Today marks the deadline for University students to downgrade or drop their meal plans for the fall semester. With the many positive adjustments that University Dining has made to accommodate renovations at Newcomb Hall this year, it might seem that this date would pass with relatively little action from disappointed students. Those who regularly get to-go boxes from Newcomb Dining Hall, however, face a situation in which they must ask themselves whether the dining plans for which they signed contracts in the spring are producing the best values they can get for their money.

This question is pertinent because of a change to Newcomb’s operational structure that has made it impossible for students to use their to-go boxes in Newcomb Dining Hall. Rather, they are siphoned off to a separate area that used to be the Game Room and now serves as a dedicated to-go location. Although this set-up is a logical attempt to reduce congestion in Newcomb Dining Hall caused by ongoing construction work, it has a number of deficiencies that thus far have prevented it from measuring up to the other changes that Dining has initiated on Grounds. To ensure that to-go boxes remain a palatable option for students who live and work near Central Grounds, as well as for those with special dietary considerations, it is necessary that Dining alter the present arrangement to improve information availability, culinary variety and policy consistency.

The most obvious flaw with the Newcomb To-Go Room is that it fails to include accurate labels and nutritional information alongside its food offerings. Students encounter a menu of options if they access the To-Go Room through its outside entrance, but once they are inside they must ask Dining attendants for specifics about each dish if they are to avoid unpleasant surprises. This can cause delays in the service line and lead to students getting food they do not want if employees misidentify dishes. Making matters worse, students are powerless to plan in advance what they would like to obtain from the To-Go Room — whereas the menus for Newcomb Dining Hall are posted online weekly, the To-Go Room’s online menu has remained blank since the beginning of the year.

Furthermore, the options from which students may choose in the To-Go Room are severely constrained. Although this may be a deliberate design meant to accelerate service, it creates problems for students whose dietary needs are not accommodated adequately. There are several potential remedies to this situation. For example, the To-Go Room’s standby entree could be something other than pizza, which is a dish that excludes several groups with particular dietary needs — namely, vegans, the lactose-intolerant and those with celiac. In addition, Dining could place loaves of bread, a toaster and various spreads such as peanut butter, jelly and Nutella in the To-Go Room. These could be offered in a separate self-serve line, along with other staple foods that are present in Newcomb Dining Hall such as salad fixings, yogurt, pudding and cottage cheese.

Finally, Dining must define exactly what a meal swipe buys in the To-Go Room. Some to-go diners have been informed that they are limited to one entree per swipe, which does not meet the criteria of an all-you-care-to-eat meal or a la carte purchasing since there is no price differentiation between dishes. This policy should be clarified so that students know what to expect from the To-Go Room in contrast to Dining’s other on-the-go options such as the Amphitheater food trucks.

It remains to be seen whether Dining will address these defects in the coming weeks. In the meantime, students must take into account the To-Go Room’s limitations when deciding whether to continue with their present meal plans. Regular to-go diners can take heart, however, from the way Dining designed other new initiatives such as the Meal Exchange program in response to student feedback. If Dining continues with this approach and implements a few modest improvements, it can bring the To-Go Room in line with other on-Grounds dining options that have drawn deserved praise from those in the University community.

THANK you for your article on the experiences of  LGBT employees, and our families, at the University (Gay at U.Va.: Part 1, Aug. 29).

You noted my recent presentation with the University’s Diversity Council. That presentation compiled and compared formal accounts of experiences of the University’s LGBT employees, from 1994 to the present. This document should be available to anyone who requests it from the office of the Diversity Council. I also am glad to provide it upon request.

The comparison highlighted some key topics of concern: health benefits from University employment, other benefits from University employment, pay equity, organizational climate, leadership at the University, and expectations of a world-class University. The document makes note of change and lack of change throughout nearly twenty years, and its analysis highlights the importance of effective focus and sustained effort to make progress in addressing concerns.

The University is a place that takes its history seriously. I have lived in the Charlottesville area since 1978, when I arrived for graduate school. I have earned three graduate degrees from the University since arriving. I met my partner at a Gay Student Union — now called the Queer Student Union — meeting. This regular weekly meeting is among the longest sustained LGBT community meetings in Virginia and perhaps in the nation. It should be regarded and supported among the other great traditions of the University.

