38 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/22/14 3:50am)
I spent a lot of time while I was a student at the University complaining about the school’s rigid attachment to its traditions. In my four years there, I failed to understand why these traditions — the adherence to the idea of “honor” and all that it entailed, the use of terms like “first year” and “Grounds,” the prestige of living on the Lawn — were so important to keep around. None of these, for me at least, defined my University experience. When I read the Rolling Stone article detailing how negligent so many members of the University community had been in responding to the sexual assault of Jackie and so many other women, I was horrified by just how damaging this adherence to tradition could be.
(04/22/09 6:43am)
There are a lot of things I won’t miss about this University, but then there are also a lot of things I will. For example, I won’t miss the tag lines so universally touted by those at this school: honor and student-self governance, two ambiguously defined ideas that for some reason we’re all supposed to embrace as the keys to what makes us so unique. As if that’s not enough to make us unique, I also won’t miss the unnecessary nicknames we apply to the most basic of terms: our campus and our year. I’m sorry, but even after four years, I have trouble not feeling pretentious when I tell people that I did not live on campus as a freshman, but on Grounds as a first-year.But then, pretentiousness is something we seem to pride ourselves on, too. After all, who other than University students delights so much in referring to this place as Mr. Jefferson’s University? We’re crazy to want so badly to live in a tiny room on the Lawn devoid of a private bathroom and susceptible to constant intrusions on our privacy by tourists who want to see how students “really lived” back in Jefferson’s time. Yet we do it for the same reason we find it so necessary to wear dresses and ties to football games, or spend a day drunk and dressed up at a horse race. We embrace pretentiousness.Enough, though, of what I won’t miss about my time here. There is plenty to make up for the popped collar craze and the ill-defined buzzwords that supposedly make our University great.When I took a tour here as a high school senior, I heard more about athletics, social activities, and tradition than I did about academic opportunities and professors. But the classes I have taken and the people who have taught them are what truly define a student’s experience here. From my first semester to my last, I have been inspired, challenged, encouraged and supported by numerous professors. As the students of such qualified and curious scholars, we have been given the opportunity to indulge our own curiosities and to seek out what interests us the most. The breadth of choices we are given each time the course offerings are released, and the depth of scholarship we are met with each time we attend a lecture are what truly make this University stand out.Before my first year, I knew little about Charlottesville’s art and cultural scenes. Yet the artistic, musical, and overall creative culture that is Charlottesville goes well beyond the Dave Matthews Band and will hopefully continue to grow and flourish years from now. That we, as students, have access to so many creative opportunities around town makes the one-size-fits-all nature of Grounds much more bearable. For every pair of Seven jeans walking around Newcomb Hall, for every frat house blaring DMB songs throughout the day, there are any number of Charlottesville locations where students can go for relief from the monotony.I will miss the Cavalier Daily not only as a source for University news, but also, and much more importantly, as a means for expressing my anger, appreciation, confusion, and/or disbelief, depending on what kind of news the previous week has brought. At a place where the party line is hard to escape, the student newspaper — especially the Opinion page — allows students to express their thoughts, whatever they may be. Criticism of University policies or of decisions made by student-run organizations is productive. It begins and sustains the kind of dialogue that will ultimately — hopefully — lead to change. I will miss having such a venue for free expression.It practically goes without saying that I will miss my friends immensely. They more than anything or anyone else have made my time here meaningful and fulfilling.And so four years have passed since the first day I walked on campus — Grounds, I mean — as a freshman — first-year, whatever. Much of that time has unfolded like a sitcom, and all too often I’ve had to take a step back and laugh at the sheer zaniness of it all. Listening to a University Guide telling prospective students about the community of trust while standing in front of a sign at the library reading: “Guard your belongings. Thefts have been reported.” Watching intoxicated fans tumble down the hill at Scott Stadium while the football team blows another lead. Watching classrooms deteriorate while the athletic department budget continues to expand. Mindlessly adopting U.Va.-speak and engaging in random ritualized practices all in the name of tradition.So I can’t say I will miss guys in ties and girls in pearls or worshipping the school’s founder along with the rest of the TJ cult. Nor will I miss listening to administrators mindlessly babble on about student self-governance and upholding hundred-year-old traditions. What I will miss is something like a blooper reel of the University experience — the stuff the directors don’t really want the audience to see. Therein lie the most worthwhile moments of the past four years.Amelia Meyer’s column appeared Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/15/09 6:04am)
The University prides itself on the fact that it is rated one of the most affordable public universities in the country. When the Princeton Review and USA Today rankings were released in January, the University was listed in first place. In response to the rankings, President John T. Casteen III said, “By providing a superior education at a good price and with appropriate sources of financial aid for students from various economic circumstances, we aim to level the playing field for our nation’s young people.”However, there is more to affordability than tuition costs and room and board fees. Programs provided for students as extracurricular activities, career advancement opportunities, and exercises in class bonding are often prohibitively costly. A student’s experience in the University should be affordable in all respects, including extracurricular activities. Take the Alumni Association’s “Dress Your Best and Interview for Success” program in which students have the opportunity to hear tips on what constitutes appropriate work attire at Banana Republic this week. Those who register for the program receive a 25 percent discount on everything that they buy in the store that day. “Find that interview outfit (and perhaps one for Foxfield, as well)” reads the announcement advertising the event.There are two things wrong with this program. First, the fact that it is held in a store well-known for selling high-priced clothing (suit jackets alone can be more than $250) deters a lot of students from attending because they simply can’t afford to spend so much money. Though the event itself is free, students are encouraged to purchase items from an expensive store. Second, the fact that the ad mentions Foxfield implies that it caters to a specific audience, one that can afford to — and that wants to — buy tickets to such an event.Instead of holding an event that a number of students could potentially benefit from at a prohibitively expensive clothing store, why not hold it at a much more financially accessible location such as a department store? Students who want to spend money on a suit at Banana Republic can still do so, but students who would rather buy something less costly would then have an opportunity to shop somewhere that sells clothing at a variety of different prices.The Annual Graduation Banquet is another example of a high-cost University-sponsored social activity. The banquet, held in Alumni Hall the Friday before graduation, costs $70 per person. According to the invitation, “The Banquet is the ideal venue for family and friends to enjoy dinner with one another.” Maybe so, but that enjoyment will likely be cut short when you realize it costs $420 for six people to eat dinner there. Affording college is not only about being able to pay tuition and buy books, although those are two of the most important things to be concerned about. College is about much more, and a student’s experience at the University is undoubtedly affected by the social and extracurricular activities he or she chooses to — or is able to — participate in. Having to miss out on a chance to spend time over dinner with fellow fourth-year students because tickets cost too much, or missing out on a valuable career-building experience because of the price tag on every suit in the store makes a student’s experience here that much less comfortable makes the school feel that much less inviting. Those at the University who plan activities like those listed above should do more to recognize that the socioeconomic status of students is an important factor in determining the activities they choose or do not choose to participate in during their time at the University. Moreover, the University should accommodate these varying levels of socioeconomic status by subsidizing certain extracurricular activities that warrant students’ participation — activities like career workshops and networking events. Just joining the Alumni Association as a student costs $350.Fourth Year Trustees President Christina Polenta noted that the Trustees have “attempted to use our budget so that we could provide events to the class that are much less expensive than they would be ordinarily.” This is the right idea — one that the University should work harder to implement in all of its programming.It is time that socioeconomic status is no longer a factor in determining what activities and events students can or cannot participate in. The student experience at the University should mean more than money.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/08/09 11:04am)
