of Verona, chose an interpretation that turns Milan into a college town and servants into fraternity pledges. Kelly, a former University drama department faculty member, was asked to direct the performance because of her wide variety of experience with Shakespearean plays, including her current position at the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton, Va.

“Shakespeare doesn’t have to have be flowing gowns and flowing hair,” fourth-year cast member Folami Williams said. “You can shape the language of Shakespeare into whatever interpretation you think works.”

There can be no doubt in the audiences’ mind that this is what the cast and crew of Two Gentlemen of Verona have done. Though the set represents, for the most part, a Verona and a Milan that are older and antiquated, the costumes and music choices represent a decidedly more modern feel. During scene changes the audience will be able to enjoy Kelis’ classic song “Milkshake” and Michelle Branch’s “Goodbye to You,” evoking the feel of a romantic comedy.

“It was difficult to get a feel for it at first,” said Jamie Coupar, the play’s sound designer and a University graduate. “But it was a lot of fun putting together an overplayed teen movie sequence.” The scene featuring “Goodbye to You,” which recalls many, many chick flicks, is complete with a cliché goodbye scene in the rain between two young lovers.

Despite all the trappings of a stereotypical teen love story, this show promises to deliver Shakespeare’s play at its best. The experienced cast knows that while the appearance of the show is modern and fun, there is still some depth and beauty of language in the play.

“The students were cast very early and had Winter Break to work on their scripts,” Kelly said. “They were well prepared for rehearsals and were thus able to contribute to the creative process and interpretation.”

Though the interpretation seems lighthearted and fun, it doesn’t make the show any easier for the cast.

“Shakespeare scares most people,” Williams said. “Being able to take this intellectual idea of Shakespeare and make it your own and then give it to the audience, it isn’t easy.”

But despite the language and the question of whether this specific interpretation of college life applies to the source material, the audience will be able to relate to the show. With strong undercurrents of the strength and flexibility of friendship and the necessity of forgiveness, Two Gentlemen of Verona is a comedy that, like all of Shakespeare’s comedies, has a deeper message if you choose to see it.

“The two gentlemen are friends, brothers in a sense,” Kelly said. “They have a loyalty that prevails at the end, a bond that can endure. What we all agreed on is that this is about young people and new experiences, when morals and beliefs are put to the test.”

This basic idea is what led the creative team to the idea of a Greek-related scenario. College in itself is a new experience that tests its students, but fraternity and sorority life especially relates well with the themes present in the play.

Whether you enjoy the intricate and beautiful language of Shakespeare, or you really enjoy romantic comedies and Greek life, Two Gentlemen of Verona is sure to entertain.

The show’s run will continue to this weekend with shows April 22 to 25 at 8 p.m.

Fans of High School Musical and Hairspray probably thought they knew what to expect from Zac Efron’s first major foray into the leading man role: a heartwarming, but safe story in which Efron’s character would prove charming, adorable and may accidentally sing and dance a little. Though 17 Again fails to remove Efron completely from his comfort zone — he does play a mean game of basketball much like HSM’s Troy and a dance sequence manages to sneak into the opening — the film gives him an opportunity to show he’s more than just a pretty face.

The storyline doesn’t exactly scream originality: the classic “If I Could Do It All Again” transformation tale is reworked with few creative additions. Present-day Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) is plagued with regrets about how his life has played out. Looking to reminisce on the golden years of high school, when he was a hotshot basketball player with a college scholarship on the horizon, O’Donnell visits his former high school to gaze longingly at the plaques and trophies he helped secure. There, he runs into the proverbial, creepy, all-knowing janitor who senses his desire to relive his wasted youth and “grants” him his wish in a ridiculous, over-the-top transformation scene. Along the way — as we can all probably guess — he learns what’s truly important and becomes ready to take on his future headfirst again.

