The news that the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences will revise its system of fellowship grants for the 2012-13 academic year was met with little fanfare across Grounds. This is despite the fact that College Dean Meredith Woo described the plan as the “single most comprehensive restructuring” of fellowships in the history of the graduate school.

Yet undergraduate students and faculty members should not overlook the potential implications the plan holds for their own experiences at the University. The plan deserves praise as it represents a well-crafted effort to improve the graduate school’s quality without placing significant burdens upon other constituencies. Nevertheless, the University community should be aware of the changes that will ensue and how they will relate to broader areas such as enrollment, academic quality and interdepartmental equality.

The primary alterations that will be made to fellowships in the graduate school pertain to funding levels and duration. At present, funding for fellowships varies widely across departments. In the English department, for example, annual fellowships of $22,000 are offered; in contrast, fellowships of only $13,000 annually are available in the religious studies department. Additionally, very few fellowships come with a five-year guarantee for funding, meaning students often lose out on their primary source of financial security before completing their studies. “As many as half of our Ph.D. students drop out” as a result, Woo said, noting that this is slightly higher than the national average.

With those problems in mind, administrators in the graduate school drew up a plan that will increase the funding levels for fellowships and guarantee them for a full five years. The new system will feature three tiers of fellowships valued at $22,000, $20,000 or $18,000 annually depending on the department. Although this will not eliminate entirely the issue of funding inequity between departments, it will be a substantial improvement to the system that currently exists, which features underfunded departments amid “pockets of great excellence,” Woo said. Moreover, administrators hope the higher levels of funding will attract and retain elite graduate students for the entirety of their studies.

Yet because the plan is budget neutral, the more generous fellowships will necessitate a decline of about 5 percent in graduate student intake. In addition to making it more difficult for graduate students to gain admission at the University, this change could affect undergraduate academics. Fewer graduate students could mean a smaller pool from which to draw teaching assistants, who aid professors of large lecture classes offered in most College departments.

This problem could be exacerbated by the increase in undergraduate enrollment that recently was approved by the Board of Visitors. If there were to be a shortage of TAs, professors might have to alter the way they teach their classes by either enlarging discussion sections or replacing them altogether. Either option would result in more impersonal instruction for undergraduate students taking lecture classes.

Woo is optimistic, however, that the plan will not lead to a net loss of TAs in the College. “Even though the number of entering students will get smaller,” she said, “the new package will reduce the percentage of attrition,” or graduate students who leave early without their degrees. “If fewer students drop out, we may actually have more Ph.D.’s teaching,” she added.

Although this assertion would be difficult to verify mathematically, it is reasonable enough to justify the graduate school’s approach. If the plan succeeds, not only will graduate students be more financially secure while they study, but the talent level of those students will rise as well. This would lead to an increase in the quality of TAs and also would serve as a draw for recruiting faculty. The ultimate outcome of the plan remains to be seen, but administrators in the graduate school should be commended for at least considering the interests of the entire University community when formulating this plan to improve graduate studies.

AS ROTUNDA Administrator Leslie Comstock works to increase students’ visitation of the Rotunda, the University Guides are exerting themselves actively to reinforce this drive. On March 29, Tyler DeBoard published an article titled “Behind the keyhole” in The Cavalier Daily that articulated how a number of students feel psychologically distant from the Rotunda despite its physical proximity to the heart of life on the Grounds. Sensing this sentiment, U-Guides recently have broadened their tour offerings and pitched a series of programs to make the Rotunda feel more welcoming to the entire community.

First, U-Guides offer tours which convene in the Lower East Oval Room seven days a week at 10 and 11 a.m., and 2, 3 and 4 p.m. These tours are entirely free of charge and require no RSVP. Larger groups that cannot gather at these times due to scheduling conflicts also may submit special tour requests through the U-Guides’ website.

In addition, U-Guides offer a number of special programs throughout the year. For the past two years, it has pitched a program entitled “Tours ‘n S’mores” to offer first-year students a private opportunity to witness the splendor of Jefferson’s Rotunda early in their student careers. The program coordinates private tours for small groups of residents from first-year housing areas. After the tour, groups share s’mores on the Lawn with their tour guide in a Lawn resident’s room. This extends their opportunity to enjoy relaxing moments with new friends in the Academical Village.