THE WORLD is a fashion show. If the Obamas’ recent trip to Europe this past week is any indication, the only thing that matters at major international policy conferences is what Michelle is wearing. Coverage of the First Lady’s dresses and her mid-flight wardrobe changes saturated the news networks throughout the couple’s trip overseas. Pictures of the “WAGs” (wives and girlfriends), as a number of news sources have referred to them, were placed in stark contrast to pictures of the world leaders — almost all male — doing the ‘serious’ business of strengthening alliances and rescuing the economy.Mrs-O.org, a Web site devoted to covering the fashion and wardrobe choices of the First Lady, covered the entire international tour solely in terms of what Obama wore. “Though already described as a style icon, which she undoubtedly is, we imagine Mrs. O’s fashion sense will be known for many things, rather than one iconic image that perfectly encapsulates her style,” read the blog. “She is a multi-dimensional woman, with a multi-dimensional wardrobe to suit.”Even self-described feminists like New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd can’t stop obsessing over Obama’s amazingly toned arms. In a column published in late March, Dowd referred to the First Lady’s “sinewy arms,” and earlier in March, the columnist posed the question, “Should Michelle cover up?” My question to Dowd, and to all members of the media, is, Does it really matter?It is time that columnists, pundits, and even male politicians allow women the dignity to be praised not for sticking to a demanding workout regimen or for wearing a particularly well-fitted pantsuit, but instead for their personal and career accomplishments. In addition to having toned biceps and a fashionable wardrobe, Obama has managed to graduate from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, is raising two children, and worked tirelessly to help her husband get elected President of the United States. Now that she has become First Lady, it is time to allow her to pursue her own goals — whether they be working as an advocate for military families, supporting working mothers, or raising her own two daughters — and to stop treating her like Presidential Barbie.The coverage of Obama brings back memories of news coverage of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. The last question asked of the seasoned Democrat at one of the early debates illuminated the sexism so deeply ingrained in American politics: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?” Clinton, at her diplomatic best, answered the question with dignity, showing no indication that she was insulted by such a blatant stereotype of women.It is not enough to expect women alone to stem the discriminatory tide, to argue that Clinton should have voiced opposition to such a question or that Obama shouldn’t have posed for the cover of Vogue Magazine. The point is not that she should or shouldn’t have posed. The point is that there is a very narrowly defined role that women are allowed to play in public. The structure of society makes it easier for women to pose for Vogue than to pose for Newsweek or Time. Politics is still considered a man’s world, and women in this arena are still discussed in terms of the visual, the superficial.Obama is an amazingly accomplished woman, and neither she, nor any other woman, deserves to be treated as a mute fashion model, defined only by her clothes and never by her personality. Moreover, such coverage threatens to transform consequential and controversial political summits and decisions into red-carpet galas and international runways. As Lisa Armstrong, a writer with the London Times, wrote, “The [G20] Summit is meant to be about saving the world and the wives are meant to be stodgy, taken very seriously for their achievements, rather than their ability to accessorize a stonkingly fabulous Azzedine Alaia belt with a beautiful lemongrass dress.”Zoe Williams, a reporter for the UK’s Guardian, tried to summarize what was so problematic about coverage of the “G20 WAGs” in the context of the larger picture. She argued that reporters’ response to the attendance of politicians’ wives at major political events leaves them with few options but “to talk about their clothes, and their upper arms, and their nice smiles; to accept that in a world of bread and circuses, the men are the bread and the women are the circuses.”It is time that women are allowed to be accomplished for more than being well-dressed, that they are written about for their ideas and not their accessories. It is time to appreciate the substance much more than the style.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/02/09 6:26am)
Students at the University are just large children, incapable of comprehending class readings and PowerPoint slides, practically devoid of the ability to write an essay — let alone a thesis — and, most obviously, utterly incapable of governing themselves at an institution of higher learning. When are we going to face up to the fact that in order to thrive at this prestigious institution, we as immature students need the guiding, paternalistic hand of the University’s administration to save us from ourselves?If only the above paragraph could be found in the University’s latest Prospectus. That way, prospective and incoming students would know exactly what they’re getting themselves into and wouldn’t be surprised when they find that student self-governance is just a catchy slogan, nothing more.Recent events at the University have made the hollow nature of the University’s promise of student self-governance crystal clear. First, there was the lack of student input regarding the choice of this year’s commencement speaker, which has caused a lot of tension among students, faculty, and administrators as a result. Henna Ayub, outgoing President of the Afghan Student Association, forwarded the petition expressing opposition to the selections process to a class president, only to be told that such a petition was too divisive and anti-administration to be sent out. “It’s disappointing that our student leaders feel bound to the administration and not to the student body,” Ayub said in an interview. “If they won’t even listen to us and help us pass around a simple announcement about a petition, how are they supposed to represent our views?”There was also the administration’s refusal to allow nationally renowned artist Mel Ziegler to paint a number of the University’s columns as a way of challenging us all to think about the ideas and values our architecture symbolizes. The Arts Board was not even granted the dignity of an explanation for the proposal’s rejection. Finally, the Pep Band felt the oppressive weight of the administration’s overbearing hand when its desire to be allowed to perform at Olympic sports once again was unapologetically disregarded.The idea of student self-governance sure sounds good in theory, though, especially when the University is trying to attract the best and brightest students to Grounds. The problem with all of this arises after students actually get here, when they realize that student self-governance is severely checked by an administration who expects its pupils, especially its student leaders, to adhere to the party line.A 2001 draft by the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs outlines what the student experience should look like in the year 2020. The report highlights student self-governance as one of four core values. One section reads, “For [student self-governance] to be successful, students must be allowed to test their own ideas and take responsibility for the consequences.” Furthermore, “If we do not feel the tension which student self-governance creates . . . then we are resting on a pat definition instead of relying on an organic process.”Instead of following through on this promise, however, the administration has short-changed students by preventing them from making some of the most important decisions at the University. It seems we are allowed to decide who our Student Council President is, but we are forbidden to take on the responsibility of selecting someone to address the Class of 2009 on one of the most important days of the year. We can decide what the focus of next year’s University Unity Project should be, but we are treated with disrespect when we issue a proposal for an art project meant to challenge the assumptions of tradition by transforming Grounds into a thought-provoking art exhibit. Arts Board Co-Chair Ashley Lefew put it this way: “The whole thing was just so negative. Rather than feeling like I had resources at my disposal to help me make something amazing happen, I felt like I was constantly confronting negativity and obstacles.”If student self-governance is so abhorred by members of the University’s administration, if the thought of students taking responsibility for difficult decisions is so terrifying, then the least the University could do is to stop advertising itself as a bastion of self-government. For many students, it has only made their experience here more frustrating. The online Prospectus states, “The U.Va. tradition of student self-governance gives students a remarkable level of autonomy.” What it doesn’t state is that such autonomy only applies to minor decisions, if it really applies at all.It is time for the administration to admit that the people who truly govern the University are those who are most removed from student life, who sit in board rooms and live on top of Carr’s Hill rather than those who sit in classrooms and live in dorms. It is time to stop force-feeding students a lie.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/25/09 5:53am)
