Choosing the University’s next president is serious business. So far, The Cavalier Daily has done well at keeping up with the process. Continuing that good work is about to get much more difficult. John “Dubby” Wynne, rector of the University’s Board of Visitors and chairman of the committee charged with finding the University’s eighth president, would not get into specifics when a reporter asked about what the committee discussed during its most recent meeting. “Everything is confidential from here on out,” he said.

The search for a new president will continue, according to Wynne, “until we find somebody who is superb. Then the Board of Visitors will choose that person and we will at that point announce who that person is.” Such secrecy doesn’t sound very Jeffersonian to me.

Wynne trotted out the tired old line that many people in his position have used: Candidates may be reluctant to have their interest in becoming president of the University become public for fear of losing whatever job they have now. Perhaps. But I wonder why the University would want a president too afraid or ashamed to say he or she is interested in the job.

Besides, choices made behind closed doors can keep important information from the public and the University community. And that can lead to bad choices. Not too many years ago, a Virginia university used a similarly secretive process to choose a president. That university’s trustees did not share with anyone outside their board room that the new president had serious health problems — problems that the trustees said had been resolved. The new president died less than two years after taking the office.

Near the beginning of the University’s search, the search committee released information that included a statement for R. William Funk, described as “the University’s consultant and a veteran of more than 300 presidential searches.” Funk told the committee that the presidential opening at the University “has created more excitement and interest among higher education leaders than any in the last five years.”

“People understand how important your institution is to this country,” he said. “As we move through this process you will have the opportunity to consider some of the very best candidates in the nation.” The University has received nearly 200 nominations, according to what University spokeswoman Carol Wood told The Cavalier Daily, so apparently there is a good deal of interest in the University’s presidency. But there’s a long way to go before the committee gets that long list whittled down.

“This is all the preliminary,” Wood told The Cavalier Daily, “looking at who they believe should make it to move to a list of possible candidates.” So that gives the committee a good long time to reconsider this secrecy.

Such concealment is not uncommon among universities that consider themselves too important to be open, but that certainly doesn’t make it right. Many colleges and universities keep the selection process secretive until they’ve culled the list to a group of finalists. Often, three finalists are announced. They visit the university or college to meet with various constituencies and to give the board that will choose the president a chance to see how the candidates interact with those groups and how those groups react to the candidates. I’m not talking about covert discussions with small groups of handpicked representatives. I’m talking about public, town hall meeting style gatherings that often include folks from the surrounding community.

In recent months, New Mexico State University, Gallaudet University, and the University of Rhode Island announced finalists in their searches for new presidents. Does that mean people are willing to publicly declare their interesting in leading New Mexico State but a similar process at the University would scare candidates away? I mean no disrespect to New Mexico State when I say that’s absurd.

And I still wonder why the University would want a president too ashamed or afraid to publicly declare an interest in the job. If the candidates really are too timid to say they’re candidates, they may be too timid to effectively lead the University. Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act allows discussion of personnel matters such as these in closed meetings, but it doesn’t require any such secrecy. So the trustees are free to open up the process if they wish. But I don’t hold out much hope.

I noticed that the agenda for a recent search committee meeting said they were going into “executive session” to discuss presidential candidates. There’s no such thing as an executive session under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. Many years ago, legislators realized that was the wrong term for such secret sessions. The language in the law now is “closed meeting,” defined as a meeting from which the public is barred.

A public institution of the University’s standing and history should not be so secretive.

Tim Thornton is The Cavalier Daily’s ombudsman. His column appears Mondays.

I swore to myself my days of opining on University issues were over, but since I spent much of my last year with The Cavalier Daily criticizing the Honor Committee’s policies for Semester at Sea students, I think I ought to congratulate the Committee on finally righting this injustice. The amendment passed this week is not perfect, but it guarantees all students — even those on a boat — have the right to a jury of their peers, and for that, the Committee deserves praise.