While anyone who’s seen 13 Going on 30 or Back to the Future could easily predict the flow of events, not many would expect the cast to deliver such strong comedic performances. Efron as the young O’Donnell is effortlessly cool and surprisingly funny. Not only does he charm the pants off of female audience members young and old alike, but he is actually believable as an adult trapped in a teenager’s body — no small feat for an actor that’s been toiling away in Disney musical fluff. Leslie Mann as Scarlett — O’Donnell’s high school sweetheart turned divorce-filing wife — is endearing and a perfectly understandable choice for the “dream” girl. Most notably, Thomas Lennon (I Love You, Man) brings home the major laughs as Ned Gold, O’Donnell’s hopelessly nerdy, Star Wars paraphernalia-collecting best friend in the past and present. His outlandish antics are enough to make even the most skeptical moviegoer crack up. Perry plays a minimal role in the film and thankfully so — his whining and complaining is more than a bit tiring.

17 Again also makes it a point to poke a little fun at itself. Allusions to previous “classic transformation tales” and “spirit guides” are incidents of the film’s self-awareness. Also, the film takes a few unexpected risks with its jokes. Yes, some sugarcoated — and maybe a little sickening — speeches about abstinence and bullying do rear their ugly head; but, off-the-cuff, hilarious because of their absurdity insults like “twinkle douche” soften the goodie-too-shoes vibe.

All in all, 17 Again is a pretty entertaining take on a been-there-done-that story — a pleasant surprise wrapped up and concealed in a veil of low expectations. As Efron’s vehicle to superstardom and first step off of the campy, musical path, the film gives him a fighting shot. His next role might just be the one that fully detaches him from the Disney machine.

Yellowcard was a largely successful band at the beginning of the 2000s, starting with their breakthrough single “Ocean Avenue.” And, much of its success in the past has stemmed from the impassioned singing of frontman Ryan Key. In 2008, Yellowcard announced that it was going on an indefinite hiatus, and the band’s return is now uncertain.

This paved the way for Key to form a new band, BIG IF, with fellow vocalist and guitarist Sean O’Donnell. O’Donnell achieved notoriety in the band Reeve Oliver, another pop-rock band that has two albums to its credit. Oliver has won acclaim in the San Diego Music Awards, and has opened for bands like Yellowcard, The Vandals and Switchfoot.

BIG IF is not expected to release an album until later this year, but the band has given us a short preview of its music, posting three demo tracks on the band’s MySpace page. Here’s the skinny on each one:

“Bunny and Me,” is a song that unfolds in two distinct phases. It opens with Key singing a much softer part alongside an acoustic guitar. Near the three-minute mark, the listener hears a drum roll, and the song picks up in intensity moving toward much more passionate vocals and a full electric band. The song transitions seamlessly between the two parts, and they complement well the lyrics of the song, in which the main character is just realizing how he feels about a special person in his life. The contrast between the two sections of the song really shows off Key’s vocal versatility; he can convey just as much emotion whether he’s singing softly or loudly.

The second track, “Bug Light,” begins with O’Donnell singing, with Key taking over about 25 seconds in. The two vocalists’ voices are weaved in and out throughout the song, producing a great effect. This shows the distinct advantage that a band like this would have over either singers’ original bands: they have two strong vocalists and are willing to use them, reminding the listener of bands like Blink-182. Lyrically, this song contrasts with “Bunny and Me,” as it is about the breakdown of a relationship. Because the song is relatively upbeat, the listener gets the sense that the main character is not angry or spiteful — just disappointed about the situation.

“When,” the third song, is about waiting for love, something to which most people can relate. Key and O’Donnell’s voices also rotate in and out throughout this song, with Key singing slightly more often. Musically, it follows much of the same formula established by the first two.

Overall, BIG IF doesn’t explore much new ground. Many of the instrumental parts will be recognizable to anyone who has listened to Yellowcard or Reeve Oliver. The same is true of its lyrics. Nevertheless, the band is worth checking out because the interplay between the two voices makes BIG IF’s sound just different enough to be interesting. You can check the group’s songs out on myspace.com/bigifmusic, which also features videos of the members during the recording process.

Time and the Tilting Earth, the latest volume of poetry by Miller Williams, contains poems ranging from “A Note to the Alien on Earth” to “A Ten-year-old in Joint Custody Writes her First Poem.” His poetry is diverse and quirky, yet he never leaves his Southern roots. Williams consistently uses simple rhyme and meter, giving his poetry the feel of a porch conversation in the twilight. One can almost hear the twang in his speech, the slow, calm gesticulations and the posing of existential questions that have no answers, yet are somehow perfect for quiet nights in the countryside.