Wal-Mart. The name alone can spark debate, elicit groans and streams of vitriol, and can set off an internal battle in shoppers’ minds between wanting to save money and wanting to fight off the big-box version of ‘the man’ at the same time.So it was inevitable that a store so notorious would cause so much controversy when it threatened to encroach upon a beloved historic battlefield. According to C-Ville Weekly reporter Kathryn Faulkner, Wal-Mart is awaiting approval to place one of its mega-stores at the intersection where the Battle of the Wilderness was fought in 1864 during the Civil War. Its potential placement there has engaged historians, local officials, and local citizens in an exhausting cost-benefit analysis of the advantage of placing a supercenter on the site where the War Between the States once occurred.Yet the argument that the field must be protected from corporate and commercial takeover relies upon the belief that all things related to the Civil War must be remembered and preserved in the name of honor and glory. This white-washed vision of the war, and the belief that maintaining a field somehow contributes to keeping its memory alive, represents an unwillingness to explore more effective and educational ways to preserve history. If the field is a truly valuable piece of history, then there must be an effort to make it a legitimate tourist site, one that invites people to do more than stand on some grass and think about Robert E. Lee. If preservationists want the Wilderness battlefield to remain a lasting archive of a tragic war, they must focus much more on making the landmark a place of education and contextualization, not merely an empty symbol of some vague idea of American heroism.The debate that this controversy has inspired is not new: historical landmarks are constantly threatened by the desire for commercial enterprise and the need for a local economic boost in a number of areas. Historians cringe at the thought of watching a battlefield succumb to the sliding glass doors and thousand-car parking lots of gargantuan supercenters, all in the name of economic investment. Contrarily, some local officials and residents welcome the thought of more jobs and lower prices for consumers.Yet a deeper problem exists. Though the idea of another Wal-Mart is an unwelcome one, the reasoning behind the desire to maintain the integrity of a battlefield long removed from its history is itself problematic. Invoking ideals of valor and glory in order to save the supposed rural charm of the area surrounding the intersection — minus the McDonald’s and the 7-Eleven that already exist there, I assume — is a ridiculous endeavor to appeal to some latent sense of nostalgia for one of the most contentious and continually divisive wars in America’s history.Volunteers with the National Park Service currently work to maintain whatever integrity the battlefield still holds. They have been very vocal in their opposition to building a box store near the grass upon which two storied generals once walked — they’ve even gotten actor Richard Dreyfuss on board to advocate for the field’s preservation. Yet their devotion to maintaining the field is supported mainly by the idea of maintenance for the sake of maintenance. Their energy is focused on preserving a plot of historical grass next to a highway because important things once happened there. It is not about finding new and tourist-generating ways to enrich the discussion and education about one of the most trying times in the nation’s history. I doubt that the grass alone will do much to educate tourists about the war and its consequences.This is not, of course, a reason for Wal-Mart to swoop in and build, build, build. The idea of building yet another monstrous warehouse filled with low-priced off-brands and maltreated employees is still far less palatable than the idea of a random field sitting in the middle of a busy intersection.It is, however, a reason to reconsider the usefulness of the Wilderness battlefield as it currently exists. According to the National Park Service Web site, the site lacks a visitor center, and historians are only present at specific times to answer basic questions. A map of the walking trail is practically all that exists. How much can visitors possibly learn from tramping down a path two hundred and fifty years removed from the history that took place there?If preservationists want the field to remain intact and untouched by Wal-Mart, or any other shopping center for that matter, they should think about making the Wilderness battlefield more than simply grass and a signpost. There are numerous battlefield sites in Virginia, sites we all see as we drive down the highway, sites we never stop at because they offer us little but a nice place to walk en route to our final destination.Right now, the choice is between Wal-Mart and a big plot of grass. It is time to liven up the debate, raise the stakes a little. If local residents are looking to boost their economy, it is time to make the Wilderness battlefield a legitimate tourist destination and an invaluable educational resource. And maybe get rid of the 7-Eleven.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/18/09 5:25am)
A problem undoubtedly exists when the Secretary of the Board of Visitors has to assure students that the commencement speaker for the 2009 graduation ceremony is in no way “a racist or an ideologue.” Yet Secretary Alexander Gilliam and other members of the administration responsible for the selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III as this year’s speaker seem to have missed that point. Wilkinson is a conservative judge who ruled in a landmark court case that United States citizens could be detained indefinitely without trial if suspected of terrorist activities, who has spoken out against gay marriage, and who has also been accused of being a racist both for his court rulings and for the ideas present in his publications. His selection as commencement speaker is highly symbolic of the distance that exists between a dynamic student body and an out-of-touch administration too ensconced in its good ol’ boy traditions to understand — or even to consider — the pulse of the student community.In a phone interview last week, Secretary Gilliam characterized the opposition students and others have expressed to the choice of Wilkinson with two words: “Pure crap.”His words, not mine. Such was the response to members of the student community whom he and other members of the Board of Visitors purport to represent.My fellow fourth-years and I have anxiously awaited the announcement of the person who will deliver our 2009 commencement address. Though I had prepared myself for the possibility of disappointment, the release of Wilkinson’s name last week was much more than that.Wilkinson has been a friend of the University for decades. He graduated from the law school in the early 1970s and later returned there to teach. According to Gilliam, he was the first student member of the Board of Visitors and a “boy wonder” in his time as a student here.Yet Wilkinson’s conservative rulings as a federal judge the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, his position against affirmative action, and his insider status as a beloved member of a stagnant University administration call into question his relevance to the graduating class of 2009. His selection also calls into question the process by which the University chooses its speakers. It is not that Wilkinson is a conservative. It is that his political biases will alienate a large number of students when a commencement speaker should bring students together. Graduation is should not be about political ideology.According to Gilliam, who chairs the subcommittee in charge of developing a list of graduation speakers, the committee that develops a list of potential speakers is made up of both students and faculty members who generate ideas for speakers and eventually rank their top ten before giving the list to President Casteen. Students on the committee are “encouraged” to talk to their peers about what speakers they would like to see. Ultimately, according to Gilliam, President Casteen can pick any name from the ten as his choice for commencement speaker.The process clearly possesses a number of flaws. President Casteen’s power as sole selector at the end of the committee’s deliberation leaves open the all-too-likely possibility that he’ll opt for one of his BFFs over other potentially more appropriate speakers. Moreover, the lack of transparency that characterizes the entire process and the lack of a large amount of student input widens the already present disconnect between students and administrators. Did they really think a speaker like Wilkinson is what we wanted, or what we deserved?The selection of Wilkinson in particular has angered many students, leaving them wondering why he was the University’s choice. Yet I suppose in the end it’s not a surprise that this is the outcome of a bureaucratic decision focused more on granting favors than on providing students with a relevant, thought-provoking end to the four years they have spent at the University.Wilkinson will in all likelihood remain our commencement speaker; there is little we can do to change that. He is a man beloved by an administration too out of touch with the students it represents, and he is immune to criticism from members of the law school because of his influence as a judge on Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (after all, a clerkship at such an institution is a coveted opportunity). What we can do is make sure that everyone who attends graduation and who asks about our commencement speaker knows exactly who he is and how he was selected. Do your research, disseminate the information, hand out leaflets at graduation describing the implications of Wilkinson’s court decisions, his position that affirmative action leads to ethnic separatism, and what it means that the University chose him anyway. It is not about attacking the man, but instead about challenging his positions and questioning the University’s decision-making process.Instead of celebrating graduation by honoring the selection of Wilkinson, we can celebrate graduation by coming together against it.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/11/09 5:27am)