Daniel Colbert
CLAS 2009
119th Executive Editor

I was part of a group that handed out a pro-life publication Tuesday and Wednesday, and I wanted to comment on something written on a flyer that I had put up. The flyer stated, “what about the baby’s choice?” I noticed an hour later that someone had crossed “baby” out and put above it “fetus/US citizenship.” I find it sad that people use the scientific term fetus to cover up the fact that there’s a living human within the womb. At 21 days the “fetus” has a beating heart, and muscles, arms, legs, eyes, are ears are all beginning to form. Scientifically it is not logical to claim that the baby inside of the womb isn’t alive or it doesn’t feel pain. I have a 14-month-old boy; when my wife was 9 weeks pregnant, we were able to see our son and hear his heartbeat and I still have a photo of the ultrasound on my fridge. Finally, the argument that you have a right to life because you are a U.S. citizen doesn’t make any sense. What about African-Americans 150 years ago? Our Supreme Court said they didn’t have the right to their freedom, and do you think that was okay? I certainly don’t! Our right to life and liberty isn’t determined by the state but by an inalienable right given by our Creator. Every person, especially the most vulnerable and innocent among us, should have the right to life and liberty.

Andrew McDowell
CLAS ‘05

As the gay marriage debate rages throughout the country, the Catholic Church has told the city council of the District of Columbia that they will no longer provide social services to the D.C. area in conjunction with the government if a proposed gay marriage law passes. The Catholic Church has worked with the D.C. government to provide care for the poor and the homeless for some years, but if city council passes a same-sex marriage law without an exemption for the Church to be able to discriminate against homosexuals, the Church will pull out of its contracts with the government. While the Church has every right to pull out of its contracts, this is a petty attempt by the religious institution to prevent the passage of a law acknowledging the civil rights of gays and lesbians by using the poor and the homeless as a bargaining chip. The D.C. City Council is right in its opposition to the influence of the Church and refusal to amend the legislation in such a way that would make the Church exempt from recognizing the civil rights of homosexuals.

It is important to note that the law would not require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. Things that the law does allow include making the Church extend medical benefits to and set up adoptions for homosexual couples. This is a problem for the Church because condemnation of homosexual intercourse is a main tenet of the Catholic tradition. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently released a letter stating that “gay marriage hurts society,” as well as expressing distress over the view that marriage is a private matter, and not an issue critical to the structure of a “healthy society.” The Church is currently receiving public money via their contracts with the District, and so they must comply with city ordinances. Due to its stance on homosexuality, the Church would find it impossible to go along with the laws of the city in this case and would find a need to pull out of its obligations. But to use its services for the poor and the homeless as a bargaining chip to gain support for exempting the Church from recognizing the civil rights of homosexuals is despicable.

The Church has argued its position from the stance of allowing for a conscientious objection to laws that the Church finds morally reprehensible. The problem with this is that the city is in no way forcing the Church to comply with something the Church finds morally reprehensible. The Church can pull out of their contracts with the city (without implicitly threatening the livelihood of the poor and the homeless in an attempt to sway the city council’s opinion) and avoid having to provide equal treatment to homosexuals, thus preserving the Church’s understanding of moral integrity. They can also maintain their contracts and provide equal treatment while continuing to chastise homosexuals from the pulpit. The religious freedom of the Church is not being curtailed by these laws. The laws are affirming the civil rights which homosexuals are entitled to by the 14th Amendment, that all people are entitled to receive equal protection under the law.

The problem here is that the Church finds certain practices, such as giving employee benefits to gay couples, to be immoral. In reality, these practices are civil rights. There are plenty of examples in American history of groups of people being denied their civil rights, the most obvious example being blacks. Fortunately, the D.C. City Council has realized that homosexuals cannot be treated any differently than any other segment of society just because of their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the Church has not reached that conclusion and thus they are choosing to use their influence on social services in D.C. to influence the government’s decision to uphold civil rights.

If the D.C. City Council were to bend to the Church’s ultimatum, it would set a terrible precedent. Groups that work with the city would have ground to stand on in order to receive any number of exemptions from any number of laws based on the fact that they find them unconscionable. Government funds would be used to discriminate against a specific group of people. The fact is that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law, and thus the Church has no right to receive an exemption from laws ensuring against their discrimination. The Church has all the freedom it deserves in terms of being able to speak out against homosexuality and encouraging its members to vote against gay marriage and extending rights to homosexuals. But for the city council to allow the Church to blatantly discriminate against homosexuals would be a grave mistake. The City Council is in the morally correct and legally correct position in this instance, and if the Church wishes to continue its social services, it will have to either comply with city laws or find another means of helping the community.