Also, in October U-Guides conduct an annual history week that centers around the date on which the original Rotunda burned to the ground in 1895. This multifaceted program offers a wide variety of events, including special candlelight tours and ghost tours of the Lawn at night. These tours share slightly different sides of the University’s history while affording fun and free ways to learn a host of old University tales in a short period of time.

Finally, this April U-Guides will offer a new program in unison with the University Programs Council to coincide with the celebration of Founder’s Day. Sunday, April 10 — the weekend immediately preceding Thomas Jefferson’s birthday — U-Guides will offer tours beginning every 20 minutes from 2 to 4 p.m. As if the opportunity to take a quick educational stroll around the Academical Village is not enough, these tours will culminate with refreshments, Lawn games and a short trivia session in which tourists can win prizes such as gift cards to the University’s bookstore, Trinity Irish Pub and more.

During the coming year, U-Guides will continue to exert themselves to ensure that all community members and visitors have the opportunity to experience this beloved building. Certainly, tours are not a mandatory realization of this goal — students also may stroll in at their leisure for quiet study or contemplation. After the Rotunda’s restoration in 1976, the American Institute of Architects declared the Academical Village the most significant achievement of American architecture in the last 200 years. Knowing that, U-Guides strive for the opportunity to share the stories leading into that accomplishment with all students before they proceed southward from the Rotunda at Final Exercises each year.

For more information about how to explore the Rotunda on a free tour, please go to http://www.student.virginia.edu/~uguides/tours/historical/.

Jim Holman is the 2010-11 vice chair of the University Guides.

“DIVERSITY” — like “fairness” — has assumed a virtually unassailable position in modern American society. In the context of university admissions, the ideal of a diverse class is used to justify an entrenched and pervasive system of racial preferences. Racially discriminatory admissions policies, however, are ill-tailored to achieve their stated goals and, in most cases, generate more extensive negative effects than positive ones. The embedded position of racial preferences in modern academia needs to be subjected to a serious reevaluation.

The University employs a “holistic” admissions process, which combines objective and subjective evaluative components structured to result in the enrollment of a diverse and academically accomplished first-year class, according to Dean of Admissions Greg Roberts. He explained that grades and course selection are the most heavily weighted factors in a prospective student’s application. Other student characteristics that play a role include, but are not limited to, standardized testing, essays, demonstrated leadership abilities, extracurricular involvement, recommendations, socioeconomic background, state residency and race.

The constitutionality of this type of admissions program was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, the Court approved the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race as part of a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file,” which gave “serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.” The Michigan Law School did not use outright racial quotas; rather, race was considered as a “soft” variable along with other characteristics pertinent to broad-based diversity. The Supreme Court specifically approved the attainment of a diverse class as a legitimate justification for the use of race at the admissions stage.

Because Grutter permitted the Michigan Law School to justify its use of racial classifications by reference to the academic benefits of a racially diverse student body, most modern academic policies are shaped to serve this goal. Consequently, the concept of remedial benefits — racial preferences as compensation for past discrimination against minorities — no longer plays a substantial role in the education context. This displacement of the remedial justification is entirely appropriate as a matter of policy, apart from its constitutional implications, since disadvantaged members of society would be served far better by affirmative action rooted in socioeconomic, rather than racial, criteria.

Diversity, then, serves as the primary rationale for modern affirmative action policies. It is doubtful, however, that this interest is advanced by racial profiling at the admissions stage.

Intellectual diversity — not racial diversity — is ostensibly the relevant type of diversity in the university setting. Diversity based merely on appearances is vacuous. It is far from clear that race serves as a useful proxy for intellectual or cultural differentiation; to presume that this is the case seems predicated on a crude stereotyping of racial minorities as necessarily representing different points of view.

Furthermore, racial preferences, regardless of the purpose they serve, are unjustified in a democratic society. In admissions decisions in which race plays a role, an individual is chosen over another applicant simply because of his race — if this were not the case, the racial criterion would be superfluous and could be discarded anyway. It is unacceptable for the government to favor one individual over another simply because one is a member of a “preferred” racial group. Color blindness — not racial discrimination — should guide admissions processes.