Williams, who is famous for being the inaugural poet at former President Clinton’s second inauguration, also is the father of Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter Lucinda Williams. He has had a long and industrious writing career and has penned 14 volumes of poetry. Recalling his experience as a former biology teacher, Williams often injects elements of science into his writing: “A gentle touch, and molecules / line up along the wall of a neural chain / at the links of which a thing called acetylcholine / passes the signal on till it reaches the brain.”

Science leads him to the deepest questions dealing with existence of life itself: “What is existence? What does it mean to be? / How did existence come to be from nothing?” Sometimes, he reaches conclusions that are a bit too simple to be satisfying. Williams, however, usually succeeds in pondering these unanswerable problems, answering questions with either witty clinchers or with more questions. In “An Unrhymed Sonnet,” after posing a series of deep, philosophical questions, Williams concludes, “Excuse me. I shouldn’t ask these questions here. / Please-just go ahead and cut my hair.” His endings are surprisingly witty and often took me off-guard. This light-hearted wit allows him to continue pondering these existential thoughts without becoming too heavy or overdramatic. In conclusion to a discussion about “how everything came to be,” Williams asks, “Every male mammal has nipples. / Could you please explain that to me?”

Williams also spends a lot of time addressing the process of writing itself, although less effectively than his treatment of other topics. In “Poem without a Title or Closing Line,” Williams writes from the point of view of a college student who receives some wise advice from an old professor. “‘Life,’ he said, ‘is a poem. An art and a craft. / Do you understand?’” This is perhaps one of the few moments in this book that elicits eye rolls. Williams, a longtime professor emeritus of literature at the University of Arkansas, can only be using the naïve university student as a device to insert personal adages without sounding preachy. However, the stereotype of the admiring student makes this particular poem seem even less realistic, especially in comparison to his other magnificent poems. In other poems when he addresses his craft, however, Williams sparkles. In “A Poem Wants Me,” Williams personifies the poem as a looming figure outside his window, rubbing “against the glass like a new idea,” a both haunting and beautiful image.

Time and the Tilting Earth is an enjoyable read, light-hearted yet thought provoking. “It’s hard to be understood and make that look easy,” Williams says. But, he accomplishes this with aplomb, creating poetry that resonates deeply in a way that doesn’t involve complicated language or forms.

Plan it for the planet
Effective collaboration increased the impact of Earth Week activities

Across Grounds and across the country, Earth Day celebrations took place yesterday, and the collaborative efforts that have surrounded “Earth Week” at the University offer an excellent example of how effective coordination can spread a wider message with stronger support.

The events taking place during this year’s Earth Week are far beyond the scope of a single student group. Facilities Management, the Miller Center, the Medical and Architecture Schools and University Dining are among those supporting Earth Week through a series of speakers, events, contests and activities. Students can participate in any number of ways, perhaps attending an event without knowing beforehand of its connection to Earth Week.

For any group trying to bring greater awareness to a cause, exposure is key. In this economy, it is difficult for a single group (or even a single cause) to obtain all the resources it might hope for to plan an event, bring in a speaker or create a new resource to promote understanding of a particular issue. The Earth Week events show how a little can go a long way: By getting many different departments and organizations to contribute as they are able, the message of Earth Week has the potential to reach far more members of the University community.

Effective collaboration is the goal of the University Unity project, which will, coincidentally, take on the issue of environmental sustainability during the 2009–10 academic year. One lesson Student Council might take from this year’s Earth Week celebration is that while collaboration entails many people contributing in their own way, ideas about how to contribute can come from anywhere. Council will likely undertake its own initiatives for the University Unity project, but it could also suggest ideas to departments and CIOs about how they could participate.

Worth publishing
Publishing faculty salaries has multiple benefits

Sometimes, the numbers speak for themselves. For the past few years, The Cavalier Daily has printed an annual pull-out supplement listing the salary of University employees who earn more than $30,000 each year, and Tuesday, our readers could once again examine faculty compensation figures and draw their own conclusions.

The Cavalier Daily publishes this feature each year because we believe in the value of information. As an independent publication, we can access these numbers more comfortably than a faculty member might be able to because we aren’t on the receiving end of a paycheck. A professor might hesitate to ask for information about his or her colleagues’ salaries, but he or she can certainly make good use of these numbers if they are available.