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

In 2006, controversial photos depicting detainee abuse in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison were released to the public. Now, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has barred more photos of this same nature from being released. These photos have been at the center of a lawsuit brought up by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that not releasing these photos goes against the Freedom of Information Act. The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) clearly does not want these photos made available to the American public, but the ACLU is right in that blocking these photos undermines the Freedom of Information Act. The White House’s actions in regards to this issue prevent guilty parties from being held accountable, and are contradictory to President Barack Obama’s initial promise of greater transparency.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, documents previously undisclosed and controlled by the U.S. Government can be requested for release to the American public under the belief that the American people have a “right to know” about these documents. According to the Supreme Court, this “right to know” is “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” The ACLU filed one of these requests for the release of some controversial photos that depict abuse of detainees committed by U.S. troops, and that reportedly show “soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees” and others that show prisoners in humiliating positions. The ACLU was initially successful in its request for the release of the photos; both a federal district court in New York and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the photos don’t fall under exemption in FOIA and must be released.

The Obama administration initially reported that the photos would be disclosed but has since done an about-face on the issue, instead urging the Supreme Court to throw out the lower courts’ rulings. Additionally, in further attempts to block the release of these photos, Congress passed the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009, which thwarts the ACLU’s lawsuit and prevents the photos from being released. This move to override the lower court’s ruling is alarming in that it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the court’s ability to uphold provisions in FOIA and is a way for the White House to skirt the appeals court’s ruling. President Obama made campaign promises of increased governmental transparency to contrast the lack thereof in the Bush administration, but he has since abandoned this promise. Instead of increased transparency and accountability, Obama is reverting back to the ways of the Bush administration, characterized by secrecy.

According to President Obama in a statement made last May, releasing the photos, “would pose an unacceptable risk of danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The Pentagon’s reasoning behind not releasing the photos appears to be a noble one; National Security and the safety of our troops is a big concern of all American citizens. But the real danger in releasing the photos lies in another statement made by Obama saying that the photos would “further inflame anti-American opinion.” The administration clearly fears a backlash similar to that after the release of the Abu Ghraib abuse photos characterized by allegations of torture by U.S. troops and loss of support of government intervention abroad both from the American public and also from foreign countries. However, in preventing these photos from being released, the Department of Defense is effectively preventing those guilty of committing such atrocities from being held accountable.

The ACLU argues, and rightfully so, that barring the release of these photos “damages efforts to hold accountable those responsible for abusing prisoners.” The American people have the utmost respect for troops serving this country, and the troops therefore have a responsibility to uphold American standards, values, and anti-torture laws set forth by the Geneva Conventions. Troops going against the American standard of what constitutes prisoner abuse must be held responsible for their actions; allowing the American public insight into the atrocities committed by a handful of troops ensures such accountability.

President Obama and the Department of Defense are attempting to conceal these graphic photos based on the fear of inciting anger in the American people based on upsetting and embarrassing government conduct. Unfortunately for the administration, this isn’t one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. Two lower courts sided with the American Civil Liberties Union and ordered the release of these photographs. The Obama administration should comply with this court order to ensure both government transparency and accountability for U.S. troops.

Claire Shotwell’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at c.shotwell@cavalierdaily.com.

Last weekend, I attended the highly touted Whethermen 64 improv comedy show and left the show very impressed. I had never been to a live comedy performance, but I am a huge fan of the genre. Comedy is a talent that very few possess. It’s all about timing. We’ve all heard of comedic timing, which boils down to how one deliver’s the jokes. The Whethermen had no problem with this; it is actually where they excelled. The games were great, though the audience suggestions were a little strange. It seemed to work though — everyone was kept laughing throughout the show. The main theme, so to speak, was video games, which I found a little quirky. However, they were still able to make that into a funny theme. Comedy seems to follow what is happening around us. Seeing the Whethermen do so well with their quirky theme had me thinking: They could be so much better with a more trendy theme. The best comedians, Stephen Colbert or Dave Chappelle, seem to take topics that are in our face and show us that they can’t be taken seriously. Therefore, for the next show, it would be nice to see the Whethermen’s take on a more current topic like politics.

