At Sunday night’s meeting, the Honor Committee discussed a proposed amendment to give students convicted of an honor offense the opportunity to appeal that decision to the student body at large. Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander R. Cohen created the proposal, saying that if a convicted student chose to forego his confidentiality, the facts of his case could be presented to the University community. Cohen suggested that a one-page report of the case could be released to students, and that the convicted individual would need to obtain a minimum of 500 student signatures to see his case overturned.

The rationale behind the proposal is to further involve the University community in the honor system and to ensure that the Committee is responsive to the student body’s interpretation of honor. Darden Representative Leif Glynn echoed Cohen’s sentiments and said the Committee should find a process to address the concern that “a 12-person randomly-chosen jury does not reflect the community as a whole.”

Although the proposal’s intended purpose is commendable, such an amendment would be intrinsically flawed. Cohen and Glynn are right to point out the value in adding community input and engaging the student body in the honor system; however, collecting 500 signatures is simply not an appropriate means for overturning a conviction. The process would be too susceptible to student impulse and clever campaigning. It is not closely enough intertwined with the ideal of preserving justice.

Several Committee members questioned the wisdom of Cohen’s proposal. Law School Representative Charlie Harris said a community appeals process would unduly benefit affluent students who could more easily canvass to collect the needed signatures. He also expressed concern that the system could lead to “knee-jerk” community verdicts instead of the sound deliberation that trials generally produce. Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll agreed and argued that appealing to the student body could lead to significant bias.

These concerns touch on the multiple reasons that such a proposal is defective. Even if students are provided with a one-page case summary — or a lengthier document, for that matter — to review, a body entirely removed from case proceedings cannot be expected to consistently deliver a sound appellate decision. Though several students in the past have called attention to alleged problems within the Committee’s current appeals process, Cohen’s proposal is clearly not the solution to those flaws, as it creates a questionable means to establish the Committee’s criteria for a successful appeal. It also introduces a multitude of logistical difficulties, perhaps further engendering the system’s reputation as complicated and difficult to understand.

Other influences on the student community would be tough to mitigate as well. Presented with a high-pressure situation, students approached to sign a petition might buckle to a convicted student’s pleas and agree to sign. Carroll also rightly pointed out the effect that the system’s sole punishment is likely to have on some students: A potentially large number of signees might wish to overturn an honor conviction simply out of protest against the single sanction. Though student opinion about that policy may vary, the Committee is right to only grant appeals in instances of new evidence or procedural errors. Furthermore, the securing of 500 signatures only demonstrates that about 2 or 3 percent of the total student population wants to overrule a verdict; an enterprising student could surely convince that small a number to join his cause, regardless of the circumstances at hand.

Cohen’s creativity and boldness are admirable, but this solution is simply not plausible. The University community should be engaged in the honor system to whatever extent possible, but it cannot fundamentally replace the Committee’s formal processes. Instead, the Committee should explore other nontraditional methods to increase community involvement and should also consider undertaking a formal review of its current appeals process. The Committee should unquestionably be held to strict scrutiny from the student body in the application of honor principles, but appealing specific cases to public decision would be a gross affront to due process and justice.

It looks like there needs to be more attention given to the groom these days with the popularity of the new man-gagement rings. Man-gagement rings are designed for a man to wear either after a woman proposes to him, or more typically after he proposes to a woman to display that he is off the market. According to both the New York Daily News and ABC News, these rings are part of a growing trend that is now affecting heterosexual grooms. However, what these rings actually represent is the newest addition to the growing trend of divorce. In 2005, according to Divorce Magazine, the marriage rate was 7.5 percent, while the rate of divorce was 3.6 percent, representing the timeless statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce. How do man-gagement rings aid the divorce crisis that greatly affects America? Man-gagement rings allow the relationship to begin on the grounds of mistrust, and that mistrust in turn leads to faulty marriages.