In case you missed it, Sunday was International Women’s Day, a holiday intended to highlight the condition of women all over the globe. According to its Web site, IWD was created in 1910 by a collective of working women from seventeen different countries. It was first observed the following year on March 19 and was moved to March 8 in 1913. In 1977, the United Nations invited all member countries to observe it each year. The day received relatively little fanfare in newspaper headlines, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement calling attention to the fact that, “Women still comprise the majority of the world’s poor, unfed, and unschooled.”Yet Clinton’s statement in support of women’s rights internationally appears a bit hypocritical given the United States’ own position — or lack thereof — on a 30-year-old pact known as CEDAW, or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. According to David Crary of the Associated Press, CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations in 1979 and currently all but eight of the United Nations’s 192 member countries have endorsed it. Guess who’s missing from the list?That’s right. In addition to Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Iran, Nauru, Palau and Tonga, the United States is one of the nations that has yet to sign onto the treaty.Opposition to the pact has come from all directions. Crary writes that the right sees it as embarking on a slippery slope to granting women more abortion rights and granting families less personal privacy away from the government. The left, on the other hand, is increasingly concerned that its passage may only be possible with the addition of Republican stipulations that could erode the progress of women’s rights groups. Finally, another opposition group contends that the pact has already given legitimacy to governments who have signed it but who have not obeyed its regulations. They argue that the addition of an American signature will only cement this legitimacy.Yet the United States cannot afford to leave its name off of another important international document calling for global action against global injustices. Like the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that the United States government continues to refuse to ratify, CEDAW has become another indication of America’s unwillingness to practice what it so often preaches.It is appropriate that this year’s International Women’s Day is marked by Secretary Clinton’s vocal support of women’s rights as she continues to embark on her introductory world tour. It is shameful, however, that the country she represents refuses to add bite to its bark. According to the U.N., CEDAW has been described as an international bill of rights for women, both defining the meaning of discrimination against women and outlining ways in which such discrimination can be eliminated. Countries who endorse the measure agree to work towards the elimination of inequalities against women that currently exist within their borders.Signing onto CEDAW is a symbolic gesture as much as it is a practical and political one. As a powerful arbiter in international relations, the U.S. government should use its influence to improve the economic, social, and political lives of an international body of people. Politicians should look beyond their domestic concerns about backroom politicking and consider the impact their decision may have on the rest of the world.This is not to say that the American government should dictate how the citizens of other countries live their lives, nor should it smugly believe it has the power and the right to idealistically change the world for the better. But America is an undeniably influential country in world affairs, and if Clinton’s reception this past week is any indication, the world is listening to what she — and the government — has to say.It is time to make American support for International Women’s Day and CEDAW known. Women’s rights, both here and abroad, cannot remain on the back pages of newspapers or as footnotes to the day’s events. As Clinton stated on Sunday, “Ensuring the rights of women and girls is not only a matter of justice. It is a matter of enhancing global peace, progress, and prosperity for generations to come.” It is time for Clinton and her fellow politicians to heed her words.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in the Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/25/09 6:52am)
APATHETIC. Uninterested. Lazy. As members of the “Me Generation,” we’ve heard these terms used to describe us before. We have tended to combat these notions in the form of electronic protests, railing against our critics in e-mails, posting angry entries on blogs, creating Facebook groups in hopes of garnering over one million members to collectively affirm that we do, in fact, have the ability to care about and fight for a worthy cause. Members of our generation are constantly criticized for lacking the political and moral gumption to get up out of our desk chairs and take to the streets in the name of [insert cause here].Recent events have given our critics no reason to believe otherwise.The uproar caused by the alterations Facebook made to its terms of service earlier in February, namely its assertion that it had a license to use its members’ content in any way and at any time it wanted to, set off another wave of internet activism. Facebook users were pissed, and they knew exactly how to show it: by creating Facebook groups to voice their opposition to the policy.In an immediate sense, the protest worked. Facebook quickly revoked its terms and opened up the process of creating the new terms of use to all of its members. According to the Washington Post’s Rob Pegoraro, more than 30,000 of the site’s users contributed suggestions in the first twelve hours. This “collective editing,” writes Pegoraro, has the potential to influence the way numerous companies go about serving their clients and making their policies both understandable and accessible.Yet examined from another angle, this supposed achievement on the part of the Facebook-using masses just serves as another example of the laziness of a generation of people who think they can turn to a computer screen to change the world.For starters, how hard was it for an angry college student to create a new event on Facebook titled, say, “I Hate Facebook Terms of Use,” and invite all of his or her friends? And how hard was it to receive the electronic invitation to said group and click the “Join” button?Moreover, the uproar caused by a change in Facebook’s terms of use was blown entirely out of proportion. Sure, it’s scary to think that a company is figuratively walking around somewhere ready to brandish damning pictures of us or publish the comments we wrote to another friend. But using Facebook is a completely voluntary decision, as is posting pictures from your Spring Break in Cancun or you best friend’s twenty-first birthday party. The user determines the content placed on Facebook in the first place.Jacquielynn Floyd from the Dallas Morning News put it this way: “Face this: You are your own front line of defense in maintaining your privacy. This extends to vetting personal information on the Internet. In the same way, it means exercising discretion over allowing people to take hilarious party pictures of you that might wind up being published as the Bong Hit Heard ‘Round the World.”This is not to say that allowing consumers a significant amount of input in the creation of a company’s policies is not a good idea; it is. What is disheartening is the incredible amount of energy and effort people put into the Facebook campaign compared to the amount of effort that could have been devoted to much more worthy causes. Forms of activism like door-to-door campaigning, demonstrations, even petition signing and writing letters to the editors of newspapers have been trumped by point-and-click politics, a lazy way of being opinionated without having to try too hard.There are over 80,000 members of the “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” group that was created in response to the uproar over the site’s terms. It’s too easy to join a Facebook group organized for the sole purpose of protecting one’s own rights and to call it a movement. It is much more difficult to organize in large numbers to combat serious problems like poverty, homelessness, racism, or discrimination.Facebook has made it too easy for this generation to feel like they can make a difference. No, scratch that. It has made it too easy for this generation to feel like they have made a difference. Winning the supposed war against Facebook’s legalistic faux pas is not akin to making a difference in society. Assembling together and showing Facebook the strength of your virtual numbers may scare the company’s owners into revising a policy that was never that uproarious in the first place, but the same tactics will not suffice when it comes to working towards true progress in areas that actually do warrant our attention.It is time to take a step back from the computer screen and stop using our keyboards to feel like revolutionaries. Those scanning their screens at Facebook may have heard us this time, but I doubt that there are many others listening.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/18/09 6:56am)