For instance, it would be amazing to see the Whethermen’s take on Sarah Palin’s newest endeavor Going Rogue: An American Life. During the show, they picked an audience member to describe her childhood and they proceeded to act it out. It was funny, but also impersonal at the same time. It would have been nice to see something we can all grasp. The majority of us have an opinion of Palin. They could have definitely spiced the show up using her. Imagine them acting out Palin’s home life in a governor’s mansion or even in a meeting with the editors of her book. Comedian and University alumna Tina Fey won Entertainer of the Year mostly based on her rendition of Palin. She’s kind of an easy target, but Tina Fey proved she can be a comedy jackpot.

In fact, politicians generally prove to be comedy gold. The Whethermen’s take on almost any political issues would be great to see. The Whethermen, like any other good organization at the University, pride themselves on individuality. They can still maintain their individuality despite taking on politics as an overlying theme because it will be their takes. Colbert won Entertainer of the Year the year before Fey based on his take on certain political situations. It may not be ideal, but politicians sometimes are great material. George Bush often never fails as material for late night talk shows or comedy programs like Chappelle’s Show for instance. Fortunately, the University just had an amazing (comedic?) opportunity fall into our laps when the Miller Center was selected to provide the oral history of George W. Bush’s presidency. The Whethermen would be great as members of the Bush administration giving their take on what happened during his eight-year administration. They definitely have the talent to do it.

After the show, the main impression I was left with is just how truly talented the Whethermen are with no scripts or other people’s thoughts. They could easily make a lot of topics funny. Even still, the show seemed very safe for a group as talented as they are. If a University student took a middle school math test, of course, he or she would do well on it; however, we wouldn’t be credited until we tackled something more up-to-date. Future shows should feature them taking on current topics. Some people tend to shy away from politics because of the touchiness — comedy shouldn’t have partisanship though. The beauty of comedy is that it can be found in a lot of different situations. Comedians are very individual but they seem to know when to talk about larger than life topics. Although it may be a little out of their element to take on politics, it would be nice to see how far they can stretch their comedic wings. If the Whethermen can make a show about video games funny, imagine how well they could tackle political issues.

Tiffany Morris’ column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at t.morris@cavalierdaily.com.

After reading two columns bashing the Stupak amendment (“A controversial concession,” Nov. 19; “Health care hurdles,” Nov. 16), I feel like I have to set the record straight. According to the non-partisan politifact.com, “the amendment says that people who buy subsidized insurance on the exchange cannot buy an insurance ‘plan’ that includes abortion coverage. But the amendment does allow subsidized people to purchase ‘supplemental coverage’ that covers abortion, as long as they do it with their own money.” All the amendment is doing is removing all federal funding for abortion. The dispute is over whether subsidizing abortion is the same thing as funding it. Beyond semantics, the purpose of these government subsidies is to help poor people pay for private insurance which they couldn’t otherwise afford. If these subsidies allow someone to get an abortion from one of these private plans, then that is the equivalent of funding abortion. You may protest that this doesn’t constitute direct funding, but that sounds unconvincing to someone who considers abortion morally wrong. The bottom line is that their tax dollars will be helping people pay for abortions, whether they fund a public or private insurance plan. Women can still pay for abortions with their own money, as long as federal subsidies aren’t allowing them to do that. Forcing women to pay for their own abortions without federal assistance doesn’t “take away a woman’s right to choose,” and it isn’t “an act of discrimination” or a “blatant intervention into the individual health care of Americans,” as the two columns asserted.

George Pisano
CLAS II

Throughout the semester, the Honor Committee has re-worked and re-examined many of its education efforts in the hopes of increasing awareness and knowledge about its system.

“Honor has the potential to impact a student’s career … either positively or negatively,” Vice Chair for Education Rob Atkinson said. “We need to make sure students are at least getting a baseline understanding of the system and the rationale behind it.”

By expanding their knowledge about the Committee and its procedures, educated students might better ensure that they are not committing honor offenses.

“Everyone needs to know and be educated so that they can abide by the rules they are expected to follow,” Atkinson said.

To this end, the Committee has initiated several campaigns that emphasize education.

University-wide initiatives

The Committee adopted a new definition of plagiarism last night to include in its “green book,” which defines the honor system’s policies and procedures.