Justice Clarence Thomas has noted aptly the pernicious effects that flow from even supposedly “benign” racial classifications. “Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government’s use of race,” he wrote in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena. “These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are ‘entitled’ to preferences.”

Racial discrimination by institutions of higher education, by artificially stimulating the admission of under-qualified minority applicants, also masks the substantial inequities in the United States’ primary school systems. In particular, the failure of inner city public schools disproportionately disadvantages minority children. The balm of college affirmative action, however, diverts attention from the actual cause of racial inequalities in education.

Racial preferences have become a standard feature of modern higher education and are used as a tool to promote the amorphous value of diversity. But we must be wary of allowing racial discrimination to continue to play an accepted and systemized role in our culture. As the Supreme Court stated in Hirabayashi v. United States, “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

Austin Raynor’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.raynor@cavalierdaily.com.

WITH HER glistening diamonds, violet eyes, eight marriages and status as an old Hollywood elite, Elizabeth Taylor was larger than life. Her death last week brought about the end of an era and the final scene of a drama in which she was the lifelong star. She was stunningly beautiful at the height of her career and as can be inferred from her eight marriages, Taylor was always in love.

Taylor graced the Charlottesville area with these legendary attributes several times. Old Hollywood came to Albemarle County in the 1950s with the filming of the movie Giant. In the 1970s, Taylor returned to the area and aided her then-husband John Warner in his campaign for the Senate. With him, she visited the University Grounds, making visits to Alderman Library and the Rotunda.
Yet this is not at all why Taylor is important to University students, and it is certainly not why she should be remembered. Her real legacy is not tied in with her movies, her beauty or even her marriages. Taylor’s legacy is ultimately larger than the woman herself — a legacy attached to a story of not only immeasurable pain, but also hope.

The outbreak of AIDS in the United States in 1981 came swiftly and revealed how fear and ignorance lead to hatred and prejudice. There was talk of a 4-H club for those at risk of AIDS — gays, Haitians, hemophiliacs and heroin addicts, with hookers and hemophiliacs often interchanged. Those infected were stigmatized and were by default assumed to be one of the four.

Victims of the disease were shunned by society. In a prominent case in 1985, a 14-year-old named Ryan White, a hemophiliac with AIDS, was barred from school. His fight to attend school was met with immense cruelty.

Because of the enormous stigma surrounding AIDS, public figures either did nothing or actively demonized its victims. President Reagan waited until 1987 to make a speech about the epidemic, six years after the initial AIDS outbreak. The government consistently denied AIDS research funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from 1981 to 1982 the organization spent only $1 million on AIDS research.

In 1986, William Buckley argued in The New York Times that gay men with HIV should have their status forcibly tattooed on their rear ends, and that drug users with HIV should have their status forcibly tattooed on their arms. Bob Grant of the Christian Voice lobbying organization argued AIDS was deserved because its victims were “people with unsafe and immoral behavior.”

With her fame, her beauty and her money, Taylor could have ignored AIDS victims, but she did not. In this virulent climate of stigma, prejudice and misinformation, Taylor and a handful of other courageous voices stood unwaveringly with victims of AIDS.

She offered support for victims when it was unpopular to do so and when the stigma was so immense that it could have brought down her career. In 1985 she helped organize the Commitment to Life dinner that was put on by AIDS Project Los Angeles. While planning the dinner, Taylor stated, “People not only slammed doors in my face and hung up on me, but I received death threats.”

Despite the backlash, Taylor pressed forward and the dinner raised $1 million, matching the CDC allotment for AIDS research from 1981 to 1982. Also in 1985, she helped found The American Foundation for AIDS Research. For the rest of her life she remained committed to those with AIDS, making visits to hospice centers, personally lobbying Congress, actively organizing fundraisers and always being outspoken. Taylor’s advocacy over the years played a central role in replacing the mass demonization of AIDS sufferers with the love, acceptance and support they deserve.

