The University will significantly expand the Health System in the near future. Architects intend to include plenty of “green space,” such as scenic walkways and picnic areas in the final design plan. Photo by Bennett Sorbo.

The University Health System will soon undergo several construction projects intended to connect the medical area to the rest of Grounds.

University Architect David Neuman presented an updated Health System Area Plan on Oct. 13 to the Charlottesville Planning Commission to call attention to sections of the hospital area that are in need of development. Neuman noted that the plan’s suggested improvements will not be implemented all at once.

“Some [projects] are happening now, some will happen five years from now and others are in the distant future,” said Luis Carrazana, architect of the Research and Clinical Program.

The Health System Area projects are in addition to three projects already underway: the Emily Couric Cancer Center, the Claude Moore Medical Education Building and the Hospital tower addition. Carrazana said the new hospital area would not be an “appendage to the east, but [instead] a part of Central Grounds.”

“To see the process and the way these buildings are coming together, you can feel the energy of everyone … and seeing the transformations where you work on a daily basis you really feel like a part of this [change],” Medical School spokesperson David Foreman said.

The plan includes a proposal for an expansion of the Health Science Library, new education and clinical buildings, a research center and a new office for the University Children’s Hospital. The buildings will all be contained within the existing hospital area, Neuman said.

“We want to recreate the place without spreading buildings all over Charlottesville,” Neuman said.

University Medical students also will benefit greatly from the plan, Foreman said. Students will be provided with additional facilities to see patients and “the more clinical opportunities and experience you can give students when they are training the more [skills] they will have when they graduate as physicians,” he explained.

Although it is already under development, the Claude Moore Medical Education Building, which will open in time for the class of 2014, could epitomize the intentions of the University’s new architectural plan for its medical branch.

“It will be a cornerstone for the next generation of medical education for our students,” Foreman said.

In particular, the building will include a learning studio and medical simulation center, and will house a clinical skills and assessment program as well. The completed building also will allow for an eventual increase in class sizes and will provide space to enhance current research programs in different academic areas.

The architectural plan also includes additional renovation of three roadway entrances to the hospital — at Jefferson Park Avenue and West Main Street, JPA and Lane Road and Crispell Avenue and Roosevelt Brown Boulevard. The entryway at Crispell Avenue and Roosevelt Brown will require the most work and will also see the most dramatic improvements, Neuman said. Workers will groom unused land around the entrance and line it with decorative trees and resod the area.

Carranza said these “green-space enhancements” also were proposed for the areas outside Jordan and McKim Halls, along pedestrian walks on Hospital Drive and Lancaster Street, and between the Nursing School and the South Lawn Project, where the new development crosses Brandon Avenue.

Student Council and Hoo Crew are launching a joint fundraiser called “Hoos for Herzlich” to honor Boston College athlete Mark Herzlich, the 2008 ACC Defensive Football Player of the Year who was diagnosed this spring with Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare form of cancer.

Council and Hoo Crew will work to raise money for Uplifting Athletes, a non-profit organization comprised of current student-football athletes who raise awareness of and funding for rare diseases.

“We want to do our part to support our fellow conference athlete … with a goal of raising $10,000 before Boston College comes to play here on Nov. 14,” said David Hondula, Council’s athletic affairs committee chair.

Several other schools in the ACC also have been working toward raising funds for Herzlich, Hoo Crew President Tim McGarry said.

“Other schools have done this to champion his cause… and Virginia certainly has to get involved in this program,” he said.

Herzlich teamed with Uplifting Athletes during his battle with cancer. He recently announced that he is 99 percent cancer free after a series of radiation and chemotherapy treatments, McGarry said.

Students can help Herzlich in the final step of his battle with the disease by donating online and in donation bins that will be placed across Grounds and on the Corner, McGarry said. Additionally, Hondula said student volunteers will be stationed outside the gates of Scott Stadium at this Saturday’s football game against Duke University to collect donations.

“We’re hoping for contributions from many students and … generous donations from community members to help us reach our goals,” Hondula added.

The University’s fundraiser has already picked up national media attention as well.

“This is such an exciting story that ESPN has already picked it up on their blog,” Hondula said.

Students also can make contributions online at www.upliftingathletes.org/hoosforherzlich.

The University ranked 28th on the 2009 Trojan Sexual Health Report Card, receiving an overall “sexual health” GPA of 2.94 ­— a significant improvement from its 2008 ranking of 53rd.

