As the University’s presidential search progresses toward its final stages, the magnitude of the decision at hand becomes clearer. The Board of Visitors’ Special Committee on the Nomination of a President met Nov. 9 to begin approving nominations for President John T. Casteen, III’s successor. The Committee has received almost 200 nominations for the position and is now moving from its research stage, University spokesperson Carol Wood said.

When scrutinizing the list of nominees and ultimately selecting a candidate, the Committee should be mindful of the University’s presidential history. One useful exercise is to examine the University’s larger controversies during the 20th century, with a special emphasis given to how the sitting president’s personality and leadership traits played a role in each affair.

The first such controversy of the University’s modern era arose during the term of Colgate W. Darden, Jr., who assumed the office of president in 1947. During his time as an undergraduate at the University, Darden had felt excluded from fraternity life, which fostered a sense of skepticism about the Greek system. In particular, he thought fraternities exerted far too much social power. “The university has suffered too often in the past from the activities of a group of fraternities and societies dedicated primarily and sometimes exclusively to outward and visible signs of social distinction,” Darden wrote in a report to the Board of Visitors for the 1948-49 academic year.

To reduce the pressure placed upon students to join a Greek organization, Darden commissioned the construction of a student activities building, later named Newcomb Hall. The project caused significant backlash from many students who thought Darden was undermining the University’s traditional Greek culture. Perhaps compounding the problem was the fact that Darden arrived from the University after serving a term as Virginia’s governor; faculty viewed him as an outsider with limited experience in the University’s administration, and students remained wary of his misgivings with the fraternity system.

Darden’s successor, Edgar F. Shannon, Jr., faced discord of a different sort during his administration. Serving from 1959-74, Shannon presided over the University during a tumultuous social period that saw civil rights and peace movements take center stage among student concerns. Student discontent with American politics reached a critical mass in May 1970, when the major protest known as May Days erupted across Grounds. The protest, in which some faculty participated, was in response to both the killings of four Kent State University student activists by National Guardsmen and the decision of President Richard Nixon to move U.S. troops into Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

In what History Prof. Phyllis Leffler called “Shannon’s finest hour,” Shannon was able to handle the protest without the substantial violence or brutality that had embroiled other colleges. He took what can only be described as an unconventional approach. Standing on the steps of the Rotunda, Shannon delivered a memorable address to the thousands of students gathered, condemning the decision to invade Cambodia and stating his intent to sign a petition that would be delivered to Virginia’s two senators. Shannon came close to losing his job for taking a political stand on the issue, but his deft response successfully mollified the protesters. Few universities weathered the strife so well.

If these narratives suggest something, it is that each University president is likely to face his own period of crisis. History also demonstrates that each leader’s personal attributes and perspective on University life largely determined the outcome of such controversies. Lessons drawn from the subsequent administrations of Frank L. Hereford, Jr. and Casteen point to similar conclusions. Hereford was a quintessential University insider, assuming the presidency after serving as head of the Physics Department, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, provost and vice president of the University. His close ties to Grounds may have given him enough comfort to remain a member of the racially-exclusive Farmington Country Club, despite strong student and faculty objections. Similarly, Casteen is a more or less homegrown leader, which likely impacted his handling of living wage and sexual assault policy controversies just as much as it impacted his landmark capital campaign and his re-envisioning of the University’s financial picture.

The Committee should take these historical analogies seriously when choosing the University’s next president. Qualities like foresight might prevent the avoidable crises from occurring, but candidates must also exhibit the strength of character to manage effectively those situations that will inevitably arise.

Usually I am against imposed uniformity because it can stunt ideas and growth. For example, Jeffersonian ideals are outdated and have yet to be remodeled to the current era, but many still feel obliged to follow them. For instance, values such as honor and social norms — like segregation — have changed over time. Honor has become more ambiguous and segregation is no longer accepted. However, there is a time and place where everyone from students and staff to alumni and local residents should come together as one: Saturdays at Scott Stadium.

Sporting events are supposed to be a time when individuality goes out the window in favor of a collective state of mind. For many, sports are a source of great release because it gives them an opportunity to just live in the moment and forget about any duties and responsibilities. There is no thinking involved — just watching, lots of cheering, and the occasional boo. Unfortunately, at the University, football games are a weekly outdoor cocktail party.

I remember hearing a shock jock first-year criticizing the University for being posh when it came to football. He was crude and loud, but he wasn’t incorrect. Flash forward to the current football season; nothing has changed. The atmosphere in Scott Stadium during most games is embarrassing. The culprit: Guys in ties and girls in pearls.

Since Al Groh stepped in as head coach, he tried to override decades of tradition by implementing the Sea of Orange campaign. Instead of coats and ties for men and sundresses for women, Groh figured that having everyone wear the school colors would produce more unity. Common sense dictates that Groh’s conclusion is more than reasonable. Social psychologists would most likely agree as they believe that the social circumstance of being “one of many” would lead to a loss of individuality and would therefore increase crowd mentality.

On the other hand, journalists and armchair coaches sometimes lack common sense and a simple understanding of psychology. A 2005 lead editorial in The Cavalier Daily stated that “the argument that the roiling Sea of Orange makes Scott Stadium more imposing is a bit silly.” Although opponents are accustomed to going into a sea of (insert school color) every road game, the Sea of Orange campaign is not meant to be an intimidation tactic. Its purpose is to give unrelenting support to the players, coaches, and staff on the field that wear navy blue and orange.