This is why Taylor’s life is a model for University students. Taylor put her reputation on the line to do the right thing. She risked a decades-long career and her status as an American icon to counter injustice and wrongdoing against those suffering from AIDS. She bravely spoke up at a time when society viewed AIDS victims as deviant and unworthy of assistance. She endured the criticism and the “guilt by association” stigma because she knew in her heart that the persecution of those with AIDS was wrong.

As soon-to-be college graduates, we must follow in the footsteps of Taylor and use personal success to lend a helping hand to those who are persecuted and those who are stigmatized. Like Taylor, never abandon the oppressed because of societal criticism and never stop fighting for those less fortunate. While lending your voice to those too afraid or too marginalized to use their own, keep her wise words deep in your heart: “I will not be silenced and I will not give up and I will not be ignored.”

Jamie Dailey’s column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.dailey@cavalierdaily.com.

NUCLEAR disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima often erode public support in nuclear power, and for good reason. Yet in the United States, government support for nuclear energy remains alive and well, largely thanks to the influence of nuclear power lobbyists, industry friends in Congress and a politically invested executive leadership. However, the recent disaster in Japan has provided Americans an opportunity to reevaluate the justifications for expanding the nuclear energy program in the future. Nuclear energy is one solution for the nation’s energy problems, but it is hardly the only answer.

Proponents of nuclear power often have made their case for a nuclear energy future by pointing to nuclear power as the true “green” energy option because it does not produce carbon dioxide. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy cuts global carbon dioxide emissions by 2.5 billion metric tons a year. But even without accounting for the decades long environmental degradation that results from a nuclear disaster like Fukushima, one hardly can defend nuclear power as green.

Over twenty years and a billion dollars after Yucca Mountain in Nevada was first proposed as a repository site, there is still no solution for the lethal radioactive waste produced by our nuclear reactors every year. Uranium mining is hardly what one could call green either. In reality, nuclear energy as a green energy solution is a campaign slogan for a wealthy industry that has been working for years to steer American public opinion toward nuclear technologies.

As seen most recently with the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast tragedy and the 2008 financial crisis, the American government has also had its fair share of regulatory failures. It is rather insincere to claim that nuclear power is properly regulated in the United States when political decisions regarding nuclear power are directly tied to economic interests. Nuclear energy only gained its resurgence in 1997, thanks to extensive lobbying efforts and million dollar campaign contributions by the nuclear power industry. Prior to then, nuclear power had fallen out of favor among the American public following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters.

Over the last decade, however, the Nuclear Energy Institute and other nuclear industry firms have handed out tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and for lobbying efforts. President Obama himself was a recipient of nuclear power campaign contributions, which might help explain his continued support of nuclear power despite rising concerns about nuclear safety since Fukushima.

Even more telling though is the Price-Anderson Act, reauthorized by Congress in 2005. The act places risk in the hands of American taxpayers by limiting corporate financial liability to a specified amount in the event of a nuclear disaster. So, if and when the next nuclear tragedy strikes on American soil, it will be the taxpayers paying the bailout. Sound familiar? Well, as long as the nuclear power industry keeps the cash flow open, an honest debate about nuclear power may be hard to find.

Regulatory weaknesses aside, we also must question whether nuclear power is as safe as it is made out to be. Many of America’s 104 nuclear power stations have not had proper risk assessments or seismic and environmental studies done before being relicensed. In California, for example, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power station is positioned on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The plant sits on active seismic zones and is only half a mile from the newly discovered Shoreline Fault. Yet federal regulators continue to insist that the plant is safe and that relicensing of its two reactors should proceed as planned, without new seismic studies.

Also on the table is the potential for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear enrichment plants can be fraudulently employed to develop nuclear weapons materials, and currently there are limited regulations in place to mitigate this possibility. Such was the case in 1974, when India tested a nuclear device using plutonium produced in its CIRUS nuclear reactor in Trombay, India. Nuclear expansion and experimentation, regardless of peaceful intentions, unintentionally can provide dangerous materials to countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons outside of international agreements such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed in 1968.

