After a year under Student Council’s direction, the University Unity Project made its debut nearly four weeks ago as an independent entity under the leadership of second-year College student Sheffield Hale and fourth-year College student Garrett Trent. Whether the project can sustain itself independently, however, will perhaps be its biggest trial to date.

The University Unity Project was originally launched in August 2008 under then-Council President Matt Schrimper’s administration as an ad-hoc committee within Council. Its architects sought to galvanize and join together as many students as possible — along with the Charlottesville community — with an inaugural theme of “Charlottesville: Beyond our Grounds, Within our Community.” The original effort intended to make students aware that their actions affect the greater community in which they reside and vice versa.

Challenges

The Unity Project, however, has encountered several logistical problems since its conception. The Unity Project referendum glitch during the University-wide spring elections was perhaps the most notable setback. The referendum had hoped to give students a voice by allowing them to vote for the new Unity Project’s theme. Rather than allowing students to select one from the four available themes, only one ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question was listed on the page. In an effort to redress the problem, Council quickly opened a poll on its own Web site, but this was soon encumbered by problems as well: students were able to vote as many times as they liked, distorting the vote. Council finally managed to remedy the problem by introducing a second formal vote through the University Board of Elections Web site — through which “Environmental Sustainability and Awareness” prevailed as the theme of the project’s sophomore year — but fewer students participated as a result of the long delay.

Technical problems aside, other challenges arose from the project’s recruitment efforts among student organizations on Grounds. Schrimper said Council intended to simply serve as a means for the project’s introduction and early growth until it developed enough to thrive on its own. The Unity Project initially consisted of Council members, along with members of class councils and the University Programs Council.

“The intention has always been for it to pull in leadership from across student groups at the University,” he said. “So, conveniently, Student Council was a great place for the Unity Project to start because of the organizational capacity Student Council has.”

Council always intended to move the Unity Project to leadership under a contracted independent organization to ensure that the project would become a truly unifying initiative with a committee that “becomes more a part of the entire student body and less of something Student Council is focused on,” Schrimper said.

That goal, however, has met roadblocks as Council did not consider the burden it could have on University CIOs.

“We wanted other student organizations to take a large role in the effort, but we underestimated how other organizations already had a great deal on their plates,” Schrimper said. “It’s a big thing to expand their vision and collaborate with other groups — it requires a great deal of extra work and energy.”

New administration, new changes

To help address these difficulties, some changes to the Unity Project have been put into effect since current Council President John Nelson’s administration took office in March. For example, although the executive board agreed that Council wanted to continue following the project’s fundamental tenements, it also identified some of the project’s key areas that were in need of improvement.

“The … program did not result in a truly united effort among student groups,” Nelson said. “The project primarily became a financial relationship between Student Council and certain student groups. This year, we wanted the Unity Project to focus more on unity.”

Although the Unity Project is no longer under Council’s leadership, Council will continue to assist the project’s new leaders as needed, Nelson said.

“Student Council helped to organize their initial meetings,” he said. “Student Council is definitely going to contribute to the Project’s goals and figure out ways we can help.”

Though the Project only recently gained its independence, some notable differences between the two entities have already come to light, particularly in terms of outreach, advertising, budgeting and planning.

For example, though Council passed its annual budget in early September, the Unity Project committee has yet to determine the projected costs of its projects, even with half a semester behind it, Hale said.

Last year, University student groups had the opportunity to apply online for grants of up to $500 to fund initiatives to promote student interaction with the Charlottesville community, as part of the Unity Project’s goal. These grants were funded by a $10,000 gift from the University Bookstore in Council’s budget, but now that the Unity Project is on its own, it will need to find alternative funding.

The Unity Project also is now responsible for determining how various student groups can contribute resources toward the project’s goals and initiatives, Nelson said.

“We are planning on getting funding through UPC, Student Council and are also researching some grants,” Hale said. “We will seek funding when we determine exactly what our projects will need.”