My partner and I had both bicycled to the meeting, and our first date was a bike ride on rural roads in the county. We have been together for more than thirty years, and we help care for three frail elderly family members who live in Virginia.

As an employee, there have been several occasions when I formally requested that the University act to ensure equitable and fair treatment in benefits provided to me as an employee. The provision of these benefits also involves my family’s health and well-being, but we have been told that inequitable treatment does not amount to discrimination and making changes to ensure respectful treatment would be inconvenient. Despite evidence of harms done to me, my partner and our family, no appropriate remedies have been proposed.

In meetings with some University offices our grievances have been discussed with humane concern, and in some offices they have been diminished and discussed with disdain. And as your article shows, adverse experiences among LGBT employees are not isolated or uncommon. Furthermore, important opportunities to hear from LGBT employees have been missed. Thank you, Cavalier Daily, for creating an opportunity for discussion — to speak, to listen and to hear one another.

It is important to correct one piece of the article. The Governor’s Executive Directive One does not “prohibit any kind of discrimination.” Rather, the directive prohibits discrimination that is without a “rational basis.”  Is convenience or inconvenience  a rational basis?  Are the costs — however high or low — of equitable treatment a rational basis?

Thomas Jefferson appears to have believed otherwise: “…[B]ear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”

Edward Strickler is a staff member at the Medical School. He can be reached at els2e@virginia.edu.

LAST FRIDAY, The Cavalier Daily published an article (ATI obtains Mann’s research, Aug. 26) stating that the University had, in accordance with a Freedom of Information Act request, submitted to the American Tradition Institute a large number of emails and other documents from former Environmental Sciences Prof. Michael Mann. There is a fundamentally important backdrop to this story, however, that should have been addressed by the editorial staff and mentioned in the article.

While a professor at the University, Prof. Mann published a climate reconstruction based on various proxies that revealed an alarming and unprecedented rise in global temperature following the start of the Industrial Revolution. His so-called hockey stick graph provided a visceral piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel combustion and other human activities are warming our planet. Subsequent investigations based on completely independent data have yielded climate reconstructions that are consistent with the results of Prof. Mann’s pioneering research. This mounting body of evidence coupled with computer simulations of earth’s future climate demonstrate with a high degree of confidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

For various reasons, ideologically conservative and well-funded groups such as ATI are dedicated to preventing societal efforts to slow climate change. Since there are currently no credible scientific arguments demonstrating that human activity is not warming the planet, one of their primary tactics is to attack scientists who conduct such research as part of a larger effort to confuse the public and corrupt the legislative process.

For example, in the “climate-gate” scandal, a handful of sentences in hacked emails from Prof. Mann were taken out of context to imply that he had falsified research results. Such groups widely touted this calculated misrepresentation as their “a-ha” moment. Much to their dismay, however, subsequent independent investigations by Penn State University, the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences cleared Prof. Mann of any wrongdoing.

We suggest that The Cavalier Daily stand up and call a spade a spade.  This FOIA request by ATI is part of an ongoing and well-orchestrated attempt to disparage climate researchers including Prof. Mann and to discredit the very large body of scientific evidence showing that human activities are warming our planet. The socieoeconomic and geopolicital implications for future generations are profound.

Amato Evan is an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences. William Keene is a research professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences.

CAN YOU save the U.S. economy by staying home and raising the children? Perhaps. During the next several years, the U.S. government and its citizens will have to make painful corrections to stave off further economic meltdown. To bring about full economic recovery, the solutions implemented cannot be limited to the financial sector but should encompass the way that Americans earn and spend their income. One fiscal area that has been strategically overlooked is the effect of double-income households on the United States’ social and financial well-being.

The U.S. unemployment rate has been greater than eight percent since February 2009. Despite massive attempts by the government to stimulate the economy, little has been done to create new jobs. An alternative solution to job creation, however, would be to promote two-parent, single-income households in certain circumstances. A voluntary shift to single-income households could create numerous benefits for both the U.S. economy and society, as unemployment and underemployment could decline and parents would have the opportunity to become more involved in raising their children.