Current and prospective faculty members alike can use this information to make better career decisions and determine opportunities for advancement. The publication of compensation figures also keeps the University under pressure to provide competitive pay to attract and retain top-quality faculty. If salary information is more widely available to those seeking employment at the University, departments might be encouraged to remain competitive relative to peer institutions.

Providing faculty with information that can allow them to make informed career decisions is important, but just as important is establishing an accessible record of faculty salary information in which, over the years, patterns can be observed and analyzed appropriately. A newspaper — an archived and accessible public record — is ideally suited to provide such a service.

When I stepped into this weekly soapbox three years ago, I was an opinion columnist without a voice. Yes, I read voraciously and wrote feverishly. I (usually) had clear theses and lucid arguments. But the columns didn’t “sound” like me. “I” was drowning in the turbulent sea of facts, perspectives and events.

Finding the shore was a Herculean task. After a few columns, I realized routine wasn’t enough. Developing your own voice, unfortunately, wasn’t like brushing your teeth. So I tried experimenting. At times, I was a fiery human rights activist, viscerally condemning the University administration using graphic images and bombastic words. That stage soon died a natural death; I couldn’t be a polemicist on steroids when writing about laundry theft or praising University undergraduate research.

Fascinated by modern political theory during my second year, I became a philosopher. I would coolly muse about the “underlying assumptions” of arguments and find excuses to quote someone famous. That stage too, didn’t last. Logic is powerful, but presenting it dryly with excessively professorial overtones is little more than intellectual masturbation. Readers found it boring, even pretentious. As one averred, “You sound smart, but I don’t know what you are writing about”.

Later that year, the historian stage was bound to kick in. Taking a full schedule of politics and history classes, I was inundated with information about the world. That knowledge soon seeped into my writing. Perorations about governments not “understanding the history” became a regularity. My editors cautioned me to “keep your audience in mind”, but there was no time for that. I was on a single-handed quest to expand my readers’ horizons, who I assumed shared the same passion for history as I did. That, as I would have written in my philosopher stage, was a flawed underlying assumption. While history was useful, one had to package it tightly and simply for readers to understand. My dad, who is a journalist, put it best: “Write for the layman. The simpler you can write, the better of a writer you are.”

The evolution of my writing wasn’t all just neat little stages. I dabbled too. I tried individual columnist voices, from the personal style of Thomas Friedman to the cool, simple logic of David Brooks, from the biting sarcasm and irony of Fareed Zakaria to the eloquence of Charles Krauthammer. I also used different techniques that I thought were successful — writing conversationally, varying sentence length, and throwing in a dose of raw personal experience.

My voice did not crystallize until around the beginning of last fall. My writing style became more stable and routinized. I wrote faster and it flowed more naturally. I fused my roles as historian, philosopher and activist, realizing that opinion writing is as much about churning out a draft of history as it is about shaping consciousness and challenging arguments. Two years after having my own weekly column, I was finally beginning to use it as a personal soapbox to convey my thoughts, rather than a private laboratory to experiment on how to express them.

So, what is my voice, exactly? When I ask my mom for a recipe, she often frustratingly says, “I don’t know. I just throw in all the stuff because I’m so used to doing it.” Inchoate as that may seem, that’s sort of how I would describe my voice and the process of its formation. You start out clueless, drifting in the turbulent waters of your own prose. But after two years of weekly experiments and constant practice, the various techniques, personalities and styles you try eventually meld into a coherent whole — your whole. My voice.

So, since this is my swan song, some thanks are in order for those that helped me find my writing voice. First, to you, dear readers and friends, for tolerating the swing of my writing pendulum for the first two years. You have functioned not only as an audience for my writing, but the lab rats for my experimenting. To my editors, for having the humility to tell me when I’m right, the courage to warn me when I’m wrong, and the patience to let me learn from my mistakes myself. To the administration: I haven’t written many columns about what you have done right, but “dog bites man” doesn’t make for an interesting column. While the University has a long way to go in addressing issues like diversity, I do admire your hard work to make this institution one of the best in the country.