For now, the future of nuclear power in the United States hangs in the balance. President Obama insists that nuclear power be a part of the United States’ energy future. Other western countries, however, have reacted differently. As a result of the Japan nuclear crisis, Germany has done an about-face on its nuclear program, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel — a trained physicist — called for a moratorium on nuclear power expansion. Merkel also called for the immediate shutdown of seven of Germany’s oldest nuclear power stations.

It is important that Americans critically reconsider their investment in nuclear energy. Doubts about America’s nuclear energy future are not a knee-jerk reaction. Alternative and renewable energy technologies have yet to be explored and are much safer options.

Ashley Chappo’s column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.chappo@cavalierdaily.com.

University administrators have increased security measures around Grounds, including locks on the Physics Building. Photo by Thomas Bynum

The University plans to implement additional security measures to prevent students from unlawfully entering University buildings and climbing on rooftops following the death of first-year College student Thomas Gilliam Sunday.

Gilliam sustained fatal injuries after falling from the roof of the Physics building late Sunday evening. A group of University students accompanied Gilliam into the Physics Building and climbed onto the roof.

“Testimony from other students also confirmed that Mr. Gilliam entered through the east door then went to the front door to let them into the building so they could make their way to the roof,” University Police Lt. Melissa Fielding said in a press release.

Gilliam lost his footing because of dangerous weather conditions and fell from the Physics Building roof, Fielding said.

The University intends to increase safety measures and security guards to prevent students from climbing onto roofs, entering steam tunnels and breaking into buildings.

“We do plan to implement numerous new measures, including additional locked gates and steel panels in steam tunnels,” University spokesperson Carol Wood said in a Tuesday press release. “University Police also will increase evening patrols.”

The University specifically has targeted the Physics Building for immediate security improvements.

“Among the enhancements in the Physics Building will be four sets of new exterior doors and locks, in addition to a new electronic access system,” Wood said in a phone interview yesterday.

Additionally, the University is reacting to a blog titled “The Bold and the Ruthless,” which offered instruction and maps for accessing the rooftops of University buildings and steam tunnels before it was deactivated sometime during the past 48 hours.

“The website encourages individuals to unlawfully enter locked University buildings and climb onto building rooftops,” Wood said. “The University Police will not condone illegal activity of this kind and will prosecute offenders.”

Fourth-year College students Steve Norum and Matthew Baltz, the authors of “The Bold and the Ruthless,” included a disclaimer on the site.

“All events referred to are entirely used for the purposes of anecdotal demonstration; they may or may not have actually occurred,” the disclaimer said.

The website encouraged students to access the Physics Building by descending into the steam tunnels and entering through the basement. It warns students to avoid being seen and finally challenges them to find another hidden roof that has a direct line view of Monticello.

Norum and Baltz have acknowledged the University’s increasingly stringent policy toward students who illegally access buildings and steam tunnels.

“In response to last weekend’s tragic accident the University has changed its policy towards accessing of the steam tunnels and rooftops from one of benign neglect to one of active prevention and prosecution,” Norum said in an email.

Norum and Baltz have now removed the site, citing the new, strict University policy on illicit exploration as their motivation. They discourage students from participating in any of the activities they discuss on their website.

“For ourselves, we will undertake none of the proscribed activities and we strongly encourage former readers of the site to do likewise,” Norum said.

Neither Norum and Baltz, nor the students who accompanied Gilliam onto the roof, are currently facing disciplinary action, although there is an ongoing investigation.

Many people believe that steam-tunneling and roof-climbing are long-standing University traditions. Officials were surprised that roof-climbing was considered one of ‘111 Things to Do Before You Graduate.’

“I think we have to separate fun traditions from risky behavior that could result in death,” Wood said.

Two University buses will drive students to a funeral service for Gilliam, which starts at 3 p.m. today. The buses will leave from the Student Activities Building to Trinity Presbyterian Church continuously from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

The University has reformulated its fellowship program for the fall of 2012, decreasing the number of future graduate students and raising some concern that fewer teaching assistants will be available to teach in the College.