This new definition, which was introduced by Vice Chair for Community Relations J.J. Litchford, is intended to be more specific, especially in regard to paraphrasing without citing the original source. The new definition states that it is plagiarism if the reader can “match your words and phrasing with those of your source” and quotation marks have not been used — even if the paraphrase has been cited.

“I think the change … is partly meant to help us with our definition but also to be educational,” Committee Chair David Truetzel said, noting that the Committee will now campaign to explain the change to students and make sure they are fully aware of it.

The Committee has also publicized the procedure of filing a conscientious retraction through several education campaigns, Truetzel said. A conscientious retraction allows a student who has committed an honor offense to admit to that offense and accept the consequences without having to leave the community of trust. The admission to guilt, however, must come from the student before he or she knows that someone suspects them of an honor offense, according to the Committee’s Web site.

“I think conscientious retractions are a great thing, and people might not know much about it or have a great awareness of it” Truetzel said. They are a “great learning opportunity [because they] let somebody commit an honor offense and then make amends on it without going through a trial.”

The number of conscientious retractions has more than doubled since the campaign’s launch, highlighting its overall effectiveness, Truetzel said.

In addition to the Committee’s efforts, individual Committee representatives have taken the initiative to improve and promote honor education throughout their schools and programs of interest. Schools within the University have worked with the Committee to host events at which information about Committee procedures has been distributed to ensure that students are made fully aware of the rules and regulations, especially as final exams approach.

Targeting the community

Though the honor system applies to all students within the University’s community of trust, this community is still difficult to address as a single unit during the Committee’s education efforts.

The Committee is able to convey a much more consistent message, however, when it reaches out to separate groups individually. The Committee plans to target and educate several individual groups about both the honor system and how it uniquely affects them.

The first of these groups is athletes, a large University sub-group, which also constitutes a large portion of students accused of honor offenses.

Athletes “are reported on a much higher rate than the average student [because of] possible preconceived notions about athletes … [and because they] stand out in a crowd,” Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll said. “It’s really unfortunate that spotlighting is an issue, but education is one way we can help change these things.”

As a result, the Committee will continue a successful program from last year, in which it reached out to each sports team by hosting presentations to discuss the honor system, along with issues that uniquely affect athletes. For example, the presentations include basic information about the honor system, an overview of the system and a series of case studies.

The case studies are the main focus of the presentation and each highlights three specific points, such as conscientious retractions, spotlighting and situations when teammates ask one another for help on an assignment, Carroll said. This information is intended to inform and facilitate discussions among team members.

It is especially important that the “honor representatives are better informing athletes about what it might mean if a student athlete is found guilty of an honor offense, because it impacts them in a different way,” said Jim Booz, associate director of athletics for academic affairs. “I appreciate the Honor Committee’s willingness to spend time educating the University’s athletes, and I think it’s been received very well by our athletes.”

De-marginalizing minorities

Like athletes, minority and international students are disproportionately reported, and so they are another significant focus group for the Committee’s educational outreach.

The Committee’s Diversity Advisory Board has identified four means through which it can address these issues: international student orientation, the diversity forum during Honor Awareness Week in the spring semester, translating the green book and an online diversity module that would educate faculty and staff, DAB Co-Chair Amy Sikes said.

To “revive the international students’ orientation,” Committee members plan to lead small-group discussions “on a range of topics which include conscientious retraction, the single sanction and spotlighting [within case studies] tailored to international students,” DAB Co-Chair Yi Cai said.

The presentations will also “question the students about their perceptions of the honor system,” Cai said, because “given their unique cultural backgrounds we want to see how they understand our system,” which he hopes will help educate the Committee as well.

Additionally, during next semester’s diversity forum, Cai hopes to invite various student groups to discuss diversity issues the Committee addresses or fails to address, so it can identify and improve in these new, emerging areas of concern.

The third project, which began last year, is the condensation and translation of the Committee’s green book into different languages, including Chinese and Spanish, Sikes said, so international students can learn about honor in their native languages. The Committee plans to translate the green books into additional languages as well, Cai added.

Though the Committee has already broken ground on the other three projects, the education module for faculty and staff is “something that’s been tossed around multiple times” and has not yet been created, Sikes said.

The module would “bring the statistics [about honor accusations against international and minority students] to the faculty,” Cai said. Overall, the module plans to make faculty aware of the possible reasons why minority and international students are brought up on honor charges disproportionately.

