President John T. Casteen, III spoke about the Univerisity’s history at Jefferson Hall yesterday. Photo By Albin Oh.
The Jefferson Literary and Debating Society hosted a lecture by President John T. Casteen, III last night, during which he discussed the past, present and future of the University.
The lecture covered the University’s shortcomings in developing different disciplines, adherence to tradition and changeover from an institution focused on regional issues to one focused on global issues. The talk was originally meant to be a series of three or four lectures that would allow Casteen to wrap up his term with some final words as the University transitions to the presidency of Teresa A. Sullivan.
Casteen discussed Jefferson’s accomplishments as an artist, musician and scientist — a founder who believed in mastering science and the arts as “useful” and “the stuff of freedom.” He noted that, given Jefferson’s background, it is ironic that the University has experienced failures in both the scientific and artistic curricula.
Casteen discussed three reasons for the University’s shortcomings: the history of the University as an all-male school, the heavy dependence that the arts and sciences have on facilities and the University’s historical inability to globalize.
The University initially did not anticipate how the end of single-sex education would affect itself, and this oversight led to a lag in the development of the arts, Casteen said. By contrast, Casteen said, institutions such as Harvard University and Princeton University accommodated for the incorporation of women and understood that the potential doubling of class sizes would be an opportunity to expand their curriculum, develop more intensive programs and increase enrollment.
“Change is the essence of universities,” Casteen said, “and change involves constantly remixing the population.”
Additionally, the University had been traditionally apprehensive about constructing large buildings, which has hindered scientific research, he said.
“We were really late catching on to what was required for the empirical sciences,” Casteen said, adding that the University was behind in building for the performing arts, as well.
It is only now that the University is beginning to build performance arts buildings, such as the music hall financed by the marching band, and the University will announce the construction of a building for the dance department this fall, Casteen said.
The construction of the dance department building, he said, was the result of student activism, adding that student demand drives the University’s curriculum.
In addition to failures of the past, Casteen discussed how tradition has played a role in University life.
Universities in general pride themselves on tradition, even though their greatest achievements come from innovations, Casteen said. Thus, though traditions exist at the University, he said, new developments are essential as well.
“Tradition is a living thing and it’s perpetually subject to change,” he said, adding that Jefferson would not have wanted his University known as a place of tradition, but rather, as one of innovation and change.
To protect innovation, Casteen said, the University should oppose curricula that are bound up in prior times and limit experiential learning. Support for programs such as computer-adaptive learning, he said, will allow students success beyond the traditional scope of learning. Casteen also advocated for the use of Kaplan software, which enables students to participate in virtual lectures and gives them a mobility characteristic of the modern-day technology.
Students should be out in the community, and the University should continue to build valuable partnerships with corporations and community activist organizations, he said.
“The University needs to recognize that individual talent doesn’t follow set rails towards the future,” he added.
Concerning globalization, Casteen noted that, during the past 15 years, the proportion of students studying abroad has increased from 8 to 35 percent, and the number of international students has increased from 500 to 2,000 since he became president.
The interest in cultures outside of their own allows students to understand the world they intend to take on, he said. A greater emphasis on diverse spoken and written languages, as well as an international understanding of business conduct, must be integrated into the University, he said.
Society Vice President Rick Eberstadt commented on Casteen’s message that students drive change, noting that he believes many students at the meeting could well be the people to begin to affect that change.
Society President Tyler Criste said that when the Society plans speakers, it looks for a collision of different viewpoints and an ability to see things from multiple perspectives.
Although Criste did not consider Casteen an aggressive choice, he thought it was interesting that the outgoing president focused on the University’s shortcomings rather than what it has achieved.
By focusing on the University’s weaknesses, Criste said, Casteen was posing a “challenge to the University to try and approach these issues over the next generation.”
There has to be some balance between keeping University traditions and establishing new efforts to keep up with the times and to stay relevant to the modern world and its current events. Traditions are history upon which the future is founded and cultural advancement is predicated on the past. Doing away with historical traditions of the past to replace them entirely with preceived current values is an approach that lacks respect for what the past has contributed to the present.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Surely, disregarding tradition for the sake of doing so is not what the University needs. Using the exact same rationale, clinging to tradition for the sake of tradition would also be a misguided approach. A reactionary stance, shying away from challenging traditions as a way of honoring past achievements, would put the University at a disadvantage moving forward and is a far more likely position to be adopted than one concerned with scrapping traditions overaggressively. The traditions of the University have their roots, at some level, in change and, like all universities, can rightfully claim significance for being and engine of change in society.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Tradition and Diversity are not polar opposites, but they certainly don’t go hand in hand, especially considering the culture and atmosphere at UVa as it currently stands. The University can have one, but not the other, and it needs to make a choice. In general, tradition-oriented people are not diverse (rather they’re conformists), while diverse people don’t care about tradition. This generalization isn’t hard and fast (and doesn’t apply to all people), but I still think its a good generalization for these purposes.