While it may appear that becoming a one-income household requires great economic sacrifice, for many families it would simply require a shift in priorities. Instead of focusing on increasing consumption, families would be improving their quality of life through greater access to family time. One parent could make the family the focus of his or her activities and work to improve the thrift and virtue of the family unit instead of simply trying to keep his or her head above water while juggling work and family responsibilities. The parent’s hiatus from the work force does not have to be permanent. In many cases where young families are paying for multiple children in day care, however, it makes sense for one parent to devote his or her time to the home.

Real economic cost reductions could be realized from this model. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for a full-time female worker in 2009 was $36,278, while the average cost by state of full-time, center-based infant care ranged from $4,550 in Mississippi to $18,750 in Massachusetts. In fact, in 2009 the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies reported, “The average center-based child care fees for an infant exceeded the average annual amount that families spent on food in every region of the United States.”

Based on the NACCRRA research, the average cost of infant care for a family in urban Virginia was more than $14,500 annually for center-based child care in 2009. That represents 41 percent of salary for an individual making $36,278. If you add an additional four-year-old child, the cost of child care for that family would skyrocket to approximately $26,500 annually, or 73 percent of that individual’s salary. This example is representative of the high costs of child care seen across the nation. In many cases, those costs virtually wipe out the nominal value of double-income households and do not even begin to factor in the intangible costs that inevitably would accompany a busier lifestyle, such as increased consumption of prepared foods and the use of preparation services such as laundry or yard services. What is worse, parents may be forced to try to cut costs by placing their children in less expensive and potentially worse-run child care centers.

Perhaps the most important cost saved by transitioning from a double- to a single-income home would be the opportunity costs associated with the time parents spend preparing for and attending work. Instead of spending more than half of his or her waking hours away from the home, the domestic parent could focus on running the household more efficiently and ensuring the children’s emotional and physical needs were being satisfied properly.

While additional time does not necessarily translate into higher-quality parenting, the call to increase single-income households should include an appeal to increase civic virtue. The National Center for Education Statistics noted that “given a list of concerns that might impede parent involvement in schools, the barrier named by the highest percentage of schools was lack of time on the part of parents.” Parents who stay home should feel a responsibility to volunteer at their children’s schools and utilize their time to become positive influences not only in their own children’s lives, but also in the lives of children who are not fortunate enough to have a stay-at-home parent.

As this nation examines the financial reorganization that is necessary to get itself back on track, political and social leaders should consider encouraging a return to single-income, two-parent households. This movement inevitably will require sacrifices in material consumption, but it likely will pay dividends by reducing unemployment, strengthening families and encouraging greater civic participation within schools and community groups. Am I asking for a return to the 1950s? Yes, but with several exceptions. This time around, both ladies and gentlemen should have the opportunity to experience the joy that accompanies being a stay-at-home parent.

Ginny Robinson’s column normally appears on Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at g.robinson@cavalierdaily.com.

Students lined up at the food trucks located by the Amphitheater during lunch time. These vendors, which opened last Thursday, are part of a year-long trial created by Dining Services to relieve congestion in Newcomb. Photo by Thomas Bynum

University Dining began a year-long trial last Thursday with the opening of six food trucks along the Amphitheater sidewalk. These vendors serve as an alternative to eating in Newcomb Dining Hall, which will be undergoing construction throughout the school year.

The food trucks give more options and flexibility to students’ meal plans and schedules, University Executive Chef Bryan Kelly said.

“We couldn’t pass up the chance to create a trendy dining destination for the on-the-go student!” University Dining Marketing Manager Nicole Jackson said in an email.

Every weekday from 11 p.m. to 2 p.m, the trucks offer a variety of meal options ranging in price from $5 to $7.

Ka-Pow serves quesadilla and noodle bowls, while Steak Me Home Tonight offers cheeseburgers and cheese steaks. Both are managed directly by Dining.

Last Call Dogs, Nacho Panda, Got Dumplings? and Carpe Donuts, independent local vendors, were brought to Grounds because their menus appeal to students, Kelly said. “Vendors were more than happy to come because it gives them exposure,” he added.