Lastly, and most importantly, to my family. Papa — for teaching me everything there is to know about journalism and imparting to me the importance of reading. For letting me badger you with mundane political arguments and hover over your shoulder as you wrote your weekend pieces. Amma, for being the best grammar teacher there ever was and sending my columns out to your extensive mailing list so I can live the dream of being a real columnist. And my brother Nishanth, whose biting sarcasm and blunt comments on my writing never cease to amuse and annoy me. Needless to say, this experiment wouldn’t even have begun without you all.

And a word to future columnists: take it from a journalist’s son, there is no writing gene. Like everything else, it’s hard work. Write more and read more. And if you intend on doing this as a career, don’t skip the arduous but essential task of finding your own voice. Use these pages as a laboratory if you have to. The journey isn’t easy, but you won’t regret it once you reach your destination. I certainly don’t.

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

For three years I have been producing a weekly opinion column for this paper. In that time I have written at least 70 columns on topics ranging from national politics to the athletic endeavors of our University, from international relations to structural improvements that can be made around Grounds. The commonality shared by all topics, from those of local importance to those of national or global significance, is that they all deal with some way in which the world around us is in disorder. We see a situation and instinctively know that it is not right. We all understand this, and this is why the opinion column exists. We know that our world is rife with situations that are not as they should be, as we know they would be if the world were a perfect place. Opinion columns highlight this situation and are predicated on providing answers and hope to the problems that plague our world.

The fundamental presumption for the opinion page is that there are distinct issues that plague our community and society and that these can to some degree be rectified. We are all too cognizant of the ways in which our world falls short of perfection; we experience them in our own community and see them present in the larger world, though we may not feel the effects as directly. Whether an unprovoked assault on two of our fellow students or internecine violence in a country in Africa, the daily presence of homeless people on the Corner or reports of mass starvation in North Korea, saddening events take place with astonishing rapidity in our world. Even before the novelty and shock from one subsides (much less before the inevitably long-lasting trauma can be laid to rest), another flies onto our personal radar screens. Death, destruction, sickness, starvation, and other forms of suffering all exist in untold volumes in our world, and if we merely pay attention to things outside of our own mind, they are nearly inescapable.

This constant bombardment from reminders that we live in a far from perfect world can elicit one of three reactions from us. We can ignore the trauma that occurs in the world around us, choosing to move unfeelingly through our days absorbed in the minutiae of our own lives. We can adopt a fatalistic attitude and take it in stride without questioning why such events take place. Or, we can pose the question of why bad things occur, engage the flaws in our world head-on, and seek out a solution. This is the purpose of the opinion column and the reason why people read it. We hope that someone else will take on a troubling issue, analyze it, and at worst produce insight, and at best, a novel, practical solution. Ideally, in the end, this will result in the resolution of the problem that the column first sought to engage.

To me, this demonstrates a shared belief among those who read the opinion column that the world can be changed if individuals are willing to engage the problems present in it. We see this ideal present in so many of the groups that take place even in our immediate community, from fundraisers for the cure of a disease to events designed to bring relief to foreign groups of people. The optimistic spirit that improvement of our world is possible and that we can play a role in it is pervasive amongst students at our University. I believe that this is correct, but does not encompass the entire truth. There is hope that our world can be changed, improved, made perfect. But the magnitude of the problems we face towers high above any solutions we can provide individually and threatens to drown our efforts in futility. So where do we find hope that the world can change, that the evils we all recognize and desire to combat can be alleviated?

This columnist’s opinion is that the answer lies with the divine. While I commend and encourage all the efforts in which we engage, trying to improve the world, seeking to bring words, images and acts of truth and beauty into spaces of misfortune, the ultimate answer to the world’s suffering comes only from God. Only God is capable of dealing with disorders in the world of the magnitude we see omnipresent. The Bible tells us that God will eventually bring order, perfection and beauty to the broken world that we inhabit. Our works and our efforts are part of this, but the over-arching project, and the bulk of the work belongs to the Lord. That is where my hope comes from, that eventually all the things I write about week in and week out will be made right by God. And as I leave this University, I believe that He has been making things right here, and will continue to do so in the years to come.