Goals on the horizon

The Unity Project’s committee currently consists of about 30 representatives from various CIOs, including Student Council, the Black Student Alliance, the First-Year Fellowship and the Inter-Fraternity Council, out of the more than 600 CIOs on Grounds. The committee, however, is still in the process of figuring out how it will encourage CIO representatives to attend its regular meetings, Hale said.

“We’re still reaching out to different groups to bring them in,” he said, adding that while they have not planned a full-fledged publicity blitz, it will be one of the project’s initial focuses.

Additionally, whereas Council has embraced new media as a means to improve outreach, the committee is relying on a more conventional approach, former Unity Project Chair Rob Atkinson said, to maintain the original “grassroots campaign” that he emphasized during his term.

“We’ve been talking to the representatives who come to those meetings and reminding them that [they’re] a representative for this organization, and telling them how to get this information from the top, how can you then go get that information back to your CIO and back to your friends who can then take it back to their CIO,” Trent said. “It’s about word of mouth really.”

Trent added that the committee is still trying to find its rightful niche at the University.

“We’re still trying to get a feel for where our ideas fit in the University effort,” he said. “There’s been so much planning as to how to approach students at U.Va and how to approach it as a University-wide effort and something everyone can work on.”

But whether the Project will flourish and extend beyond a handful of years or simply dissolve is contingent upon many factors.

Abby Coulter, an activities advisor in the Student Activities Center, noted that strong leadership and passionate individuals are vital for the success and longevity of projects of this scale.

“In a big project like this you have to have strong leadership and reach a lot of people, so coordinating that can sometimes be a challenge,” she said. Coulter also suggested a less centralized organizational system to maintain scope.

“I would suggest that if there’s one leader that he or she surrounds him or herself with people who are good at seeing the big picture and seeing the details,” she said. “In my experience, I’ve seen that sometimes students are good at looking at one thing, but the others tend to fall by the wayside. Having both those perspectives is really important.”

Meanwhile, both Trent and Hale noted that they have already made progress on some of their short-term goals to create and to assign leaders to their first round of projects, which include Earth Week, a week in April that will coincide with Earth Day and provide a capstone to this year’s efforts. The leaders are also planning a Green Conference, which will feature 10 workshops focused on environmental issues and a CIO-consulting program to help CIOs be more sustainable.

“It’s a time where we can work with administrators … to highlight interesting efforts in a very visual way,” Trent said about the proposed Green Week.

Schrimper, who proposed the idea of the Unity Project in his Council presidential campaign in 2008, added that uniting student groups at the University is one of Council’s foremost roles, and he is pleased with the path the Unity Project has carved in unifying student groups. Despite its setbacks, Schrimper said he is hopeful about his idea’s future.

“I don’t think there is a more important role of Student Council at the University than to bring together student groups like the Unity Project can do,” he said.

No one needs to be told how bleak the economy has been during the past year. At last, there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel — or, at least, “indications [are] that things are getting worse more slowly,” as economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in August.

Unfortunately, the implications of a financial fallout can linger well past the actual recession itself. In the most recent issue of the Virginia News Letter, published by the University’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, James Regimbal, Jr. wrote that the Virginia state budget is a “train wreck waiting to happen.” During lean times like these, it is grossly apparent why the University must continue to operate under the assumption that its state funding will remain in decline well into the future.

The state faces dire circumstances, and revenue projections continue to be uninspiring for the foreseeable future. Unlike the federal government, Virginia is legally required to balance its budget, so compiling debt to pay off later is not an option. Therefore, only two fundamental choices exist to confront such a shortfall: revenue can be increased through taxes (or perhaps the occasional sale of government property), or costs can be reduced. Regimbal sharply criticizes Virginia leaders for their heavy reliance on the state’s general reserve fund to shore up the budget and argues that a reexamination of the tax code is sorely needed.

Neither option is an attractive one, but cutting expenses is the more often considered route. For one, revenues are more difficult to manage and predict than costs, as taxes create a web of incentives and disincentives for certain behavior. That is not to say that the revenue side of the equation should be neglected; it simply means that raising taxes is both practically and politically more challenging than cost cutting.