IN CASE you haven’t heard, next month is Barbie’s birthday. The long-legged, thin-waisted blonde bombshell turns fifty this year, and there is no shortage of celebration leading up to the occasion.Mattel, Inc is taking advantage of the milestone by turning Barbie’s birthday into one giant marketing campaign designed to both boost the doll’s sales and celebrate its legacy. The campaign is already in full gear at New York’s Fashion Week, where an entire runway show was dedicated to outfitting real-life models in Barbie-inspired outfits and sending them marching out on the catwalk. One Barbie model even walked out with a real-life Ken.Yet in this attempt to honor the icon, Mattel is making Barbie’s legacy seem much less complicated than it actually is. Obviously, the company wants to sell dolls. And at a time of waning sales and a massive recession, there’s nothing like haute couture, big boobs, and — of course — Ken to get you back into a consumer state of mind.Barbie has been glorified at Fashion Week as a larger-than-life (though less-than-life-sized) figure. Press coverage of the events taking place over the past week has been kind to the doll. Rarely has there been mention of her rocky journey into the twenty-first century, her hip-widening plastic surgery procedure a few years ago, or the intense competition she faces from the newly arrived Bratz dolls. Moreover, press coverage and Fashion Week celebrations have cemented the doll’s transformation from an “it” to a “she.” Society has embraced the transformation of Barbie from plastic to person, blurring the line between childhood entertainment and reality. In doing so, we risk honoring a fictional female superstar for nothing more than having a teeny waist and a trendy wardrobe. Is this the brand of femininity we choose to celebrate?Admittedly, despite everything that is wrong with Barbie, the doll has withstood the test of time and remains today an internationally recognized figure. For better or worse, she is a goddess in the fashion world and at the same time a reminder of our childhood.More importantly, her very existence constantly forces us to explore issues of body image, gender identity, and cultural stereotypes. It is impossible to consume the Barbie brand without being confronted in some way by the controversies the doll inspires. In a somewhat roundabout way, Barbie has helped lead us to address serious health issues like bulimia and anorexia that were once taboo, if nonexistent, subjects. But before we gleefully celebrate Barbie’s fiftieth, we first have to consider the doll’s current status as a cultural symbol. Though undeniably a fashion icon, Barbie has often been a feminist’s punching bag, a plastic representation of all that is wrong with society’s perceptions of women and women’s bodies. After all, according to Vanderbilt University’s Wellness Resource Center, were Barbie to be the size of an actual human, she would be too skinny to have both a tibia and a fibula in her legs, and she wouldn’t be able to stand up because of the disproportionate size of her breasts and head.Furthermore, Barbie’s porcelain-like skin and radiant blonde hair are far from representative of the population at large. Mattel’s attempts to make Barbie more politically correct, either by putting her in a wheelchair or dressing her in fringed buckskin and a feathered headband, have been superficial and essentialist at best. So we should think twice before we board the Mattel train and party with Barbie for Fashion Week or for her birthday in March. Oddly enough — or perhaps fittingly, March is also Women’s History Month. At a time when we celebrate the heroines who have helped advance women’s rights in areas like employment and politics, Barbie’s achievements as a fashionista pale in comparison to the true trendsetters of their time — Jane Addams, Harriet Tubman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida B. Wells, and many more.Mattel is attempting to return Barbie to her glory days by making her, well, a “her” rather than just a doll, by treating her as a celebrity rather than a plastic mold covered in paint and miniature clothing. Those at Fashion Week have embraced this strategy, bowing down to Barbie as their fashion goddess. The question, then, is not so much whether we’ll be there to celebrate when Barbie’s fiftieth arrives in March. Instead, the question is, what will we be celebrating — an iconic doll we once played with as children, or an iconic woman we strive to be like today? Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/4582285/Barbies-50th-birthday-bonanza.html
(02/11/09 6:58am)
DID ANY other fourth-years feel a bit uncomfortable waiting in line last week to pick up a cap and gown? Slowly making my way toward the front of the line was like swimming through a sea of swarming sharks, each one in possession of a sales pitch and in search of a sucker. “Want a frame for that degree?” “How about a $3,000 watch for that wrist there?” It’s as if graduation has turned into a series of thirty-second infomercials, each designed to get you wastefully spending the money you should be using to plan for your post-graduate future.Graduation is a rite of passage, a joyful occasion that marks the moment at which we begin to transition out of our four-year collegiate bubble and transition into the unknown that lies beyond. Everything about the event screams of ceremony and pomp. We don our flowing gowns and dangle our tassels as we anxiously await the moment when we can finally clutch our degree, at last possessing the physical proof that we have succeeded.Yet this year’s massive sales campaign targeting nostalgic almost-graduates who are quick to swear their undying allegiance to their soon-to-be alma mater is evidence that perhaps the coveted degree has been replaced by an expensive gold class ring and a $400 dollar giant frame.There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to purchase something to commemorate four years spent at a prestigious institution cramming for exams, hanging out with your friends, and participating in age-old University traditions. However, something is clearly wrong when graduation is dominated by a rabid consumerism and commercialism that subsume the true meaning of the event itself. Buying a $30 Jefferson Cup and a $3,000 watch has become the new way of celebrating the past four years of your life.Cap and Gown Week featured an array of opportunities, most of which involved forking over hundreds of dollars in return for a memento to, in the words of the Fourth Year Trustees, “express your school spirit.” The long line at the bookstore appeared strategically designed to expose students to everything from rings to frames to graduation announcements before actually allowing them to pick up their (free) caps and gowns. It was more like a casino set up to trap people in and much less like a streamlined queue to allow people to get in and out between classes.Attempting to navigate my way through the advertisements for useless material goods in the e-mail that Fourth Year Trustees sent graduating students, I followed a link to the Class Watch website out of curiosity. While there, I came across this statement: “Commemoration and school pride can now be celebrated in a practical, meaningful, and fashionable way.” In what way is buying a watch with “UVA” pasted on its face a “meaningful” or even “fashionable” activity? Is it supposed to match the $500 class ring that we were all supposed to buy last year? Should I wear it to my first job interview in hopes that it might get me an ‘in’ with some random alumnus?Rather than a practical means of celebrating graduation, this all seems like a contest to see how much University bling a person can buy before May arrives and time is up. Furthermore, this is all going on amidst a class giving campaign in which fourth years are being asked to donate money to the things that really did matter to them during their four years here. When class watches and class giving appear alongside each other, the idea and act of giving money to the University is cheapened. A watch seems as important as a contribution to a CIO.It is time to rethink graduation and to reconsider what it means to celebrate such an event. Our generation is all about personalization, conforming to trends, and buying things. Companies like Class Watch, Jostens, and even the University Bookstore know this. Moreover, they exploit this: Why buy a standard diploma frame when you can have your very own suede-matted mahogany frame with a gold medallion at the top? Why not even go ahead and have your name etched in silver on the bottom?Graduating from college is an achievement, and remembering the time you spent there is important. But an expensive watch and a dozen shiny Jefferson Cups can’t stand in for that hard-earned diploma, the hundreds of pictures you took over the years, the twenty-page papers you agonized over for weeks, and those priceless moments you spent with some of the best friends you will ever have.Buying things does nothing to help hold onto these intangibles. Do you really need a ring on your finger in order to remember your time at the University?$3,000 may get you a pretty nice watch, and wearing a gold ring with a picture of the Rotunda on it may make you feel pretty special, but in the end, wearing these things only means you had enough money to buy them. Earning your diploma, on the other hand, should mean a whole lot more.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/03/09 7:22am)