The survey was conducted for the condom manufacturer by Sperling’s BestPlaces, an independent research firm that ranked higher education institutions on the availability of sexual health information and services based on factors including students’ opinions about their health center, the usability of health centers’ Web sites, the existence of student peer groups and sexual awareness programs, and the availability of services such as Sexually Transmitted Infection testing and anonymous advice.

“It isn’t a measure of sexual health but really sexual health awareness and the benefit of services provided for the students so they can make their own best choices,” BestPlaces Founder Bert Sperling said, adding that overall, the survey is being more widely recognized as a resource to see how different student health centers compare.

While the University placed 28th, Virginia Tech lagged behind in 71st. Other peer institutions with comparable academic rankings, like the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, also finished behind the University, placing 35th and 62nd, respectively. The University of South Carolina, on the other hand, paced the field en route to a No. 1 ranking, while Depaul University brought up the rear in 141st place — the lowest ranking of any school listed.

The student survey was available via a Facebook link and asked students questions about issues such as how effective the health center was, how willing they were to use the health center’s services and if they thought the health center was trustworthy. A questionnaire was also sent out via e-mail and administered by telephone to each school’s health center to gain a better idea of the availability of resources on campus, Sperling said.

Student Health also conducts its own surveying to gauge opinions of its services, said Jamie Leonard, interim director of the office of health promotion. For example, whenever students use the office’s services, they are given an optional evaluation.

“The Office of Health Promotion hasn’t received any complaints, and I think in the 13 categories [that were rated in the survey] we are doing very well,” Leonard said.

The only category that probably negatively affected the University’s ranking was the availability of anonymous advice for students, Leonard said, because useful medical advice requires an exact knowledge of the patient’s condition. Peer Health Educators, a group of student volunteers, work to raise awareness around Grounds on a variety of health topics — including sexual well-being.

“We work really hard to publicize and raise sexual health awareness on-Grounds,” PHE Patient Education Intern Megan Johnson said, adding that PHEs give presentations to large groups like fraternities, sororities and dormitory buildings to promote measures such as condom use and STI testing. She added that advisers are available for one-on-one consultations about a variety of topics like birth control options.

Darden School. Photo by Iram Shaikh.

The Aspen Institute released its 2009-10 “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” rankings, placing the Darden School eighth out of all U.S. business schools and 11th on the organization’s list of international business schools. The latter ranking represents a jump from 2007, when Darden was ranked 24th on the global list.

The Aspen Institute is a nonprofit organization that promotes nonpartisan awareness and discussion of topics of interest in hopes of improving the world. The organization’s “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” rankings focus on business schools that have been able to integrate and promote social and environmental leadership into their curricula and research.

“We are very pleased and excited,” said Robert Carraway, Darden associate dean for degree programs. “The combination of how we run our school, what we teach and our efforts in sustainability” helped distinguish the Darden School.

Additionally, Darden ranked fifth in the rankings’ research category, which measures the amount of scholarly articles published pertaining to social, environmental or ethical issues. The school also ranked seventh in the category of for-profit impact, which examines the number of courses that teach how business can improve social and environmental conditions.

Despite its high overall ranking, however, the school ranked 31st in the relevant courses category and only 61st in student exposure, which measures teaching hours and student enrollment in these relevant courses.

—compiled by Sofia Economopoulos

The University Judiciary Committee introduced the new First Year Judiciary Committee at its weekly meeting last Sunday. First-year College student Emily Forrester was elected as FYJC chair and first-year College student Charity Harrell as vice chair.

The new FYJC “is an elite group of leaders excited and dedicated to serving as judges to improve the class of 2013, as well as the University as a whole,” Harrell said.

According to the FYJC constitution, FYJC uses the authority delegated to it by the UJC to “uphold and promote those principles of civility and self-discipline that are appropriate to the first-year experience.”

The FYJC hears only “complaints of first-year misconduct in the first-year living areas.” Otherwise, the FYJC is similar to the rest of UJC in its procedures, in that it hears complaints, holds trials and imposes sanctions on those guilty of violating the Standards of Conduct.

While the FYJC’s role is to examine and prosecute first-year students who violate Standards of Conduct in first-year living areas, Bobby McMullen, a first-year College student and new member of the FYJC, said “we’re not out to get anybody.”

Instead, he said, the FYJC’s job is to review policies and help new students adjust to University life.

“We’re not police offcers,” McMullen said.

In total, the FYJC is composed of 17 first-year students. Vice-Chair for First Years, Will Bane, who served on last year’s FYJC’s committee, worked to recruit and select the new group.