The goal of providing a “Street Eats fleet” — as Jackson dubbed it — brought more meal options on Grounds but at the price of convenience for third-year Commerce student Madelyn Peery, who acknowledged that costs at Got Dumplings? were higher than the dumplings sold on the Corner.

First-year College student John Kenneth Nolan expressed different sentiments about the prices. “The prices are good, comparable to that of other dining places,” he said. “I know the dumpling place on the Corner is cheaper, but I don’t think they are as good, and they aren’t as convenient.”

Fourth-year College student Jessy Shelton added, “Some of the trucks are things you normally can only get at the Downtown Mall, and now they are so close, which is nice.”

Although Jackson said it is too early to measure success, one day after opening, the vendors were “swamped,” said Richard Hawkins, a supervisor at Steak Me Home Tonight. “Business picked up,” Hawkins said. “Word must have gotten out.”

Dining will also be running two breakfast food trucks at Fontaine Research Park and Carruthers Hall for employees, and the vendors will cater special events and concessions throughout the year. The number and types of food vendors will be re-evaluated by Dining at the end of the year-long trial period.

Martha Jefferson Hospital moved to a new facility, which has more space to accommodate the latest technologies. The staff also held several events to celebrate the old location. Photo by Thomas Bynum

Martha Jefferson Hospital completed its move to a new facility Sunday by transferring 59 patients, including three newborns, to its new location on Pantops Mountain.

The four-hour process of moving patients concluded nearly a decade’s worth of planning and work on the new facility, leaving the new hospital ready to serve the community, hospital spokesperson Jenn Downs said.

“Everything is up and running,” she said. “Our daily operations have gone into full effect.”

Although the development process and subsequent orientations to the new building required a lot of energy and dedication, hospital employees were excited about the new opportunities involved with the move, Downs said.

“We had many members of the team working from the very early hours of Sunday morning, but everybody seemed to be very excited,” she said. “Everybody had been training and orientating to their new space, and we’re excited to welcome patients and show off the new facility.”

One of the most exciting things about the move is the space the new building provides for advanced medical technologies, said Amy Black, Martha Jefferson’s chief nurse executive.

“We wanted the capacity to adapt and provide new services as they become available,” Downs said. “It wasn’t a hospital that was built just for today; it was a hospital that was built for the next 50 years and beyond.”

The hospital also aims to create a more welcoming atmosphere for visitors.

“Our new facility is going to enhance the patients’, families’ and staff’s experiences,” she said. “We have all private rooms, lots of natural light and warm colors up on the walls throughout the hospital. It’s a much more comfortable and inviting place to receive care.”

Hospital employees paid tribute to the former hospital, commemorating its significance in the lives of its staff and patients.

“We had some special events at the old hospital, celebrating what the old hospital has meant to many of our patients and staff over the years,” Black said. “We had a memory book that we put together that had a lot of old Martha Jefferson stories and memories in it. The cover was actually made up of all the employee ID pictures. When you looked at it from far away, it looked kind of like a Monet painting with a lot of brushstrokes, but when you looked at it close up it was the individual pictures of all the employees.”

Such events helped longtime employees celebrate both their fond memories of the old building and the exciting opportunities of the new facility, Black said.

“Some people have worked here all their professional lives, so it was like leaving home for many,” she said. “And it was like moving to a new home.”

Abortion clinics in Virginia would have to abide by the same rules as hospitals under a new draft of regulations released by the Virginia Department of Health Friday, should they be passed by the Board of Health and signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

The regulations come after the General Assembly passed a bill in February requiring the department to change its guidelines for such clinics and women’s health centers. The board will vote on the new regulations Sept. 15. If approved, Virginia would join 22 other states that classify abortion clinics as hospitals.

Among the changes the abortion clinics face are “periodic, unannounced on-site inspections” and prohibited use of elective anaesthesia in abortion procedures.

Pro-choice advocates argue that these regulations could jeopardize the operations of more than 80 percent of the abortion clinics in the state.

The issue has pitted pro-life advocates, who tend to support the heightened regulations because they argue that they will help increase the safety of women receiving abortions, against pro-choice advocates, who contend that the regulations are more motivated by anti-abortion politics than by concerns about women’s health.