Virginia budget reductions have routine victims, such as transportation and higher education. Gov. Tim Kaine’s latest round of cuts, for instance, recommended reductions of 13 to 15 percent for the state’s public colleges and universities. That plan alone would remove roughly $19 million from the University’s budget, and the worst could still be yet to come. “The reserves are gone,” Regimbal said in an interview with The Cavalier Daily. “Even core programs are going to be reduced further.”

In light of such circumstances, it is fortunate that President John T. Casteen, III and other University leaders have approached financial matters with the mentality of making the University an almost entirely privately funded institution. Although this is an ambitious goal that places high demand on the University’s fundraising apparatus, any other mindset would clearly leave the University in dire fiscal straits. In short, times are tough, but they could be a lot tougher.

Only so much can be done about politics. Given the General Assembly’s track record in funding Virginia’s public colleges, the revenue lost to budget cuts should probably be considered lost indefinitely. And regardless of which party claims the governor’s mansion next month, the University should be prepared for the budget ax to continue to fall.

The Supreme Court has a number of  interesting and important cases to decide in this upcoming session. One of those cases, Salazar v. Buono, addresses the issue of a cross erected on government property in the Mojave Desert. The case was brought to court by a Christian who worked for the National Park Service and found the cross to be an explicit endorsement of the Christian faith on public property. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” To circumvent the illegality of allowing a cross to be built upon public land, Congress transferred ownership of the land to a local veterans’ group. But this action occurred after the court refused a Buddhist’s request that he erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross. The combination of the refusal to allow a Buddhist shrine to be erected on the property and the transfer of the property to private hands demonstrates an act of bad faith on the part of the government. The Court must side with Buono in declaring the cross as an illegal establishment of religion in order to set a precedent which bars religious icons from appearing on public property in preference to other religious icons.

The Mojave Cross has a long history. The Veterans of Foreign Wars erected the cross in 1934 without government permission. The cross has been rebuilt twice since. In 1999, a Buddhist approached the National Park Service and asked to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross, but his request was refused. In 2003, in order to circumvent the illegality of the cross, Congress attempted to transfer ownership of the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, but this action was rejected by a federal appeals court. The history of the cross shows that the federal government appears rather complacent when a Christian icon is on display on public property, but when presented with a challenge to either allow other religious icons or to take down the cross, the government seems keen to preserve the religious symbol. This is an obvious violation of the establishment clause.

As pointed out during the case’s opening debate, there are many pieces of public land which contain religious symbols. For example, Arlington National Cemetery is full of tombstones in the shape of crosses. The difference is that there are tombstones that take the shape of many other religious symbols, including the Star of David. In fact, one can choose from 39 different styles of tombstone in Arlington National. The issue in this case is not solely that there is a cross on public property, but that there is a cross and no chance for any other religious beliefs to be represented in conjunction with that cross.

Proponents of the maintenance of the cross claim that it does not explicitly endorse Christianity or overshadow the beliefs of war veterans other than Christians. Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead.” I’m sure the intention of those who erected the war memorial was not to disregard or disgrace non-Christian veterans, but unless I missed the part of Judaism, Islam, and all the other religions where their Messiah was nailed to a cross, I’m fairly certain that a cross is an explicitly Christian symbol. The ideal would be to have a war memorial that reflects the common beliefs of the war dead: that they were proud to serve their country and that they fought in the name of liberty and equality. But if veterans wish to erect religious symbols to honor the war dead, they must allow members of all faiths to set up religious symbols, not just Christians.

This case is not about trying to tear down Christianity, but to make the government accountable for its establishment of religion via allowing the cross to be built while simultaneously refusing other religious symbols to be built in conjunction with it. The circumstances would be the exact same if the government allowed only a Star of David to be built and refused other religious symbols to be built next to it. And as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Peter Eliasberg (the attorney arguing for the Park Service worker who filed the lawsuit) have stated, there is probably a legal channel through which the government could work to secure the land for a transfer to private hands and avoid violation of the First Amendment. If the land is in private hands, then there is no reason that a cross cannot be erected to honor war dead. The issue is not about trying to tear down a cross, but to hold the government accountable for its actions. A government that shows preference for one religion over another is a government that does not reflect the ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy.