One argument for dressing up is that since dressing up has been a long-running tradition, it is more relevant than the more recent orange t-shirt trend. The rebuttal is simply that traditions change. Christmas has expanded to include two new religions — corporatism and consumerism. General Motors has turned away from massive gas guzzlers to eco-friendly cars. Switching from ties and sundresses to t-shirts is barely a change in tradition compared to what has happened with Christmas and GM.

Another argument for not adopting orange shirts is that it would result in a loss of school identity. The first counterargument is that other schools have similar traditions where students dress up, so we are not unique in that sense. These schools include Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt, all of which have more of a right to deviate from the norm than does Virginia. These programs belong to football schools, towns, and states. They live and breathe football and have the winning tradition that we do not. There, dressing up does not distract their hardcore student-fans from cheering, whereas dressing up here means small talk among casual students. Secondly, I would be hard-pressed to find another school that purposefully tries to separate themselves from anyone else as much as we do. What other undergraduate schools use “Grounds” and “first-years” colloquially? What other school worships their founder and central architecture as much as we do? What other school has student self-governance and the infallible honor system? Look around because there are so many other things that only we have.

Disregarding my opinion on the attire at games, one thing I think everyone can agree on is that the football team is not composed of just the coaches, players, and team staff. There is a reason for home-field advantage and that is the fans. Wearing t-shirts does not make the game any less sociable, it just redirects attention from the crowd and toward the field. If everyone contributed to the game-day atmosphere, maybe the team will win more, and games will be even more sociable. I would guess about two-thirds of the stadium is already wearing orange. The people that need to step up stand in the student section and on the hill.

Hung Vu’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.

According to statistics from CBS News, 71 percent of rape offenders will rape again, and with non-stranger cases “it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 3, 4, 5, 6 offenses at least per rapist,” quoting David Lisak, an expert on rape cases from the University of Massachusetts. According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, only 6 percent of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. In comparing the statistics from Lisak to the statistics from RAINN, one can see the importance of a strict policy on sexual assaults at the University.

Within the University community, there are inadequate responses to rape and sexual assault cases. A 2004 article from the Hook magazine titled “How UVA turns its back on rape” argues that “one of the most bitter ironies for U.Va. rape victims is that the school seems to reserve its harshest penalties not for sexual predators, but for students who violate the Honor Code. Honor violators draw just one penalty: immediate and permanent expulsion.” According to the Hook, the reasoning for this discrepancy offered by former Associate Dean of Students Shamim Sisson is that the “ambiguities in many sexual assault cases make a ‘single sanction’ response difficult.” The reasoning behind the single sanction’s existence, according to a 2007 article published in “Virginia Law Weekly,” is that “the assumption that Virginia students are trustworthy until proven otherwise is at the heart of the Honor System, and its supporters believe the Single Sanction is justified because honor violations are a serious challenge to the “community of trust” assumption.” According to Claire Kaplan, the Director for Sexual & Domestic Violence Services at the University Women’s Center, “Students have complained about this fact for years. I’m of several minds here: first, the single sanction is highly unpopular among many students and even more administrators and faculty, precisely because it really doesn’t work very well. Why imitate a system that is so flawed in the first place? Secondly, since this article was published, the Sexual Assault policy has changed so that suspension or expulsion must be considered in cases of sexual assault (when there is a guilty finding).” Kaplan goes on to question the system’s effectiveness. “Anyone who commits such a crime — and rape and some types of sexual assault are felonies in this state — should be expelled. But most cases do not result in a finding of guilt for sexual assault. Rather, they are found guilty of sexual misconduct, which is a lesser offense.”

The University, after the publishing of the 2004 article in the Hook, attempted to place a gag order on the victim that decided to speak out against her rapist, on account of violating his/her attacker’s rights. The University then had to reverse this policy in 2005 as it came into direct conflict of the Clery Act. The 2004 Hook article goes on to state that the University uses suspension as an appropriate response to sexual assault rape cases. However, the idea that sexual assault and rape cases are not treated as seriously as honor offenses is unacceptable. If a student takes advantage of another student while he or she is incapacitated, or worse yet actively tries to incapacitate them, is that not a violation of his or her honor? Technically, to take something without consent is to steal, which makes it a clear honor code violation.

There needs to be stronger efforts by the state of Virginia, as well as the University, to give incentives for students to come forth about sexual assaults and rape. As the University group One-In-Four derives its name from the statistic that “one in four college women report surviving rape or attempted rape since their 14th birthday,” we can tell that rape and sexual assault affects many people. When we couple those statistics with RAINN’s report that “college age women are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted” and “60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police,” we can see the importance of having a reliable, just reaction to these cases. Even more sobering, RAINN illustrates that “15 out of 16 rapists will walk free.”

The Hook’s 2004 article states that “Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman says many cases do boil down to dueling ‘he said/she said’ charges which simply aren’t enough to win a court battle.” Regardless of the law, the University operates within its own rules that are within the law. If a student commits a crime, he should no longer be part of the University. After all, don’t all honor cases originate from he said — she said?

Ashley Ford’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.ford@cavalierdaily.com.