Man-gagement rings, as The New York Daily News points out, are considered by some to be a representation of the distrust that the two soon-to-be-married individuals share for each other. “If you think about it, a woman is engaged and wears an engagement ring on her finger, oftentimes [for] north of a year. And a guy’s engaged during that same time and walks into a bar as a free man,” Brad Gross of H.L Gross & Bro. Jewelers told ABC. “So I think for $350, $400 for a woman to claim her territory, it’s catching on pretty quickly.” ABC News affectionately elaborates on the reason a man would wear such a ring, arguing that they are forced into it, or “dragged in.” In one couple that ABC featured purchasing the man-gagement ring, the betrothed groom says that even though his wedding day is “game over,” he’d rather the game be over now. All of this evidence goes to communicate the idea that a man must wear an engagement ring to protect him from any potential suitors that may approach him unaware that he could possibly be engaged.

To buy a man a ring in efforts to level the playing field discredits the mans ability to behave as though he is off the market by his own will. Whether or not a man is wearing a ring will not determine if he will cheat. According to the book “The Dark Side of Communication” by William Cupach and Brian Spitzberg, “Men tend to become proportionally more jealous over sexual infidelity, whereas women become proportionally more jealous over emotional jealousy.” They then go on to state how men express more desire and willingness to engage in affairs and actually commit more infidelity, experience less guilt, and justify their infidelity more than women. This goes to show how the ring will not serve as a deterrent to stop a man from cheating. Ladies, the ring will communicate that you have no trust in his ability to ward off other suitors.

What exactly causes infidelity? According to the book Surviving Infidelity, trust is an important factor in why men cheat. It suits the age old idea that your mother told you: “If you believe long enough something bad is going to happen, eventually it will.” Men’s Stuff also notes, “Experts say that a gut instinct is the most powerful indicator of a cheating lover. Adultery statistics state that 85% of woman who feel their lover is cheating are correct.” Now, we can infer one or two things from these statistics; the first is that women have a psychic connection with a man and a bell instantly goes off every time their man even contemplates cheating. The second is that women think it so often that eventually they are correct and it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This prophecy begins with the man-gagement ring.

Some may argue that a female engagement ring communicates the same idea of distrust in a spouse. The history of a female engagement ring in modern society was designed by the jewelry industry to drive the price of diamonds back up. They believed that if they made diamonds seem like precious heirlooms, such as through De Beers’ “diamonds are forever” campaign, people would hold on to them and pass them down through their families. While tragically female diamond engagement rings have their roots in a commercial thought process, they do not originate from ideas of distrust. Even in 1477 the first engagement ring was given to Mary of Burgundy as a gift, not a method of control. Regardless, it is no secret that women like jewelry, and if a woman should feel as though their spouse is controlling them through the ring, they too can simply remove the ring. Should a woman give a man a ring with these ideas in mind, it would not be a trust issue. However, the reasons given by the jewelers in NYDN and ABC News do not suggest that this is the case.

While marriage and engagements are serious commitments, they are commitments in the sense that you are putting a down payment on the investment of spending the rest of your life with someone. This does not mean that the rules of infidelity have changed from the previous stage of a relationship. By giving a man a man-gagement ring, you are effectively communicating that he cannot be trusted to behave as if he was in a relationship. That mistrust is the beginning of a fissure in the trust of a relationship.

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

On Nov. 7, the House of Representatives finally passed, with a five-vote margin, House Resolution 3962. It occurred at 11:19 a.m. on a Saturday morning. It consisted of 524 pages, all of which describe legislative reform designed to increase the number of Americans able to afford health insurance, and every single representative voted on the bill, with none voting “present.” It will now go to the Senate, where it will undergo months of surgery to secure 60 votes and the $900 billion price tag targeted by President Barack Obama. There is still, however, a high probability it will fail to pass through the rest of Congress’ remaining edits and votes. This is a far cry from the sweeping reform promised by Obama during his campaign, a plan that would have brought the entire health care industry under government control, as it is in other Western nations, and as such, the Obama administration has been less than effusive about the passing of HR 3962. The president has gone so far as to call the bill a “sliver” of the reform he has endorsed since he first started campaigning three years ago. But did Obama fail? True, reality does not match his vision. But the president’s blind ambition and optimism may be strong enough to affect a more gradual change in our nation’s institutions. If he cannot achieve perfection, it seems like Obama will settle for improvement. And this tenacity might be the most effective weapon in his political arsenal, and the most important lesson from his first-year in office.

