AS THEIR academic careers here at the University come to an end, fourth-years reflect on their fondest memories and what those experiences have taught them. They impart their wisdom on younger, greener underclassmen, but in an academic environment such as the University, the flow of knowledge should go both ways. So, if I have learned anything during my two years at the University, it is that if you can’t beat them, join them.
In case you have forgotten, listening to Days on the Lawn tours for two seconds will remind you that there are several traditions that are sacred to the University, ranging from buildings like the Rotunda to concepts such as student self-governance to virtues such as honor. The specific Jeffersonian ideals that were applied to the University at its creation were useful and effective, but as times progressed, these beliefs remained stagnant in their dynamic climates.
The Rotunda was created to promote education and thought over religious views. Secularizing higher education was definitely a progressive move during a time when most colleges and universities had a church at the center of campus. Presently, the tide has turned from a worldly, intellectual education to a new view that ironically concentrates on a deity figure: Mr. Jefferson himself.
For many, the first exposure to the University was through tours led by University Guides. These tours are always littered with trivia about Jefferson and meaningless quotes. From the Jefferson quote in the Athletic and Fitness Center regarding daily exercise to, sadly, The Cavalier Daily’s statement on the Opinion page denouncing ignorance, it seems as though students cannot escape the Jeffersonian perspective. The overexposure to one point of view perpetuates an environment in which it is easier to quote an iconic figure than to express one’s own ideas.
Just one notch below Thomas Jefferson on the worship totem is student self-governance. Unfortunately, the current system of student self-governance is another concept that has been unchanging despite efforts from students to reform it. How many times have there been instances where transparency was an issue? Earlier this semester, Assistant Professor Wende Marshall was denied tenure for mostly unknown reasons. The administration might have had legitimate reasons for this decision, but these reasons were held within the committee. As Commencement approaches, President Casteen’s reasons for choosing Harvie Wilkinson Jr. as the speaker are still unknown. In both Marshall’s and Wilkinson’s cases, students have made their voices heard. What is truly unfortunate is that students are eager to exercise student self-governance, but petitions and media coverage have fallen on deaf ears since the administration has done little to address these issues. By ignoring student-led initiatives, the administration has exceeded its own goals of containing student self-governance to the point of discouraging any grassroots movements among students.
Today, thanks in large part to the late Dean of Admission John Blackburn, the University boasts a large minority representation among the student body. The problem rests no longer in who is admitted, but in who is accepted. The recent hate crime against a homosexual student and his guest proves that the University gives the façade of being an accepting community but is slow to act in the face of adversity. The fact that an e-mail was sent out a week after the incident was reported and that they used the euphemism “bias-motivated crime” show that the administration deemed it was neither newsworthy nor as serious as it really was. To put this into perspective, during this past week alone, more efforts have been taken to discourage preventable behaviors such as dehydration at Foxfields than to resolve the more dangerous problem of intolerance that stems from the inaction of Student Affairs.
If conventional methods for challenging the status quo prove ineffective, the last resort should be to join the very group you are trying to change. Specifically for fourth-years, if your new job is with a company that idolizes its founder for some obscure reason, bombard your coworkers with minute quotes for every possible situation. Hopefully they will realize that maybe the founder often contradicted himself and that maybe some of those old ideas are simply not applicable during these times. In another hypothetical situation, if the boss of this new company emphasizes teamwork and self-regulation but actually makes all the decisions himself without your considerations, then you should hand over the reins to him. Perhaps he will discover that inputs from many at a lower level are better than an opinion from just one. Lastly, if your new company stresses tolerance of others but is slow to act when this value is infringed on, then consider leaving. If this company does not take adequate efforts to protect its employees, then leaving might bring this to their attention because it would surely decrease its diversity.
These solutions only work as a last resort since there are so many other, not so drastic answers to these problems. The real problem is that the University’s administration is simply not paying attention to the voice of the student body. Therefore, a possible solution is to make the problems big enough for the administration to finally recognize them.
Hung Vu’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | May 17, 2025Student journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