The organization’s newly elected chair, Forrester, said it is beneficial for UJC to have a group of first-year students who deal solely with first-year cases because the FYJC is able to appropriately sympathize with their peers. “We have a closer connection and see the cases in a different perspective [than other UJC members],” she said, noting that FYJC aims to “help our peers and be proactive, instead of just punishing them.”

McMullen added that it is important to have a separate first-year group because upperclassmen may “forget what it was like when they were first years,” and may not place enough significance on the difficulties associated with the first months of college.

Forrester said while she and the rest of the FYJC have not yet discussed any future plans or changes, they will take on challenges as they arise.

In light of tough economic times, much attention has been given to the rising cost of college tuition and the strain being placed on many universities’ financial aid departments. One response to these concerns that has acquired considerable press this year is the increased adoption of stand-alone three-year undergraduate degree programs.

In the latest issue of Newsweek, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander makes the case for the three-year degree option, arguing that “campuses willing to adopt … more-focused, less-expensive degrees may find that they have a competitive advantage in attracting bright, motivated students.” He specifically cites New York’s Hartwick College as an example of schools making the pitch to students, offering savings of $43,000 to those able to graduate in six semesters.

From a general marketing standpoint, it is apparent that the University might not have as much to gain from offering this plan to students as would smaller colleges. The University attracts mostly top-tier students who, most would assume, place a higher premium on the college experience as well as their future alma mater’s academic reputation. These students may be less concerned with finishing school quickly. Rather, more promise rests with treating the three-year option as a financial aid tool. Such a move would target low-income students in particular.

Students completing undergraduate work in three years is not an unusual concept. According to the Washington Post, many overseas institutions like Oxford University and the University of Cambridge employ three-year degrees as the norm. Though the idea is not new, it has been relatively unexplored by many American colleges.

The Education School’s five-year teacher education program offers a thriving example of an existing accelerated degree program. Accepted students enroll concurrently in graduate and undergraduate classes and graduate with both with a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree. This model, of course, is not identical to the six-semester degree option, but it demonstrates that highly-motivated students are often able to succeed with a condensed college timeline.

There are obvious drawbacks to a three-year Bachelor’s degree. Naturally, when students spend less in tuition, that also reduces revenue per student for the colleges themselves — never a wise pitch to make during an economic contraction. More significantly, students would have less time to explore diverse academic offerings, participate in rewarding extracurricular activities and take in the college experience in general. It could be argued that these students would be at an inherent disadvantage in both the job market and in graduate and professional school admissions, presumably having completed less coursework than their peers. There are two basic answers to that challenge. First, for low-income students, the chance to pursue any degree is better than nothing at all, and the savings could easily be worth the risk. Each family should be able to decide that individually. Second, because students graduating in three years would have to be especially focused and hard-working, there seems little reason to believe that most employers and graduate programs would discriminate against them.

The key to any plan is flexibility. Fundamentally, there is a tension between competing notions of the optimal role for universities. Some view them as engines of economic growth and workforce training, and others consider them to be places for intellectual exploration and personal development. In reality, of course, universities serve both ends. There is no reason to throw out the traditional four-year degree, but the University should consider implementing an additional three-year track.

The University provides an exceptionally good environment for such an idea to take hold. As a strong academic school, it attracts highly-capable students, yet as a public institution, it also strives more than most colleges to provide affordable educational opportunities. In a dynamic, competitive global marketplace for education, universities must be willing to break the mold on occasion and experiment with nontraditional ideas. The University need not compromise its core intellectual mission by expanding its model for undergraduate education.

Given recent events, I’m sure nearly everyone is edgy about safety around Charlottesville these days, which is why an issue I encountered this weekend was particularly surprising to me. On Saturday morning, I braved the on-again, off-again rain, parents in tow, from my Lambeth apartment to Scott Stadium for the hardly epic showdown of a football game. Upon reaching the first “checkpoint,” if you will, prior to entering the stadium, as usual I was prepared to show my student ID. I always take my ID out of my lanyard, of course, because it has to get scanned at the actual gate. As I was about to go on my way, he eyed my lanyard and noticed my orange whistle. He told me that the whistle would not be allowed inside the stadium. This troubled me. This was no ordinary whistle; this was my rape whistle. I work late a few nights a week, getting home around 10 or 11 at night, sometimes as late as 1 a.m. I park my car at University Hall, and although it’s a short walk to Lambeth, the sketchiness of the area at those hours is debatable. I like having a rape whistle. I inform the man that what he wants to take from me is not just a regular whistle, it’s a rape whistle. It’s for emergency purposes, not for feigning inadvertent whistles. Unfortunately, he is trained to see any whistle as a “noisemaker,” and noisemakers aren’t allowed inside the stadium. So I’m left with no choice but to surrender my noisemaking rape whistle. I suppose I could have argued and maybe been allowed to keep my whistle, but maybe authoritative figures, security guards, police officers, and the like around here should focus on more important things than this. We should all be on the same page with student safety at the top of our priority list, even if it means disregarding trivial “rules” here and there. And when I get a new rape whistle, on my honor, I won’t use it as a noisemaker at the football game.

