It is a little unclear from the article on the honor referendum (“Honor Committee validates proposal for spring elections, “2/9/2009), however, it seems from the article that the main debate the Honor Committee has is that the language is unclear. If this is the case how could you possibly allow a constituency to vote on it? If this is a referendum that could take away the single sanction, a long lasting tradition at the University, shouldn’t it contain language that people consistently understand to have one meaning? Would we allow our state legislature to enact laws that aren’t consistently comprehensible to all voters? There are significant legal principles which specifically protect voters from voting on things where the language is uncertain. To simply let people “figure it out” is ridiculous, particularly when dealing with something which deals with potential expulsion of individuals from an institution of higher education.
Read More
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
YesterdayFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
TURNER: The ‘95-5’ statistic on viewpoints diversity leaves out the majority
By Sarah Turner | June 19, 2025Political contributions are likely a weak proxy for the presence of diverse perspectives in the classroom environment.
VEGA: In defense of President Jim Ryan
By Keoni Vega | June 5, 2025Should the raucous Jefferson Council and related conservative groups succeed in their effort to oust President Ryan, the University will enter a new phase that will be unrecognizable to most of its current students and staff.
