Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Cavalier Daily's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
50 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Olivia Winesett, Issy Denevan
Ford McCracken, Jaden Brown, Olivia Winesett
By: Ford McCracken, Jaden Brown, Olivia Winesett
By: Ford McCracken, Jaden Brown, Olivia Winesett
Bryce Kirkland, Jaden Brown, Olivia Winesett
This past May, the Cavalier Daily welcomed student band The Jellies to an underground concert. Shot by Ismay Anderson, Nya Battle, Vincent Madison, Shreyas Mayya, and Olivia Winesett.
The Cavalier Daily elected editors for its upcoming 135th term this Saturday, choosing third-year College student Nathan Onibudo as its next editor-in-chief in a contested election.
The Cavalier Daily held its 134th term elections Monday, selecting third-year College student Ava MacBlane as the paper’s next editor-in-chief in an uncontested election.
I remember the moment I decided I would join The Cavalier Daily’s Opinion section. It was the summer after my second year, and I was thinking about politics seriously for the first time. Sure, I knew my family voted Republican, and Republicans are traditionally conservative. And I did my part for my team in eighth and 12th grade, arguing with the kids whose parents voted for the Democratic candidates that McCain and Romney were clearly superior. I, of course, had no idea what I was talking about. But I enjoyed arguing and I knew the basic Republican talking points so it was good wholesome fun.
Matt Winesett was the 127th Senior Associate Opinion Editor and an Opinion columnist at The Cavalier Daily.
This country could use a little more irrationality — provided it’s channeled into appropriate places. Many of us likely recoil from such a pronouncement. Since grade school, we’ve been taught the virtues of the Enlightenment, how reason and rationality conquered superstition and backwardness. For those who accept what Thomas Sowell aptly labels the “unconstrained” vision of the world, it may indeed be unnecessary to celebrate irrationality. But those who sagely embrace the constrained vision realize perpetual rationality is impossible. Moreover, not only is it infeasible to apply pure reason to each detail in one’s life, even attempting to do so is a dangerous goal. It would be mentally exhausting. Perhaps it would be better to identify the areas of life where rationality is most warranted, such as politics, and allow custom and habit to govern the rest.
Since lawn room selections came out last month, a debate has been raging in The Cavalier Daily Opinion section about the relative weight merit and representation should be given in the Lawn room selection process. The arguments have so far focused on the role of the calibration committee in the process, which was revamped for the 2016-17 school year with apparent success. In response to the criticisms leveled at his first piece by Alexander Adames, who argued that it is crucial for the selection committee to consider context and inequities, Matt Winesett retooled his justification of a meritocratic process to account for Adames’ arguments. Unfortunately, his reliance on a false choice between the Lawn as an award or a mirror presupposes a trade-off which rarely exists for competitive application processes and certainly does not exist for the Lawn. The calibration committee does not consist of a “relaxation of standards” because of the simple fact that there are far more qualified applicants than there are Lawn rooms. Furthermore, his emphasis on the Lawn’s prestige makes it seem like just a host of statistics and accolades. Rather, it is the living, breathing and historical center of the University, where excellence, inclusion, merit and representation should be mutually reinforcing. The calibration committee helps us achieve that vision.
To steal a phrase from a fellow columnist, the debate surrounding Lawn room selections is as much a tradition as the selection itself. In 2017, columnists of The Cavalier Daily’s Opinion section have been especially concerned with this issue, writing no less than four different columns on the topic. On one level, I appreciate the paper hosting a vigorous debate on University topics. However, the debate around Lawn rooms is ultimately meaningless. Creating change for the University by changing the composition of Lawn residents is not only a fruitless exercise, but also takes attention away from more fundamental changes needed at the University.
Last month, I argued that the Lawn selection process should only consider an applicant’s merit, rather than an applicant’s race, socioeconomic background or area of study. Thus I oppose the creation and use of the calibration committee, which is designed to adjust the decisions of the blind selection process to ensure the Lawn more accurately reflects the University. I have received extensive feedback since then, so for the sake of clarification, allow me to restate my case and respond to the most common objections.
A few weeks ago, fellow writer Matt Winesett penned an op-ed arguing in favor of merit as being the sole determinant of Lawn room selections. As many others have written in favor of the consideration of diversity in these selections, I will refrain from such lines of argumentation. Instead, I will focus on the presumptions that underlie Winesett’s argument.
It’s become a bit of a tradition. Each year, The Cavalier Daily will run a piece arguing the Lawn selection process is flawed and must be changed to ensure more diversity or more accurate representation. In 2015, the Managing Board opined that the Lawn room selection process should focus on diversity of experiences, rather than offer residency as a reward for the University’s most laudable students. The next year, former columnist Mary Russo advocated removing grade point average as a criteria for lawn room applications. And just last week, fourth-year College student Brittany Hacker argued the calibration committee should ensure each school at the University is accurately represented.
Few things are more quintessentially American than standing up to tyrants. Those who persecute innocents, rule arbitrarily and capriciously, dismiss settled science as a hoax and lie with impunity deserve not only our silent scorn, but our overt disapproval. America touts a decorated record of defeating dictators, but unfortunately our nation is not immune to tyrants, and we now have one in our midst. This despot’s vast fortune and power must not deter us. This weekend, we must carry on the venerable American tradition of tormenting tyrants and register our displeasure with this clownish but fascistic overlord. It is unlikely we can drive him from power, but together we can make a statement.
Choosing to write about politics is commendable and beneficial for the community, particularly in a time when many seem disillusioned with politicians and the political system more broadly. There is value in producing a well written, clearly argued article that expresses a political opinion. However, using The Cavalier Daily as a public platform to share ideas and information about politics comes with responsibility. Authors need to explain their position in simple, concise terms, and provide accurate information in their pieces. Some recent political Opinion articles have contained confusing language, grammatical mistakes and some inappropriate sources.
In the wake of the election — and I mean that in two senses, for Grounds really does feel like a wake — I thought I’d highlight the potential benefits of a Trump presidency. Take a pause from dwelling on the reality that the West Wing will soon be occupied by perhaps the most morally abhorrent and unqualified person ever elected president, and instead consider the opportunities a President Donald Trump provides. You’ll find that in addition to Republicans, Democrats and unaligned cynics also have reason to be optimistic.
Two weeks ago, Viewpoint writer Brendan Novak wrote a piece in which he argued that universities should aim to increase faculty diversity in terms of political ideology. Novak states, “when our beliefs and opinions aren’t challenged, society as a whole suffers.” On this, I agree. Engaging with ideas contrary to one’s own is a vital step in coming to an opinion held with conviction and increases respect for and understanding of those with differing opinions — something that often seems to be lacking today. However, purposefully hiring more conservative professors would hardly achieve this and is problematic in its own ways.