Michael Khavari’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.khavari@cavalierdaily.com.

Living in dormitories is a pretty significant college experience. Without a doubt, we have met some of our best friends because of our initial college living situations. However, some of the University’s on-Grounds housing dampers the first-year experience. While meeting interesting students was incredible, waking up to mold on the window and roaches in the vents were among the worst experiences I’ve had while on Grounds. Tradition may be the strongest reason for maintaining on-Grounds housing. It’s beyond time for the University to rejuvenate housing — starting with dorms — in light of recent health scares.

As we know, the University requires all first-years to reside in on-Grounds dormitories. It’s almost as if this requirement entices students to run as fast as they can away from living on Grounds the following years. By November of their first semester, first years are asked to decide where they want to live their second year. For most, even three months is plenty of time to know that on-Grounds housing is nowhere near the best option. The University feels there needs to be student demand to begin legitimate improvements to housing. However, students are not going to want to live on Grounds past first year if the University won’t make changes to the dorms. Unfortunately, the University may be hesitant to renovate all the dorms based on the wrong reason.

Because of the rich history surrounding the University, there’s definitely a sense of tradition across Grounds. Statues and buildings make it hard to think of anything but Thomas Jefferson sometimes. Yet, the historical aspect of Grounds is such a direct contrast to the dynamic student body. Sometimes the idea of tradition gets in the way of reality. Surrounding the idea of legacy, I’m sure the University loves the idea that students and their parents both live in the same dorms. Truthfully, this idea is very beautiful. It’s another bond that students and their parents can share. However, the reality is that the University has completely changed in the three decades between the two generations. For example, our parents would have never submitted homework online or checked e-mail constantly, and today, we can barely function without laptops. So, why should we be content in living in dorms that aren’t fit for our generation?

The University’s current housing situation is a tradition getting in the way of reality. I am not saying we should disregard tradition, but it no longer makes sense to continue to use these housing facilities. Every year students make the most of whatever living situation they are put in. Students in Cauthen don’t feel any less a part of the University community just because their dorm is newer. The University has made small strides with Hereford, Kellogg, and Cauthen, but the number of students living in these dorms put them in the minority. It’s important for the majority of students to live in quarters more relevant to the current times.

Dormitories are a breeding ground for illnesses because of the close living quarters. If not for anything else, slowing down the spread of germs should be enough of a reason to at least try improving conditions. Students living in the McCormick Road dormitories are at the most risk for contracting and spreading diseases. I’m sure there has been disease spread through newer dorms, but the age of the dorm is definitely a risk factor in how fast disease will spread within its walls. More recently, H1N1 has been the first of many new diseases thriving in dormitories. Power cleaning is not enough to rid (especially the oldest on-Grounds housing) of bacteria, mold, and other illness that have been popping up there for decades and decades. Newer facilities will have newer techniques for keeping the dorms as clean as possible. Once such example is better air flow ­— or, in the University’s case, air flow period. Improving first-year housing would be great for the University community, but it can’t just stop there.

First-year housing changes should be just a start, because upper class housing needs improvement as well. The improvement in upper-class housing needs to start with proximity. That is, Copeley, Faulkner, and even Lambeth are too far from Central Grounds. Had the South Lawn Project not happened, that would have been a great location for new upper class housing. It would make sense to have all upper-class housing in reasonable walking and biking distance. With the nearer proximity to Grounds, we could see advantages in other places. For example, the University community would become even more tight-knit and the environment will be cleaner as there will be less need to run long bus loops or drive.

Today, in the choice of where to live after first year, the majority of students aren’t going to be willing to take their chance at getting another old, insanitary residence. First-year housing is where the initial change must began. Hopefully, once changes are made to first-year dorms, there will be higher demand to continue living on Grounds and then we will start to see improvements with upper-class housing.

Tiffany Morris is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.