MaryKate Morani
CLAS II

After spending an evening listening to the engaging ideas of former Governor George Allen, I came away convinced that Allen was not a typical politician. Allen appeared perfectly at ease on Tuesday, Oct. 20, as he lectured to the standing-room only crowd that packed Jefferson Hall. Allen was invited to speak on Grounds by the Edmund Burke Society, and the event was co-hosted by the Campus Republicans and the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society. Allen delivered a provocative speech exploring the tough realities of the American energy crisis often ignored by conventional politicians. As I listened to Allen’s lecture I was struck, not by the obvious validity of his ideas, but by the force of the man. As Mark Twain once commented, ”A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.” Allen appeared as confident sporting his cowboy boots and using football metaphors to demystify the American political system as any talented University professor seems guiding students in their academic pursuits.

I felt a great sense of pride as I observed Allen present his ideas for reforming American energy policy, knowing that a University education could produce that caliber of expertise. By profession, Allen is a lawyer, a politician, and a businessman, but as he spoke on Tuesday night, he projected an aura of leadership less linked to politics than to passion. As Allen commented, “If America adopted just these five positive reforms and innovations, we would unleash American creativity for American jobs, competitiveness, national security and American Energy Freedom!” Clearly, Allen feels strongly that America and the Commonwealth of Virginia need to strive for energy independence. Allen’s persona hearkens back to an era when politics was a social, rather than a performing art. Upon meeting Allen one is immediately impressed by his jovial manner. Allen’s conversation quickly turns to humor and the man is not afraid to voice his opinion, even in the face of opposition. Allen embodies the fading ideal of the Jacksonian politician.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Allen’s political policies is irrelevant when considering the importance of the political archetype Allen embodies. He signifies a breed of politicians that is fading into the graveyard of the American political system. These are politicians with truly common roots, educated outside the halls of Ivy League institutions. Allen is one of the last political leaders to remain stubbornly unfettered to teleprompters and a legion of overpaid speech writers. As was evident at the energy policy speech, Allen subscribes to a type of politics that is based on relationships rather showmanship. Allen made his case for energy independence with ease, barely glancing at his notes. The political informality Allen displayed proved refreshing, while simultaneously serving as an antithesis to the stiflingly scripted performances which permeate America’s current celebrity age of politics.

The endearing informality practiced by Jacksonian politicians such as Allen is the same quality that makes the political remnant unable to survive in modern government. The American electorate values perfectly scripted political presentation over politicians that are actually attempting to convey the methods they would use to govern. As philosopher Haridas Chaudhuri notes, “The greater the emphasis on perfection, the further it recedes.” Allen, and the few remaining politicians like him, unapologetically convey their policy stances to the electorate and rarely shy away from exposing the hard economic and political realities facing the nation. The genuineness of those politicians’ messages and the unceremonious way in which the communications are presented makes it nearly impossible for this type of politician to compete against the shell of perfection embodied in their celebrity counterparts. The American electorate is seldom willing to engage hard truths and would rather be entertained by glamorously presented political fluff then listen to the plainly spoken truth.

Politics has always been an art, but the changing values of American culture have simultaneously morphed the ideals of politics. The commercialization of the American dream from a desire to live respectably to a desire for instant fame and a life of excess has likewise signaled a shift in American political values. Americans no longer want a politician that possesses a talent for truthfully relating to the people. Instead, Americans desire a politician that is able to deliver an entertaining and feel-good message regardless of the political reality. The unapologetic, straightforward approach of leaders like former Governor Allen therefore precludes them from the modern definition of a politician.

Ginny Robinson is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.