“The whole idea of is it spotlighting, is it dimming, is it a lack of education,” Sikes said. “Are [teaching assistants] and professors naturally picking out people because they look different?”

The module, however, may be difficult to introduce to faculty given their position at the University.

It is “very touchy, especially with faculty because we really respect them and we don’t want to feel like we’re educating them,” Sikes said, adding that Committee members will continue to work on the module in the future.

The benefits from these education efforts are more than just theoretical, Cai said.

“I went through the process” of adjusting to the University as an international student, Cai said. “I got to know the honor system and became aware of spotlighting and the low involvement of international students in the system” through the presentations.

Though the Committee’s education efforts have received positive feedback, some individuals also have raised concerns.

Claudia Quintero, supporting officer for the Minority Rights Coalition, commended Cai and Sikes for the progress they have made in educating minorities and international students about honor. Nevertheless, she noted that attendance at DAB meetings — which are open to the University community — is diminishing overall, which indicates that students are losing interest and are not being targeted enough.

“A lot of [international students] I’ve talked to in DAB view honor as the preppy white kids, and we can’t correct that unless we educate and get them involved,” Sikes said. “They can better reach out to their peers and can better understand what the honor system means to a minority student or international student, which is something others on the Committee cannot convey as well.”

In addition to contacting the wider international and minority student community, the Committee recently began a discussion-based education effort with the University’s black community, Atkinson said. The Committee met with the Black Leadership Institute to talk about different issues that affect both the honor system and black students.

Black Leadership Institute Chair Ashley Lewis said the meeting’s purpose was to “inform students of the African-American community about honor, how it works and how to protect themselves if a charge is brought against them.”

The meeting was successful in creating a dialogue between students and the Committee, Lewis said, adding that he hopes to see such discussions continue and expand in the future.

Nevertheless, she believes the Committee should continue their discussions and their education efforts.

Because this particular meeting between BLI and the Committee seemed successful, Atkinson said he hopes the Committee can apply its method to other student groups so the participants can “really focus and discuss these issues and [so] no one feels like they are being defensive and no one is accusing anyone else.”

Uniting University outsiders

Finally, the Committee has targeted education efforts toward Semester at Sea participants and first-year students, all of whom come from different backgrounds but must still learn the intricacies of the system.

“One of our big projects is an education module for the Semester at Sea program that works with the Voyager’s Handbook,” Atkinson said.

In addition to other policies and procedures for the Semester at Sea program, the current version of the Voyager’s Handbook explains the honor system used on board the voyage. The new educational module, however, will also contain questions that students must be able to answer correctly before they set sail, said Mark White, academic dean for the Spring 2010 voyage.

“By doing this, we can ensure all students on Semester at Sea have, in fact, read the materials and have affirmed that they understood it,” White said.

The module will be required for students on the next voyage, which will set sail in January, Atkinson said.

So far, Semester at Sea has been pleased with the idea of using a standardized module to teach students of different backgrounds. As a result, the program may use similar methods for disseminating other information in the future, White said.

Only time will tell, however, whether these educational efforts will prove effective in cutting down the number of reported cases, he said.

If the module is successful, the Committee might create a similar system to educate first-year students about the honor system, Atkinson said. First-year students, he said, are similar to Semester at Sea students in that they come from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives and are relatively unfamiliar with the University’s community of trust.

“We’re trying to overhaul the way we do first-year education,” Atkinson said, noting that the Committee wants to find a way to supplement its current first-year education approach of “dorm talks,” at which Committee members discuss the honor system in first-year housing areas with new students.

This year’s dorm talks were more successful than in previous years, Atkinson said, but he would like to see a system through which the Committee can guarantee that every first-year student is “receiving the same standard of information and can ensure that they have” seen and understood the materials. Atkinson said he believes an educational module can ensure this outcome.

Ultimately, Atkinson said, it will be important for the Committee to respect learning differences, while at the same time aiming to generate a similar understanding level within all members of the community of trust. Such a baseline could have a profound effect on Grounds, increasing fairness for students from all backgrounds and strengthening the system as it moves into the future.

Advancing slowly down a gray catwalk, the models of Pride’s 2009 Fall Fashion Show donned stark black garments. A vision in themselves, the models stomped the runway with long, forceful strides, resembling the professional models of the fashion shows in New York City.