WE WALK past them every day on the way to class. They loom over us like giant white gods, their shadows encompassing our small figures as we enter a building or walk down the Lawn. Their stark white paint glows in the sun, nearly blinding our eyes as we peer reverently up at them.Okay, so the columns aren’t that startling. Yet their presence is ubiquitous on Grounds and commands a sort of silent respect from students and faculty members alike. They are so ubiquitous, in fact, that we barely notice them as we go about our daily lives. We are so used to seeing these columns and to accepting them as reminders of Thomas Jefferson’s obsession with classical architecture that we rarely — if ever — stop to think about exactly what ideas they convey.Thanks to artist Mel Ziegler, this year’s participant in a University-sponsored residency program, we finally have a chance to stop and think — to think about their purpose, their color (or lack thereof), and about what they imply.For one thing, the numerous buildings on Grounds that feature these columns imply the belief in the academy as a solemn and grand environment. They bring to mind words like respect, perfection, and sophistication. Furthermore, since the columns were originally sandstone, the choice to paint them white implies an unspoken meaning in the color choice itself.All of this led Ziegler to the conclusion that the columns need a serious makeover, at least temporarily. Ziegler, a nationally acclaimed artist focused on creating community art projects, is working with the University’s student-led Arts Board to get approval from the Board of Visitors to transform a number of columns on different buildings from everyday white edifices to eye-catching multi-colored structures. If the proposal is approved, the colors selected for each column will be chosen by those who use the buildings that the columns adorn.Ashley Lefew, co-Chair of the Arts Board, said of Ziegler, “His work is often about engaging communities and questioning their history: two things that we are eager to have happen at UVA.” She added, “I think the fact that he is planning on working outside of a gallery setting is particularly interesting and will make this work more accessible to students and the wider Charlottesville community.”If the response to the proposal so far is any indication, Ziegler’s artistic vision may have already begun to take shape in an interesting way. The idea of painting the columns of Minor Hall or Clark Hall or — gasp! — the Academical Village — has been received by many as an effort to deface and debase some of the most prized possessions of the University. Faculty members and administrators appear hesitant, at best, to let the artist proceed with his plans, even though Ziegler has set aside funds to repaint the columns back to their ‘original’ white four weeks after his project and has even contacted Facilities Management to ensure their maintenance.What if the repainted column chips and bright blue shows through? What if a visitor to Grounds complains that they came to the University expecting to see neo-classical buildings, only to see a red-and-yellow striped column adorning Garrett Hall? What if people just don’t get it?The last question, at least, is not an issue. The uproar Ziegler’s project has already caused among those who have heard his proposal is evidence that his plan is working perfectly. Painting the columns is an artistic feat intended to foreground the issues and debates that are so often implicitly hidden beneath the tailored lawns and the solemn structures on Grounds. A painted column jars the senses; it upsets the balance so carefully established by the architecture here.Moreover, the issue created by Ziegler’s proposal reveals the debate over who really gets to decide what the columns look like. Who do these columns belong to? As students at the University, we are force-fed line after line about student self-governance, about working hard to make this University our own. We are encouraged to make our mark here and to take ownership of the institution that will inevitably have a major impact on our lives beyond our four years here. Yet when it comes to challenging the neo-classical tradition, when it comes to the idea of painting a column green—even if only for four weeks, we are told it is impossible.So what if orange paint shows through three years from now when a little chip of white paint falls off one of Cocke Hall’s columns? First of all, to calm your fears that the University’s architecture will be forever marred, there’s the simple fact that a little chip can be mended by a few brush strokes of that same old white paint. But won’t the color beneath make a great story to tell a visiting prospective or an interested tourist? Won’t it mean something that the University rose to the occasion when challenged to reconsider some of its most cherished traditions?The questions that will arise will not deface Thomas Jefferson’s vision or the University’s respect for its history. Instead, they will serve to remind us all that a little questioning—and perhaps a little color—never hurts.Amelia Meyer’s column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/28/09 5:27am)
THE FIVE seconds of awkward silence that tore through the presidential oath of office last Tuesday seemed to have awakened the entire country to the knowledge of grammatical rules that most have never bothered to enforce. Word order never appeared as important as it did when Chief Justice John Roberts went without written notes at the inauguration of President Barack Obama.Yet the uproar over the oath flub got me thinking about the importance we place on getting age-old pledges and traditions exactly right — word for word, step by step — rather than on thinking about the reasons they exist. In other words, we care more about whether President Obama placed the word “faithfully” in the right place and care less about the substance of his vow.The same applies to our own honor pledge, a time-honored tradition at the University, a 16-word sentence most students are required to write and sign before handing in any graded assignment: “On my honor as a student I have neither given nor received aid on this assignment.” It’s pasted, nailed, or taped to practically every wall in every academic building at the University, and it is firmly etched into the minds of most, if not all, students.Failure to write and sign the pledge on graded assignments can result in a zero, some professors warn — always the kind of threat you want to hear before cracking open that blue book. Yet because of this threat, students write the pledge, not out of a sense of duty to uphold the code’s meaning, but instead out of a fear that they will fail their midterm. The pledge is a reflex, not a reflection.And so, like the pledge, the president’s oath of office last Tuesday was more ceremony than anything else. Chief Justice Roberts’ belief that he could memorize the entire thing without any textual or visual aids is evidence of the meaninglessness of the oath itself. It could have said anything just as long as it was the same anything that 43 presidents before Obama had sworn to obey.According to NBC’s Pete Williams, although the oath was eventually retaken — this time with “faithfully” in its rightful, though apparently grammatically incorrect, place — none of the executive orders signed by the newly inaugurated president were re-authorized following the second oath. In other words, the man had been president all along, and the re-swearing-in was nothing more than a ceremonial effort to comfort the doubtful minds of the American people and of the pundits at Fox News.If professors find this same amount of comfort in the fact that students have taken 10 seconds to write one sentence on the front of their exam and sign it, so be it. But the pledge has obviously not done enough to deter people from cheating, nor does it even make sense in some cases. What does giving and receiving aid really mean, anyway? We use study guides issued by professors to cram for tests, we meet up for late-night study sessions before a big final, and sometimes we even offer our notes to friends who missed a day or two of class. We give and receive aid all the time.So perhaps it is time to get rid of a pointless pledge and to trust that students who are supposed to be part of a community of trust are adhering to its values. This adherence should be implicit, not explicit. The pledge isn’t likely to deter anyone who has cheated from turning in their assignment out of guilt or shame. And the ubiquitous nature of the pledge makes the idea of honor less convincing. Do we really have to be reminded to be honest students every time we walk into the classroom? Shouldn’t we be aware of these expectations beforehand?The same goes for the presidential oath of office. President Obama promised a lot of things in his inaugural address, and these promises were more profound and comforting than anything he said in an oath that lasted less than 30 seconds. Sure, it was appealing in its ceremonial power, in its symbolism and its official-sounding tone. But when it was over, more people paid attention to the placement of a single adverb than to the substance of what was said.Oaths and pledges survive as symbolic traditions, not as substantive reminders of why we do something or of how we should govern our actions. If we all had to come up with our own promise that we didn’t cheat, or that we’ll adhere to the principles and laws of society, then maybe we would think a little more about what we say and a little bit less about how we say it.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/21/09 5:00am)