“I think abortion is a significant medical procedure,” said Del. William Howell, R-Stafford, who voted to support the bill as the Speaker of the Virginia State House of Delegates, State Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, said he worries the regulations will pass the board and be signed by McDonnell.

This is a case of “overregulation of a simple process,” he said, adding that the new rules will only make safe abortions less accessible to low-income women.

“This [bill] is absolutely not about women’s health,” said Jessica Honke, public policy director for Planned Parent Advocates of Virginia. “This is an attempt to single out women’s health centers.”

Honke said the most onerous regulations were those relating to new structural and architectural changes to women’s health facilities, which require older clinics to abide by regulations put in place for new clinics.

“Politics, not public health, is the driving force behind these regulations,” Honke said.

Howell disagreed.

“That is patently untrue,” Howell said in response to critics who accused the bill’s supporters of playing politics. “[The bill was passed] for the health of women.”

If the regulations are signed into law, they will be implemented with the start of the new year.

With the 2012 presidential election nearly a year away, talk of possible vice presidential candidates has begun to heat up, including speculation about whether Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will run. His official answer is no, but speculators seem to think otherwise.

“By becoming chair of the Republican Governors Association and traveling widely, McDonnell has made himself as national as possible, and positioned himself well to be on the short list for VP, depending on the presidential nominee,” Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics, said in an email. “[But] that doesn’t mean he’ll get the second spot on the ticket. There are plenty of others who also will be considered.”

McDonnell was elected as Virginia’s 71st governor in 2009, receiving nearly 59 percent of the vote, more than any other candidate for governor in Virginia history. His popularity was in part a result of his outspoken commitment to serving the entire four-year term as governor.

“The governor has said that he is focused on finishing his term as Virginia’s chief executive,” McDonnell spokesperson Jeff Caldwell said.

In general, Virginia gubernatorial elections receive widespread national attention because they always follow presidential elections; Virginia and New Jersey are the only states that elect a governor into office the year after a presidential election. The 2009 Virginia gubernatorial election received particular attention because it followed President Barack Obama’s election, which marked the first time in 44 years that a Democratic presidential candidate won the state of Virginia.

As a result of his victory and popularity, talk arose of McDonnell being nominated as a potential candidate for the Republican national ticket in 2012.

During his first few months as governor, McDonnell continuously assured his commitment to serving his full four-year term.

In February, McDonnell sat down for an interview with WWBT, Richmond’s NBC affiliate. During the interview, McDonnell acknowledged that he would “probably” have a difficult time turning down a candidacy offer from his party’s presidential nominee.

The interview raised questions about McDonnell’s commitment to Virginia, but Caldwell asserts that the governor not have any plans to cut his term short.

“What he has said about speculation for a vice presidential invitation is that if he, or anyone, were to receive a call from one of the candidates who said, ‘I need you to join me for the betterment of the country,’ that it would be difficult to turn that down,” Caldwell said. “He has maintained that he is not lobbying for the job nor actively seeking it, but that he does hope in the future to play an active role in national dialogue about the issues that are important to him and the country.”

Although McDonnell does plan to serve for the entire four years, people continue to question his actions.

“Governor McDonnell is a politician, and even though he’s governor of Virginia, he’d take the VP nomination in a New York minute, ” Sabato said. “Any politician would. Always watch what politicians do, not what they say.”

After jockeying for the role of starting signal caller throughout training camp, sophomore Michael Rocco nabbed a vote of confidence from the Virginia coaching staff. Photo by Chris Johnson

Virginia coach Mike London announced yesterday that sophomore quarterback Michael Rocco will start Saturday against William & Mary.

The Cavaliers have toyed with four quarterbacks since spring practices, but Rocco had recently been receiving the most snaps with the first-team offense and will take the first snaps against the Tribe.

London also said, however, that he expects freshman quarterback David Watford to play during select situations Saturday, noting that although the true freshman is still developing, he provides the team with a more athletic option. Watford is listed as interchangeable with redshirt sophomore Ross Metheny at No. 2 on the quarterback depth chart.  Of Virginia’s four quarterback contenders, Metheny and Rocco are the only with game experience. During limited playing time as a true freshman last year, Rocco threw for 143 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions.

—compiled by Ashley Robertson