This is not the first major health care bill to run its course through our Rube Goldberg legislative system. Bill Clinton attempted similar reform after his election in 1992 and, even with a majority in both houses of Congress, was defeated by a well-organized front of conservatives, libertarians, and special interests from the insurance industry. Truman tried national health care as part of his Fair Deal, but even as European nations were using Marshall Plan dollars for their own welfare states, Americans rejected the idea. LBJ didn’t even try, even with a strong Democratic majority. All of these examples go to show that it is prohibitively difficult to convince the nation’s lawmakers that their constituents could be comfortable with national health care — something that carries dirty socialist connotations with it wherever it goes. Then, as now, it seems like health care reform has been doomed by its own pre-existing condition: our limited ability to absorb change in a small amount of time. The largest American paradigm shifts of the twentieth century, such as the creation of Social Security in 1935 or the exponential growth in defense spending in the 50s, were responses to international change; without a worldwide depression or cold war, there is a finite quanta of possible reform per unit time in this country, and health care always requires more flexibility than is available. There is simply no good time to introduce a paradigm shift like socialized medicine, a lesson Obama is learning now, 17 years after his last Democratic predecessor discovered it for himself.

But Obama knows his political history. He has demonstrated an intimate connection with the American people, or at least a better innate understanding of the electorate than is found in most politicians, something he proved during his worst-to-first campaign. He was elected on a platform of reform, but he knows he was not elected unanimously or by a population fully supportive of his policies, so — unlike his predecessor — he has never attempted to cash in the “political capital” his election brought him. So did he honestly expect to realize his vision of nationalized health care? True, it may be impossible to underestimate the optimism of a man riding into office on the laurels of a perfectly-executed presidential run. To introduce such an initiative in the midst of a barely-understood economic collapse, with a war on two fronts and double-digit unemployment, though, seems like a sure recipe for failure. It shouldn’t surprise anyone then to see the newest health care bill be systematically dissected and pruned and pared into a “sliver” of change. This, though, does not constitute a failure, because the most important part of Obama’s health care reform is not the actual reform. Obama’s willingness to pursue change, his willingness to take risks like reforming health care, provide enough of an impulse to effect change on a very stubborn nation, even if that change is many orders of magnitude smaller than his dreams. Harry Truman failed to pass national health care, but he settled for the Housing Act, one of the most important acts in the history of U.S. welfare; Lyndon Johnson skipped the fight for health care reform in a broad sense, but pushed Medicare and Medicaid instead; and Clinton, in losing his own health care fight, managed to bring skyrocketing insurance premiums back in line with the rest of the economy — an achievement that evaporated during the Bush administration, when health care premiums doubled. If Obama’s compromises continue this trend, as HR 3962 suggests, his health care fight can hardly be called a failure. Obama envisioned a world without private health insurers fighting every claim tooth and nail. But even if this is replaced with a public option, health care premiums are still expected to fall — and that was the administration’s original campaign promise.