CONVERSATIONS about race and racism abound in today’s society, having become especially trendy after President-elect Barack Obama’s historic presidential run and his election in November. Charlottesville, among other cities in Virginia, is now poised to engage in its own city-wide dialogue. Yet in a country that is still far from eliminating the racism that continues to exist in many of its institutions and its citizens, Charlottesville’s attempt to take part in meaningful dialogue still needs improvement if city officials truly hope to create a lasting change.A plan to address race relations in Charlottesville is only beginning to take shape. In an NBC 29 report, City Councilor Holly Edwards said major issues such as an educational achievement gap in city schools and the existence of impoverished African-American neighborhoods are some of the primary reasons for starting a community dialogue.The idea of a community dialogue can be a very productive one in the sense that it symbolizes city officials’ willingness to admit that a problem exists and that they must work to fix it. It also creates a forum in which people who are willing to participate with an open mind can gain a better understanding of their own viewpoints as well as those of others. It is not the most drastic action one could take to address issues of race and racism, but it is, at least, the start of something.Yet the risk of holding a community-wide dialogue on such a sensitive issue lies in the possibility that only those who see a problem will choose to participate. If the comments posted below NBC 29’s story are any indication, this is exactly what will happen. One person commented, “I value cultural differences. There is so much to learn from others, some people are only comfortable around people of [a] similar race and economic class and again no mediator is going to help that.” Another person was more explicit in his or her opinion: “Now the shills want us to attend ‘encounter groups’ where we can hug each other and all cry together. Not me — I have to work to support the slackers who have the time on their hands to attend all the ‘feel good’ grope sessions that our city council pays for with our money!” Looks like that person is sitting this one out.Another problem with the city’s plan to address race relations is its apparent lack of inclusion of members of the University community. Though no official plans had been released as of Sunday, it appears that the primary participants in these discussions will be community members outside of the University’s bounds. Yet the presence of students in the Charlottesville community cannot be ignored. Students take an active role in community events and programs; we are not confined to the Lawn. Moreover, University students continue to have a reputation — justified or not — for being oblivious of city-wide issues like poverty and racism. The University is not called “The Plantation” for nothing.Though most students only spend four years in Charlottesville before moving on to graduate school or the career world, their collective impact on the city is undeniable. Additionally, even if students come and go, the student culture fostered at the University continues beyond any individual’s term as a student.The University has had its own problems with racism and with addressing racial relations on Grounds. Whether you call them “incidents” or symptoms of a much greater problem, it is hard to ignore the continuing issues students and employees face. Each one of my four years at the University has included multiple instances of racist and derogatory remarks being directed towards — and often yelled at — non-white students, ongoing criticism of major organizations on Grounds for being racially exclusive, and an often misguided use of the term “self-segregation.” Simply put, students at the University are dealing with the same problems as other members of the Charlottesville community, and we are just as in need of a productive and continuing dialogue.Charlottesville’s City Council needs to find a way to create a legitimate and lasting program from the start. It should consider ways to get citizens with a multitude of perspectives involved. Extensive press coverage, ease of access to meetings, and trained moderators with roots in the community can all help make the dialogue effective. Perhaps the Council could even require local business owners and city employees to attend these sessions.Furthermore, it should make sure to reach out to the University community, and University officials should encourage students to get involved. It is time to address the obvious divide between campus and community, and a truly inclusive dialogue is a good place to begin.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(12/03/08 5:19am)
PICK YOUR color, pick your size, and pick your headline. For only $15 plus shipping and handling fees, a CNN Shirt can be yours. That’s right. Newly released in 2008 by America’s supposedly top news organization, the CNN Shirt is your chance to purchase the organization’s most popular, most entertaining news headlines printed conveniently on a tee.Today, T-shirts are bought and worn as one of the most reliable forms of self-expression and identity creation. They tell others who we are (“Kiss Me, I’m Irish,” “Little Miss Naughty”), what we think (“Gay? Fine By Me,” “Blondes Do It Better”), where we come from (“Virginia Is for Lovers,” “Girls Raised in the South”). They’re comfortable, non-gendered — at least in their fit, if not in their messages as well — and relatively cheap. In today’s world, where self-expression and self-importance reign supreme, T-shirts are a quintessential method of asserting one’s identity.But what exactly does the advent of the CNN Shirt say about society? It’s one thing to slap a provocative message on a T-shirt and wear it in the name of politics, or to don a shirt bearing the logo of your favorite sports team in the name of team spirit. But to slap the day’s B-section news stories on a T-shirt? Why not just paste the National Enquirer to your chest?The latest T-shirt headlines to choose from, according to CNN.com, include “Bag boy finds $10,000 in store bathroom,” “Turkey ‘flirts’ with TV reporter,” and “Peanut butter ‘miracle’ saves lives.” This hodge-podge of eye-catching but ultimately pointless news amounts to a blatant attempt by CNN to sell that which it (unfortunately) reports. It isn’t as if the network hasn’t already commercialized the news, turning 24-hour live coverage of world events into a lucrative business. But to actually sell the news as merchandise is beyond ridiculous.If you browse the most popular T-shirt headlines of 2008 on CNN.com, there appears momentarily to be a more hopeful side to this story in the fact that the most popular shirt reads “Obama makes history.” At least a political and historical achievement took top billing, you may say to yourself. Yet the second and third most popular headlines (“1 in 3 workers hung over at office” and “Victoria’s Secret sued for thong injury”) once again reaffirm the utterly outrageous undertaking that is the CNN Shirt.Not only do these shirts reflect poorly on CNN — the funds from the shirt sales don’t even go to charity — but they also call into question our own motives for wearing something so absurd. We tend to be extremely sensitive about the T-shirts we choose to wear. Our favorites are the ones we buy on an overseas vacation or the ones we receive after running that grueling half marathon. They mark our exploits and accomplishments, and they tell others what we think we’re all about.Yet wearing a CNN Shirt implies nothing more than the fact that we, like so many other Americans, only read the news for the headlines, and only the most weirdly interesting ones at that. It’s as if by wearing a shirt, we are announcing to the world that we do, in fact, skim the paper. Moreover, according to the CNN advertisement for the shirts, “There is a headline for everyone.” Whether your headline is “Roads made safer with cheese” or “How many birds will fit in a turkey?”, you probably won’t look like the smartest person in the room either way. The only statement you will be making is that your poor choice in dress is right on par with your poor choice in news.So when you’re doing your holiday shopping or looking for the perfect birthday gift for a friend, you may want to consider leaving the CNN Shirt alone. Buying one will not only assure CNN that it’s actually doing an admirable job of reporting the day’s major headlines (headlines like “Long-lost Furby look-alike is found” and “Church launches 7-day ‘sexperiment’”), but it will also confirm that today’s society wants nothing more than to read the most bizarre, irrelevant news stories while major events pass us by.Or perhaps, more hopefully, CNN’s new little venture, which began only this year, will fail miserably, collapsing in the realization that Americans are, in fact, smart enough to avoid the enticing lure of a glorified tabloid headline displayed unapologetically across their chests. After all, do we really want to walk around in a shirt announcing, “UFO in site, then ‘pfft’—it was gone”?Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/19/08 5:00am)