All of the traditions that have even a hint of southern, confederate pride (such as the good ole song) should be abandoned. Confederate and Southern Pride is downright repulsive to people that consider themselves diverse (like me). I believe that any tradition (including secret societies) that pre-dates the civil rights era should be abandoned. Joseph H Quintano (above) says “Doing away with historical traditions of the past to replace them entirely with preceived current values is an approach that lacks respect for what the past has contributed to the present.” I see what he’s saying, but I think he should look at it from the other perspective: don’t the historical traditions give creedence to all the negative values of the past (such as racism), while allowing these values to persist in the present? What if “what the past has contributed to the present” is more negative than positive – the south’s history isn’t exactly something to brag about.
Personally, I see tradition as just another method or tool of keeping “the good old south”, the confederacy, and “good old boys network” alive. It’s just a tool of the southern, elitist, confederates
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Yup, your solution borders on Fascism. Just because you do not agree with something give you no right to ban, or “abandon,” it entirely. Traditions tie us to our past. If many people find that past repulsive, then the tradition will either die out, or become a tradition upheld by a small minority of people. Either way, it is not hurting anyone, except possibly those that adhere to an “offensive” tradition. Just remember that reminders of the past are what keep us from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Of course, I am referring to what might be considered “offensive” traditions. There are so many traditions that are there for the good of the University, that I cannot begin to count them.
I will only refer to one: The Honor System. It continually comes under fire to adapt to “the times” and to remove the single sanction clause. Removing the single sanction would fly in the face of tradition, and in a bad way. The single sanction shows that there are severe, irreversible consequences for certain actions. The single sanction is what makes the Honor System so strong, and this Honor System is the backbone of the University. It is a tradition that I hope we never “abandon.”
So, traditions can be both good and bad (by modern standards), but that doesn’t mean that they should be selectively pruned. Rather, let them live on, and the “bad” ones will wither up and die on their own, while the good ones will stand as timeless beacons of integrity and foresight, that help connect the past to the future.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
First of all – For it to be fascist, one would have to enact laws that make those things illegal; I’m all for the first amendment. I was just suggesting the University (as an institution) not promote culturally backwards traditions. There is nothing fascist about an honest suggestion — Pick One: Diversity or Tradition. And stick with it. My choice would be diversity.
Second of all, the word “abandon” means nothing close to same thing as “ban”, as you suggest. I
Finally, you say “Traditions tie us to our past”. That past that you talk about is not my past or my family’s past. I’m from Northern Va, via the Bronx. That’s your family’s past, not mine.
With regards to the honor code, I think it is elitist in nature, and I consider elitism to be one of the dumbest traditions at UVa.
Lastly, I would like to say this is really incredible insight on Casteen’s part. Too bad he didn’t push harder for this while he was University President.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Dear yup,
if you are from Northern VA (I’m guessing Fairfax) via the Bronx, you should’ve gone to a university that fits you. Consider NYU, Columbia, Fordham, any SUNY, or any other school located in NY which is diverse and has very little or no regard for traditions. I know, I went to one. There is number of schools around DC area whose tradition only stretches as far as its sports team. You can also go to a school that mirrors your family’s past…somewhere in this world…nobody forced to come to UVa.
Your information that you are via the Bronx is pointless. I’m from Brooklyn, Canarsie/East New York border, if you wanna get specific. I can’t relate to the traditions of this university. I also can’t relate to MLK so should I lobby to expunge MLK out the history?
You say you are diverse and yet you are willing to disregard a whole class of people, even if they are “southern pride”. They are people, just like you and I. Their traditions, is what got the university this far and allowed you to enroll at in-state tuition.
Why should we abandon everything pre-civil rights? This statement is equivalent to this one “as soon as gay marriage becomes legal in every state, we should abandon anything that was pre-gay marriage”. That plays into diversity just as much as civil right movement.
The “tradition” excuse is what Casteen uses to hide his inability to lead. UVa maintained status quo for the past 20 years while schools like Harvard, MIT, (let’s throw some state schools in) UCLA, UC Berkley innovated…how long has Casteen been our president? That’s right. Why do you think our top faculty leaves this place? Having secret societies on campus does very little to attract faculty but it also doesn’t contribute to the defection of the faculty. The problem is indeed a tradition. It’s a tradition of failing to innovate and have any sense of the future. But you are right, it is incredible insight on Casteen’s part…he didn’t make things worse.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
You make some good points. I will challenge you on two. Maybe you’re right, maybe I should have gone to school that fit me better. However if everyone who didnt fit the status quo went somewhere else, what would UVa be lift with? In my opinion, a bunch of c***kers. The people that don’t fit the status quo are the only thing that makes UVa mildly diverse.