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

Last week's announced tuition hikes are only the most recent addition to a network of unjust policies affecting out-of-state students. Not only was the increase in out-of-state tuition “higher than expected,” but a close examination of the statistics reveals that out-of-state students are systematically not provided the same benefits as in-state students through programs their tuition money supports.

According to the April 14 U.Va. Today article “U.Va. Board of Visitors Approves 5 Percent Tuition Increase for In-State Students,” tuition increases for in-state were “lower than expected,” while tuition increases for out-of-state students were “higher than expected.” This temporary alleviation for in-state students was made possible due to an allocation of funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.

While not an instance of bias per se, the fact that the stimulus money went to fill a hole purposefully planned in the state budget is the first clue that something isn’t right here. Reminiscent of Virginia’s tuition freeze and reduction policies of the 1990’s, this stopgap measure from the General Assembly is only delaying inevitable tuition hikes with a budget whose expenditures are purposefully planned to outpace income. Needless to say, this plan is not exactly a paradigm of fiscal responsibility or sustainability.

Ignoring the fact that this measure won’t really help Virginians in the long run, even if tuition hikes are lower than expected for in-state students, shouldn’t out-of-state tuition have merely met expectations? If the lower increase in in-state tuition is fully covered by the federal stimulus package, what is the reason for raising out-of-state tuition?

Once again, as one can reasonably suspect when poor policy-making is involved, part of the blame rests on Virginia’s General Assembly. The General Assembly deemed it necessary to increase the out-of-state capital fee toward the Virginia College Building Authority Debt Service from $2 per credit hour to $10 per credit hour.

Furthermore, an e-mail from University spokesperson Carol Wood stated that non-resident students “help to subsidize our in-state students and pay 150 percent of their education.”

The only defensible justification for lower in-state tuition is that the parents and guardians of in-state students have been paying taxes that supposedly go toward institutions of higher education in Virginia; thus, the state is supposed to cover any gap between in-state tuition and the cost of education with these tax dollars. This is obviously not the case. Wood said that even with the infusion of stimulus money, the state has not made up for lost revenues in the series of budget cuts of the past few years.

Ultimately, out-of-state students bear the burden of Virginia’s fiscal irresponsibility.

Perhaps even more worrisome is the fact that the administration does not seem to have any qualms with this systematic injustice. Wood and others do not even seem troubled enough by this to create a typical public relations charade.

According to the U.Va. Today article, Leonard W. Sandridge, the University’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said the administration strives to keep the University “a good value for the students of the Commonwealth.” Apparently, instead of concerning themselves with all students of the University, the administration is content to ensure the University is a good value for “students of the Commonwealth” alone.

Sandridge said the primary recipients of the tuition increases “include the new Student Information System support organization; increased costs of employee fringe benefits; utilities; the operation and maintenance of newly constructed University buildings; core investments in the College of Arts and Sciences; and AccessUVa, the University’s financial aid program.”

Over a third of the incremental revenue from tuition hikes will go toward making the University affordable for students — a laudable goal, especially in light of the current financial crisis. The problem is only introduced when one carefully examines the statistics regarding AccessUVa disbursements. Ironically, while out-of-state students are paying much more to support AccessUVa, they receive far less access to its benefits.

According to U.Va. Today, three quarters of those receiving financial aid are from Virginia. Thus, the break-down of benefits from AccessUVa does not match the break-down of the in-state and out-of-state student populations: non-residents make up approximately a third of the University community and receive only a fourth of the financial aid for which they disproportionately pay.

Wood said the discrepancy might be because “the marketing and messaging in the first two years [of the program] was directed where we need it the most — in Virginia.”

Against the background of failed General Assembly House Bills 2475 and 1696, which aimed to further decrease the cap on out-of-state students to between 25 and 20 percent, the picture for out-of-state students only becomes worse.

The General Assembly and University administration should seriously reflect on the values these policies represent. The arbitrariness of where one is born is practically a fundamental concept in the canon of academic liberalism, and to discriminate on this basis is simply unacceptable.

In the Wood’s words, “the University is and will always be a state University with a public mandate to serve … the citizens … of the Commonwealth.” Nevertheless, the reality of the University’s status as a public school need not entail discrimination against any student, including a non-resident.

Matt Dickey’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.dickey@cavalierdaily.com.