I am writing in reference to the Monday’s lead editorial (“Set Adrift,” Oct. 26). I believe that the editorial, perhaps due to an incomplete observance of the Committee’s discussion of Semester at Sea over the past three weeks, or perhaps because of the complexity of the issue itself, in many ways misses the point of the proposals currently being discussed and mischaracterizes the efforts of the Committee. The editorial focused on alleged “errors,” “paradoxes,” and “conflicts” without contextualizing the problem of administering the Honor System aboard the ship. I hope that a brief review of the Semester at Sea program, constraints faced, issues at stake, and possible solutions will help elucidate this issue more clearly for your readership and reveal that the alleged “conflicts” alluded to in Monday’s editorial come from a misunderstanding of the theoretical and practical elements of the proposals.

The University became the academic sponsor of Semester at Sea in 2006; as such, a University faculty member oversees all academic affairs. Other logistics on each voyage — running the physical ship, providing meals, etc. — are handled by the Institute for Shipboard Education, an organization founded in 1976 that has provided educational experiences at sea since 1977. There are roughly 700 students on each voyage; between 10 to 30 claim the University as their home institution. Classes are held aboard the ship during the days it is at sea between port cities. When the ship reaches a port, students explore the city/country in which they have just arrived and meet back at the ship after a specified period of time.

When the University agreed to become the academic sponsor for the program, the Honor System was to play a large part in shipboard life. This makes sense for two main reasons. Since Semester at Sea students receive University credit, they should uphold the Honor System. Also, the Honor System is another way to foster a larger sense of community among students who come from a wide variety of colleges and universities. However, this goal, and the very unique character of the Semester at Sea program, have resulted in severe practical difficulties implementing an Honor System aboard the ship that grants the same level of due process as the Honor System here in Charlottesville grants.

The practical difficulties are myriad, but the two biggest ones are lack of trained personnel and compressed timelines. In a perfect world, the Honor Committee could fly all of the appropriate personnel to the Semester at Sea ship, adjudicate the matter as we do here in Charlottesville, and fly home. This is, however, impossible for obvious reasons. Furthermore, the Committee cannot guarantee that trained personnel will be on each voyage as students. Adjudicating these cases remotely is also impractical. Fairness dictates that a case should, whenever possible, be adjudicated in person and as close to the time of the alleged offense as possible. Moreover, communicating with the ship is prohibitively expensive — students pay for ship-to-shore calls and for internet minutes. In the age of shrinking budgets and endowments, the Committee does not have the resources to guarantee that all cases could be handled remotely.

With regards to timelines, a system can only be administered when the students are all aboard the ship; however, this time is limited to only the period between visits to ports, which can often be as few as two days. These practical difficulties have resulted in a process aboard the ship that has the potential for involvement from faculty in decision-making, operates on a shorter timeline that does not mirror the process here in Charlottesville.

This state of affairs is the very reason for the proposals the Committee is now considering, not a “paradox” as Monday’s editorial suggests. Some members of the Committee are uncomfortable with permanently dismissing students from the University, whether it is their home institution or not, without those students enjoying all the rights afforded to them by our constitution and without the proceedings being decided by students whose home institution is the University. Hence, both proposals reviewed Sunday night require proceedings in Charlottesville before students are permanently dismissed from the University.

That being said, the desire for full proceedings in Charlottesville does not invalidate the proceedings aboard the Semester at Sea ship. Neither proposal discussed at Sunday’s meeting envisions a system in which a not guilty verdict in Charlottesville would invalidate a guilty verdict on the ship. The Semester at Sea process, despite what these pages have alleged, is not “unfair;” it guarantees the same two fundamental elements of due process that the Charlottesville process does: notice (of the rules and how they work) and a right to be heard by an impartial fact finder. The difference is that the shipboard process lacks all of the “bells and whistles” associated with investigations and trials here. Some members of the Committee feel that those opportunities should be available to a student before he/she is permanently dismissed from the University. The underlying principle is that the level of due process administered aboard the Semester of Sea ship is appropriate for the punishment of removal from Semester at Sea academic program, but the more severe punishment of permanent dismissal from the University requires the level of due process administered in Charlottesville, which includes all of the rights in Article V of the Committee’s constitution. Perhaps better said, as the severity of punishment increases, the level of due process should also increase.

In conclusion, I hope that the above explanation of Honor aboard Semester at Sea and the approach the Committee is currently considering give a better representation of the situation than does Monday’s editorial. When viewed in a more holistic and contextualized fashion, as opposed to the vacuum of one meeting, many of the alleged “paradoxes” discussed in the editorial become different philosophical approaches, not deep-rooted conflicts. I also hope that my explanation shows the level of consideration that has gone, and will continue to go, into discussions of Honor aboard Semester at Sea.

David Truetzel is Chair of the Honor Committee.