Beginning in a single-file line, the Pride models split into two perfect columns. Then, startled by the sudden sound of sirens, they began to exaggerate their movements. Evolving from hardened criminals back to everyday citizens, they moved cautiously, yet fluidly toward the end of the runway, enchanting the audience with a carefully-planned scene while showcasing attire crafted by a few talented designers.

Intertwining the show’s theme, “Unusual Suspects,” with the organization’s goal of displaying student and locally-designed clothing, student organizers from Pride spent months conceptualizing the outfits, themes and goals of the show. A student-run magazine that aims to provide a voice for black students, Pride has put on the event for the past four years. According to the organization’s Web site, the event allows Pride to “provide a chance for people of all shapes and sizes … to model clothing that is reflective of the creativity we have to offer our University and the greater community.”

Third-year College student Greg Morris, who participated as a show model, said the idea behind this year’s event was that “we were so good at being ‘unusual suspects’ that the police were not able to catch us. Really, we were all guilty.” Appearing in a variety of scenes, Morris and the other “suspect” models appeared at a school, a party and an airport. They assumed different roles at each location, evading police detectives at every juncture.

Being believable was crucial to the success of the show, Morris said, as models had to represent a variety of characters placed in a number of dicey situations. Consequently, director D.J. Hickman said, models were selected for their ability to thrive in a wide variety of scenarios. Though there was “no prototype model,” Hickman said, models were chosen based on several different categories, including personality, attitude, appearance and eye contact in addition to acting ability. The auditions took place Aug. 30 and 31.

The designers underwent an equally rigorous tryout process, starting last April. By September, show organizers had selected seven designers, all of whom were chosen based not only on their sketches, but also on whether their style of clothing fit the theme of the show, Hickman said.

The designers presented a telling story based, in part, on scenes from the popular television series, “Law & Order.”

Second-year College student Carmen Cotton said she enjoyed the show’s dramatic progression, which meandered through various scenes and scenarios.

“I was expecting people to just walk down a runway and pose,” she said. “But the show was very creative and very interactive.”

People in the audience were animated throughout the event, and few were content to simply sit and watch.

“[Audience members] got up and were dancing during the show,” Cotton said, adding that some attendees sang along to the songs being played while others cheered on the models as they walked down the runway.

Although the models presented a range of outfits, from party dresses to swimwear, part of the show placed sole focus on one of this season’s freshest fall accessories — scarves, which were worn by both the female and male models. Some were tied loosely around the neck while others were draped around the models’ arms.

On the whole, the outfits were imaginative and elaborate, yet practical and diverse. The models also wore dramatic eye make-up, which designers hoped would accentuate the models’ faces and create a distinctive look. This look blended with the models’ attire and connected with the season and theme of the show.

First-year College student Loryn Crittendon said she appreciated that the clothing could be worn by the average person, as most fashion shows today present clothes that tend to be more abstract and impractical. She added, however, that she felt designers seemed more comfortable toying with the attire of female models and frequently shied away from doing the same for male models.

“While the production was excellent and I really enjoyed it, I thought its exploitation of the female models’ bodies was more obvious than that of the males,” Crittendon said. “I don’t even think there was a male swimsuit model. That is one of the few problems I had with the show.”

The event also sought to present themes of environmental sustainability whenever possible, incorporating green features into the design of the attire. The A.V. Company, a Charlottesville-based business that sells audio-visual equipment, provided environmentally-friendly LED lighting, which changed colors and used minimal amounts of energy.

Organizers also donated a portion of the proceeds to the Dance Marathon, an event organized by University students that benefits the University’s Children’s Hospital.

Overall, the event served to benefit the University community as a whole, providing an outlet for Pride members to showcase their outfits, music and attitude all while emphasizing a good cause.

“I thought the show was great,” Crittendon said. “I would go again.”

The thought of Thanksgiving always makes me smile because it reminds me of my senile old uncle, Col. Shelton Haybasket. At every Thanksgiving when I was growing up, Uncle Shelton would gather all the children in the family together and tell us the captivating story of how Thanksgiving came about. He would always begin the story the same way:

“Go get me a beer, dag nabbit!”

