I am writing in response to the article about the “good guy” room on the Lawn (“Paige Deesnyder selected for ‘good guy’ room on West Lawn,” 4/15/2009). My comments are not directed at how the selection committee chose the recipient of the room; from what I can tell Paige Deelsynder is a wonderful young woman and deserves the room she was awarded. Rather, my comments are directed at how the committee handled the process. I nominated a different candidate for the room, and I received an e-mail from someone on the committee stating that my nominee made it to the second round and asking me for additional information. I provided the necessary information, and two weeks later when I hadn’t heard anything about my nominee’s status, I sent a follow-up e-mail asking if a decision had been made. I received no reply. I never heard from anyone on the committee regarding the ultimate status of the person I nominated. I found out by reading The Cavalier Daily at lunch. Obviously people who take the time to write a letter nominating a peer for such a high honor care about the outcome. To me, it seems like common courtesy for the committee to notify those who wrote letters to tell them the ultimate status of their nominee. However, to ignore an e-mail asking about it is downright rude. I hope that the committees in future years handle the process with more grace.
Read More
A statement from 201 concerned faculty about U.Va. President Beardsley’s appointment
By Concerned Faculty | January 16, 2026By acting in bad faith, the Board has flouted its fiduciary duties to the University and has violated its own bylaws calling on it to protect the University from outside interference.
LETTER: When everything is labeled hazing, nothing is
By Scott Gleason | January 4, 2026Worse still, over-policing benign practices risks driving genuinely harmful behavior underground.
LETTER: An alumnus and parent’s perspective on U.Va.’s presidential search process
By Tom Neale | December 15, 2025The critiques of Mahoney and the Board of Visitors are egregious double standards that I believe are motivated by political differences with Mahoney and the Board.