College Dean Meredith Woo said she believes the new structure will increase the value and longevity of remaining fellowships and will improve the quality and competitiveness of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

“We have made our fellowship offerings more competitive [financially] so we could get better graduate students than ever before, and we are also guaranteeing our graduate students support for five years, so they wouldn’t have the fear of not knowing if they could continue their work next year, even if they were in good standing,” Woo said.

David Leblang, professor of governance at the Miller Center of Public Affairs and professor of politics at the University, said he expects the changes will help the University appeal to first-rate potential graduate students.

“The new policy allows us to be more competitive in attracting the students we really want to attract,” Leblang said.

Despite the reformulation’s potential benefits, Religious Studies Prof. Larry Bouchard said he is concerned that the changes might adversely impact other areas of the University.

“I think it’s a puzzle, in that we see an increasing enrollment in the College, yet we see a decline in graduate students who can serve as [teaching assistants],” Bouchard said. “So there needs to be some thought given to how we are going to cover all of these students. Are we going to have larger courses without TAs? Are we going to have smaller courses without TAs? The other possibility is to have our adjunct professors for hire cover, but there are questions about how that would work as well.”

Woo said, however, the decrease in admitted graduate students likely will be less disruptive than people expect.

“It is undoubtedly true that we’ll have a bit of a contraction in the number of students coming in, but we’re getting better students … and we’ll have a much lower rate of attrition for our graduate students,” Woo said. “So even though we have a slightly lower number of students entering the graduate school, the number of students enrolled will likely remain fairly constant.”

If anything, Woo said she expects the changes to benefit the undergraduate experience and the University as a whole.

“Excellent graduate programs and excellent graduate students are the sine qua non of a great research institution,” she said. “Our hope is that with this reform, that we’re able to recruit better students and that our graduate program will get stronger.”

Bouchard said regardless of whether the fellowship program changes are ultimately positive or negative, they, along with the current economic climate, demand faculty to re-examine the College’s Teaching Assistant Program.

“I think this implies that we will have to rethink how we teach, but I don’t think we’ve been doing that,” Bouchard said. “It’s not a question about how I feel; there’s just a lot of questions implied right now.”

Law School students will receive legal experience while offering free services to residents negatively affected by the economic downturn. Photo by Staff Photographer

The Law School recently received a $150,000 grant from the Jessie Ball duPont Fund to finance pro bono legal services for low-income families, particularly those that have been affected by the recent economic downturn and rise in unemployment.

The grant will go toward the fund’s Access to Justice Partnership, an alliance created with the intentions of assisting clients of the Legal Aid Justice Center and its sister organization, the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society.

The partnership is expected to yield pro bono services from about 75 private-sector attorneys and 75 Law students each year with assistance from the local bar, according to a University press release.
“We’ve worked with this fund many times before, so we’ve gotten money from them for a variety of pro bono initiatives over the years,” said Kimberly Emery, assistant dean for pro bono and public interest at the Law School. “They’re very easy to work with. Their board of trustees met and the full grant was approved in February. [Then] we received the money in March.”

Emery submitted the grant application in conjunction with Alex Gulotta, executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center.

Gulotta said in an email that the money will be used by the center for tasks such as developing and coordinating volunteer attorney services, creating and conducting training and performing client intake, screening and triage. Much of partnership’s efforts will focus on legal issues concerning such areas as unemployment, housing and home ownership protection, consumer protection, access to health care and public benefits.

“The long-term goal is to create and maintain a dedicated team of pro bono attorneys and volunteer law students to address critical unmet legal needs in our community,” Gulotta said.

Steve Dickinson, executive director of the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, echoed Gulotta’s thoughts on those needs, emphasizing the implications of the recession for families in Central Virginia.
“The recession of the last few years has placed more people in need of legal services and dramatically increased the number of people who qualify as low-income,” Dickinson said. “Central Virginia Legal Aid Society has had a 30 percent increase in requests for legal assistance over the last three years.”

At the same time, Dickinson said, funding cuts from private and government sources have reduced the capacity of legal aid programs to meet that increased demand. This is where the duPont grant will come in to help with the effort, Dickinson said.