But Uncle Shelton is currently off in an infirmary somewhere, so allow me to relay the classic tale in his stead.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the Pilgrims, tired of Europe’s annoying tolerance for chain smokers and French people, set sail for America. According to history buffs, they arrived sometime between the 12th and 18th centuries, the “Age of Not Knowing Where America, or Even Asia for God’s Sake, Is.” The first thing they encountered upon setting foot in the New World was a band of Native Americans, or as the Pilgrims derogatorily called them, “Indians.” The two groups simply stared at each other for several tense minutes, completely unsure of what to do. Finally, one of the natives broke the ice by offering a Pilgrim a high-five and saying, “Wut up, playa!” All the natives began laughing uncontrollably.

Chief Deer Antler calmed his people down and told the Pilgrims, “He’s joking. He’s named Silly Rabbit.”

The chief then reached beneath his vest and pulled out a severed buffalo head, which he handed to the wary newcomers. This caught the Pilgrims off-guard, as they had no idea what to give in exchange for such a thoughtful gift. Finally, the leader of the Pilgrims, Jim, reached in his own pocket and pulled out a packet of Premium Saltine crackers.

“Jim, those haven’t been invented yet!” someone frantically told him, shoving the crackers back in Jim’s pocket. A proper gift exchange ensued, during which the Europeans offered the natives bread, clothes, goofy hats and malaria.

After the Pilgrims politely asked for some land, the natives consented and made an offer. They decided that the Pilgrims could have the eastern shore of Plymouth Colony so long as the natives could have the territory between the Pacific Ocean and Western Plymouth Colony. The Pilgrims shrugged their shoulders and agreed to what sounded like a pretty even deal.

Apart from the rampant death toll brought on by disease, the Pilgrims were quite content with their new way of life, particularly with the whole harvest thing. One day, they decided to host a celebratory feast to thank the natives for teaching them the ways of the crops, and more importantly the ways of the sacred pipe, which was pretty freakin’ trippy if you asked the Pilgrims. While planning the menu for the occasion, someone pointed out the lack of protein in the collection of corn, beans and squash, which prompted them to seek the aid of the area’s turkey community. Jim volunteered to negotiate with Turk, one of the most outspoken turkeys in the region.

“Listen, Turk,” Jim said. “There’s something I need to talk to you about.”

“Cluck cluck cluck cluckity cluck,” Turk replied.

“OK, I’m gonna have to stop you right there. I don’t speak Turkey.”

“Oh, my apologies, sir,” Turk said. “Force of habit, you see. As I was saying, what is it you wish to confabulate with me about?”

“Well, we pilgrims are trying to patent a new holiday centered around turkey-eating,” Jim explained. “And in order to do so, the federal government says we need the permission of the turkey community. How would you feel about a 500-year contract in which we grant your species annual publicity in the human community, in exchange for mass slaughterings every November?”

“Hmmm,” Turk pondered. “I dare say it is a most intriguing proposition. Alright, we’re in!”

“Great! Would you like me to shoot you now or later?”

“I’d prefer later, if you wouldn’t mind. I’m running late for a doctor’s appointment as it is. Just a check-up, mind you. Nothing to worry about.”

“Oh, thank God!” Jim replied. “For a second there, I thought it might be something serious.”

“Heavens no!” Turk chuckled. “As for the execution, shall we meet here tomorrow at mid-day? I can bring my friend, Cornelius, if you like.”

“Perfect! See you then!”

The next evening, all the Pilgrims and natives gathered together to chow down on their elaborate meal and engage in several excruciatingly awkward minutes of silence, unable to overcome the language barrier. Upon biting a piece of turkey meat, one of the Pilgrims finally spoke up.

“I say!” he exclaimed. “This turkey tastes … Well, pretty mediocre actually.” Even the natives nodded in agreement.

“At least we don’t have to sit through a Detroit Lions game!” Jim declared. Everyone gave him that look that Pilgrims give to their fellow Pilgrims when they are being historically ignorant.

This is the part of the story where Uncle Shelton usually passed out, so I don’t really know what happened after that. Nevertheless, I hope you learned something about your heritage today, and may your Thanksgiving bring you as much pie and as little malaria as possible.

Nick’s column runs biweekly Mondays. He can be reached at n.eilerson@cavalierdaily.com.