The White House knows it faces unyielding resistance with every reform it promises or introduces, and Obama’s administration understands that not every initiative will be an immediate success. If the United States — one of the most conservative republics left in the West — is the disorganized flock of sheep, with every individual or group headed in opposing directions, then Obama is the indefatigable collie, running around the country in an attempt to move the group in a general direction. His is but one administration, one-year old, but its sheer energy is enough to move something much larger, albeit much more slowly. Our society is too big, too diverse, and too polarized to be nimble enough to accept all of this new president’s initiatives, especially when he launches them all at once, like he has done in his first year. Health care is but one example of a sweeping reform reduced to slow, but hopefully steady, progress. It is true the Obama administration has failed to deliver its audacious campaign promises, but it is possible that the president never expected to. What he has given, though, is a tenacity and ambition not seen since the grit of LBJ or the cool hand of FDR, and it is that positive energy and optimism which will eventually move this nation forward.

Tyler Slack is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.

It has been less than a month since Republican Bob McDonnell was elected the next governor of Virginia, yet the Charlottesville area already finds itself in the midst of another political competition that is being billed as — apologies if this sounds familiar — a referendum on the policies of President Barack Obama. Unlike this year’s gubernatorial contest, however, which focused primarily on state issues such as transportation, the 2010 contest for Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District between Democratic incumbent Tom Perriello and an as-yet-unknown Republican is likely to have national implications that could affect the future of both parties.

Of course, as former House speaker Tip O’Neill once famously said, “All politics is local,” and the outcome of the battle for the Fifth District is likely to hinge on the area’s unique electoral dynamics. The district, which stretches from north of Albemarle County all way to the state’s border with North Carolina and reaches Martinsville in the southwest and Brunswick County in the southeast, is typically deep red except for the liberal enclave that is the City of Charlottesville. Prior to Perriello’s election in 2008, the district was represented by one of the most conservative members of Congress, Virgil Goode, who consistently defeated his Democratic opponents by margins of 20 percent or more. Even with the massive influx of Democratic voters in Charlottesville — and, in particular, at the University — who were turned out by the Obama presidential campaign, Perriello only managed to defeat Goode by 727 votes, leaving Republicans hungry to retake the seat in the next election.

That hunger has only grown more intense over the past year as Perriello has infuriated conservatives by voting for Democratic initiatives such as the stimulus bill, cap and trade, and health care reform. The anger has recently begun to boil over, with conservative activists in Danville threatening to burn Perriello in effigy at an anti-health reform rally. The race is also garnering national attention from organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has already spent nearly $100,000 on television ads attacking Perriello. The result is that Perriello will likely face a fight for his political life against a Republican candidate drawing support from the party’s national establishment as well as from disaffected conservative constituents who will be as passionate about voting Perriello out of office as liberals were about voting him in.

If the Democratic Party wishes to follow through on its bold vision of social change and governmental reform, however, it is imperative that Perriello be reelected in 2010. The Fifth District represents the type of area that Democrats need to control if they hope to build a strong coalition of electoral support, and Perriello represents the type of principled candidate that the party needs to succeed there. Perriello was the only freshman Democrat from a congressional district that favored John McCain to vote for the health care reform bill, proving that while he retains certain conservative instincts, he will not be an impediment to progress on important policy initiatives. A Perriello loss in 2010 would have a severe chilling effect on other Democrats who might be willing to take similar stands in defiance of the right-wing element of their constituency.

Recognizing that the Democratic Party needs to reelect Perriello is much easier than actually accomplishing that feat, however. After all, only three years ago Goode won the Fifth District by over 40,000 votes and the makeup of the district has changed little since then. The only hope for Democrats, therefore, is to incite the same excitement among Charlottesville liberals and young voters at the University that propelled Perriello and Obama to victory in 2008. The party cannot make the same mistake it did during the gubernatorial election by focusing on low-density areas, which are generally conservative, in the hopes of nabbing a few voters here and there. Instead, the party should pour its resources into turning out each and every liberal voter at the University and in the Charlottesville area. The success or failure of this strategy will determine whether the modern Democratic surge has been merely a transient electoral phenomenon or whether it represents a long-term shift that will guarantee support for the party’s progressive proposals from traditionally conservative congressional districts such as Virginia’s Fifth.

Matt Cameron is a first-year in the College.