The grant also promises not only to help those in need of legal services, but also to further the educative goals of the University. Under the partnership agreement, legal aid attorneys will supervise and train Law students during these pro bono cases. The students must apply to the program and must agree to commit for a full year.

“It’s a great way for the law students to get more exposure to pro bono,” Emery said. “We never have enough, given that we’re a very large law school in a very small area. Leveraging the services of a private bar provides more opportunities for the students and the clients.”

Demand for college psychological counseling services nationwide has risen in recent years, while funding for these services has decreased, according to research conducted by a professor at Old Dominion University.

Alan Schwitzer, professor of counseling and human services at Old Dominion, shared his findings Monday at the American College Personnel Association’s annual convention, an event in which professionals in student affairs and related fields come together to “share best practices and generate new ideas,” he said.

Schwitzer presented a synthesis of about 750 articles on the subject of college counseling — a project undertaken with fellow Old Dominion Prof. Dana Burnett. The two organized the research into a database intended as a resource for student affairs professionals.

“Counseling centers across the country have seen an increase in demand and an increase in complexity in the problems college students bring to campus or develop on campus,” Schwitzer said. “About a million and a half students are seen in college counseling centers across the country in a year.”

Incidents of violence, such as the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings and the recent mass shooting near Tucson, Ariz., have drawn more attention to the mental health needs of college students, he added.
While demand for counseling has risen similarly at the University, services have not been cut because all Student Health funding comes from student fees upon enrollment.

About 9 percent of University students seek counseling services — a number comparable to similar universities, said Russ Federman, director of Counseling and Psychological Services at the University.

Pre-existing conditions and economic stresses are factors that cause students to seek further counseling, Federman said.

“Students feel the increasing pressure to find security in an increasingly insecure world,” he added. “Our society is also changing technologically. The effects of social media, the effects of instant connectivity to almost anyone … that complicates late adolescent development because of the extent to which students tend to live online.”

Heightened responsiveness of administrators to student mental health concerns also contributes to rising demand for counseling, Federman said, noting referrals from faculty and student services personnel has increased during the past 10 years.

“University campuses are simply much more sensitive about the emotional and psychological well-being of students today because they have more concerns about negative outcomes,” he said.
While funding for University health services is tied with enrollment, shrinking resources for counseling services elsewhere leads universities to cut staff members or cap the number of counseling sessions to which a student is entitled, Schwitzer said.

“On a four-year residential campus, typically you’d want one full-time staff member for something in the range of 1,100 to 1,500 students,” he said. “That’s a rule of thumb that is often used. Most campuses in the U.S. fall short of that; that’s an incredibly expensive proposition.”

Federman said many employees of in-student services believe one staff member for every 1,000 students would be a more effective ratio.

“We’re up around 1 to 1,650,” he said. “You’ll also find that we are no worse off than most other institutions our size. In other words, many university counseling centers are still understaffed despite the attention brought to counseling and psychological services over the last 10 years.”

Although CAPS does not limit the number of counseling sessions available to students, if a student’s treatment is likely to require more than six to 10 sessions, “we usually speak to them about a referral into the private sector,” Federman said.

He noted that the University has an extremely low suicide rate.

“We have had four suicides of enrolled students over the last 10 years,” he said. “If you look at national suicide rates at universities this size, they would be two times higher than that at least. You would tend to see rates around 1.3 or 1.2 somewhere in that range per year.”

He added that the different departments of student affairs collaborated effectively to enhance student wellness.

“I don’t see that many students who fall through the cracks,” he said.

Schwitzer also said counseling has a great value, providing “a bang for the buck.”

“There’s research that shows the retention and graduation rates from counseling center students is actually higher than the general student population,” he said.

Schwitzer said he thought it was “short-sighted” for a university to not provide sufficient counseling services.

“I think offering a student admission to a university is sort of a contract with that student that the institution will do their part to help that student be successful, and in many cases providing these kinds of services is a way to do that,” he said.

Although funding is secure, the main problem currently facing CAPS is that the facility does not have room for expansion, Federman said.

“Even if we see funding resources increase as a result of increasing enrollment, until something changes, we don’t have any room to hire new staff,” he said. “I’m more concerned about square footage than I am about money.”