You also say “Their traditions, is what got the university this far and allowed you to enroll at in-state tuition.” No, actually what allowed me to enroll at in-state tuition is the fact that I lived within the Virginia boundaries. It’s ignorant to credit everything to “tradition”.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Yup,
Are you saying that a system is “elitist” whose sole foundations are the following words, “On my honor as a student I have neither given nor received aid on this assignment”, whose purpose is to maintain integrity and honesty, so as to create a sense of community. Are you claiming that such a system is elitist? If so, then put me in the elitist camp. I never thought I was elistist, but if adhering to a code that means I will not lie, cheat or steal makes me elitist, then I guess I am.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
The honor code itself is not elitist. In fact it reads like many honor codes at other Universities. It’s the pedestal that the honor code is placed upon at “The University” that is elitist in nature. The honor code itself is not elitist. However, your view of the honor code as a tradition is elitist. It’s almost as if “Mr. Jefferson” is your God and the honor code is your Jesus. Get over it. They’re words on a piece of paper.
The fact that you equate the honor code (once again, just words) to some tradition is elitist in and of itself. If you’re going to argue that the honor code is good because it deters morally reprehensible behavior, fine, that’s a good logical, argument. However, if you’re arguing that the honor code is good because it’s a “time-honored tradition”, then you are an elitist (in my opinion). It is absolutely elitist (and ignorant) to think something is good simply because it is a tradition. This sort of view ignores any and all logical arguments. You’re arguing for tradition in and of itself, which is elitist (to me).
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
The Honor Code is a joke. For years, the only students who have cared about it are those involved with it. No one else gives an f. There’s this notion that our alumni are all “honorable” because they didn’t get expelled for breaking the code. That’s like me holding a gun to your head and telling you to give money to charity or I’ll shoot, then saying you’re “charitable” now.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Well over the years the University has changed for sure. The dress code went the way of progress, the yearbook has also gone the way of progress, I expect the next to go will be the newspaper, after that the honor code will go the way of progress, then the next thing to go will be the Rotunda and the student housing on the Lawn for the sake of progress. Already there are modern structures having been built at the south end. The next thing will be replaceing the lawn with some IT building with student housing and another food court inside. Lets tear down the curving retaining walls…of good are they…arent they traditional, how bout the traditional design of old buildings, arent they traditional, lets just do away with anything remotely associated with history and tradition for the sake of progress. Lets forget the pasts history and what progressives may have been able to learn from the past so as not to repeat the same mistakes made in the past. Disrespecting the history of the past if you are going to do that then you should include ALL past history relative to all events of the past, even the ones you personally hold dear to your own history.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
What exactly does a university president do that is worth over 6 hundred thousand dollars a year plus housing plus a job for their spouse? The President of the United States only gets about 4 houndred thousand dollars a year not to mention the sums the Supreme Court Justices make a year. Seems to me that the salary structure of many jobs are out of proportion to other jobs that are more responsible than the presidents job at any university. Salaries and bonuses on Wall Street are insulting to the average American. The BOV needs to rethink the salary offered to the president of any university these days. This whole system needs to be redone to come in line with reality. What exactly does a president of a university do that is worth over a half a million dollars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Take introductory economics and you will understand. Salaries depend on supply and demand. If we expect the University to compete in the marketplace, we must pay marketplace salaries.
You can criticize the marketplace, but we do not determine its pricing. Supply and demand are to blame.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Robert Centor,
Simplifying salary to supply/dmeand of an into econ class is little much. You think salaries can be quantified in terms of supply/demand? You sure you want to do this? I mean, let’s look at the supply side. Do you think the supply is a function of short/medium or long run aggregate supply? See how quickly things get muddled.
Do you also think there is a bottleneck in producing average and mediocre leaders (CEOs or college presidents)? Or do you justify the “quality” of a CEO by his salary? I can come up with at least one example of a CEO that got paid way too much for doing a lot of disservice to the shareholders of a company.
Your last 2 sentences contradict themselves. If we don’t determine the prices, who is the demand? Also, if the market is rigged so that supply/demand is not the driving function anymore who is to blame? You think CEOs deserve the salaries they are getting? You think there are no capable CEOs left on this planet to fill the void in the demand?
omya
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
If the honor code is elitist, it is not in its underlying foundations but how it is demographically applied. The Honor Committee has, and will continue to with ongoing student pressure, examine the elitist implications of its practices.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0