IT ISN’T often on Grounds that you see University students and Charlottesville residents collaborating together. It also isn’t often that you see about 100 of them walking across a giant bed in the middle of University Hall.On Saturday, the famed choreographer Bill T. Jones, 10 members of his dance company, and dozens more students and Charlottesville residents presented “100 Migrations,” a performance inspired by a planned celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday in 2009. The giant bed was the centerpiece of the program, invoking the memory of the assassinated president in his last dying hours. At the end of the piece, each performer stood in the middle of the bed and posed as the Emancipation Proclamation was slowly recited. Throughout the dance, community members and students were scattered in various groups, constantly moving and externalizing the emotions triggered by the memory of Lincoln, the Civil War, and the legacy of slavery. It was truly a sight to see.100 Migrations and the weeklong residency program featuring Jones began with the University’s first ever Assembly for the Arts, and it ended with the U-Hall performance. A multitude of organizations and individuals, including the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, various academic departments, the Office of African American and African Affairs, student-run organizations, and the Piedmont Council of the Arts, among others, helped sponsor the event. It is not everyday that these groups come together in the pursuit of the same goal, so this program will hopefully help establish a tradition of co-sponsorship for the future.It is refreshing to see the University work so hard to organize and sponsor an event like this, one that revolves around the arts — rather than athletics, for once — and, more importantly, one that brings the Charlottesville community and the University community together. In a year like any other, when the football team is floundering in its final weeks before the end of the season and when the University is facing massive budget cuts, the Jones residency is a diamond in the rough.The importance of the arts has been under-emphasized on Grounds for too long. For example, it has taken until now to build a permanent home for studio arts, and it wasn’t until last December that our first vice provost for the arts, Elizabeth Turner, was appointed to help bring events like the Jones residency to Grounds. The University boasts of its beautiful architecture, its picturesque Lawn, and the academic and creative strength of its various academic departments, yet only now have the arts been placed at the forefront of the institution’s agenda.More importantly, however, the University’s emphasis on community collaboration is a hopeful step towards bridging the gap between Grounds and the rest of Charlottesville. The divide between University students and events and the large Charlottesville community is painfully obvious and has been a point of contention for residents for years. Though one residency program cannot possibly bridge this gap on its own, it can open the door to a stronger relationship in the future.The focus of Jones’ performance is quite fitting given what the residency is attempting to accomplish. The program’s focus on Lincoln’s legacy and the meaning of his identity today calls for personal and collective introspection, a consideration of what our history means in the context of today. Jones stated at the inaugural Assembly for the Arts that he wanted to use this particular program to “organize various elements into something that maybe connects to you and your father, you and your parents, you and your place in history, you in the act of looking, you in the act of remembering.” In challenging us all to think about and articulate our own relationship to the layered and controversial ideas revolving around Lincoln’s legacy, Jones is also allowing us to come together as we search for meaning. At a University where racial tension is still an issue, this program takes an important step toward addressing it.At no time throughout this week was that more evident than on Saturday when 100 people of various backgrounds and ages presented to the rest of us an image of collaboration and self-expression. On the most surface level, it is hard to overlook the importance of this collaboration and the opportunities it symbolizes.Thomas Skalak, vice president for research at the University and co-host of the inaugural Assembly for the Arts, said of Jones’ visit, “It is our hope that this event on the historic grounds of U.Va. will […] serve as a metaphor for our own way forward at the intersection of art, science, and innovation.” What’s more, it can serve as a metaphor for how we can all deal with the past and its effects on the present.The Bill T. Jones residency, and specifically the performance of “100 Migrations,” displayed the University’s great potential to provide a place for truly revolutionary artistic and communal collaboration. Focusing on the arts allows for the exploration of a multitude of messages, questions and meanings. It gives us the opportunity to creatively and freely reflect on the palpable political and social issues of our time, and it also gives us a way to interact with those around us. Who knows where that might lead us?Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/12/08 9:06am)
BY NOW we’ve all had time to comprehend how momentous it was for Virginia to change from red to blue in the 2008 presidential election. “Not since 1964 ...” was how most reporters’ sentences began last Tuesday night. Seeing blue elicited cheers of hope and optimism from supporters of President-elect Barack Obama. Yet some areas of the state stubbornly stayed red. Lynchburg, my hometown and unfortunately the home of Liberty University as well, was one of those areas. If Liberty students have anything to say about future elections, it is likely that Lynchburg will remain red for years to come.Yet despite the students’ newfound political voice, it is doubtful they will use their numbers to encourage other Lynchburg citizens to vote. Confined to their own conservative Christian bubble, Liberty students will continue to overlook obligations to the larger community. They will only use their numbers to further their own social and political views while they ignore the rest of their fellow citizens.Growing up 15 minutes away from Liberty University was like being forced to share my toys with a large and pugnacious bully. He took what was mine, usually broke it, and then handed it back to me in a shattered mess. That’s how it felt every time the school’s ultra-conservative evangelical founder Jerry Falwell spouted off an ignorant and hateful comment about one population or another, and that’s how it felt in 2004 as the school heralded the return of George W. Bush to the White House for four more agonizing years. I tried in vain to disassociate my hometown from the hateful messages elicited from Liberty’s campus, messages that often made headlines and painted Lynchburg as a backwards haven of intolerance. I gave my wholehearted support to certain political candidates whose policies were antithetical to those that Liberty supported, only to watch as my efforts were crushed under the weight of the conservative masses led by the king of bullies himself, Papa Falwell.During this year’s campaign, Liberty went above and beyond its usual political activities, unyieldingly pushing its students toward the polls in an effort to secure the presidency for Republican candidate John McCain. Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. cancelled classes, provided buses to the polls, and espoused repeatedly the importance of voting on Election Day. That’s all well and good, except for the fact that getting out the vote was all about ensuring a Republican victory and had nothing to do with exercising one’s right as a citizen, regardless of one’s political leanings. The City Council representative of Liberty’s ward even said in the Lynchburg’s newspaper, the News and Advance, “I would hope [Liberty students] would vote for limited government and greater freedom.” Falwell, Jr. himself vocally distinguished the campus from supporters of the Obama campaign, characterizing those who backed McCain as “our folks.”Lynchburg eventually went for McCain, albeit barely — 51 percent of the votes went to the conservative candidate, and the 4,200 newly registered Liberty students no doubt helped him win. Once again, the big bully had come along and crushed my spirit. It wasn’t that McCain had carried my hometown that made me so upset as much as it was the fact that Liberty alone, the Evil Empire of the Hill City, had made the decision. Following the election, news story after news story focused on Liberty’s impact on the election, and more frighteningly, its potential impact on future elections. “I think without [Liberty students] Obama would have carried the city,” Falwell, Jr. told a news reporter Nov. 5. “And I think that’s a clear indication of how much influence these student voters will have in future elections.” His words still make me shudder.With so many students expressing their electoral power, it is disheartening to see it go to little use. The most hopeful outcome of the entire election was the amazing increase in voter turnout, the fact that so many previously silent citizens decided to get out and voice their opinions. But Liberty had nothing to do with this increase. Their voter registration campaigns were restricted to Liberty students.In the historically black neighborhoods of Lynchburg, according to the News and Advance, voter turnout reached 57 percent. Liberty’s turnout, however, was even higher, reaching 70 percent — the largest turnout percentage in the city.Regardless of Liberty’s political leanings, what is most disheartening about all of this is the fact that students are not choosing to utilize their newly realized political power to generate higher voter turnout in the rest of the city. If expressing one’s political voice is truly so important, why not encourage others around the city to get out and vote as well? That is the moral choice. Instead, Liberty made the partisan choice. For them, influence means imparting their own hegemonic worldview on others rather than empowering those who lack a strong social and political voice. If you don’t vote their way, they imply, you shouldn’t vote at all.Liberty will no doubt continue to fill its role as town bully for years to come. But students and administrators should stop and think before backing their next conservative candidate. Is it morally responsible to utilize your resources to further your own partisan agenda, ignorant of the rest of the world around you? Or is it your unspoken duty — moral, Christian, or otherwise — to empower as many people as you can, regardless of their political opinions, in the name of, for lack of a better word, liberty?Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/05/08 9:25am)
THE OPENING scene of West Side Story is so familiar: a series of aerial shots of New York City, an organized jumble of streets, buildings and cars. A singular whistle permeates the air, and suddenly we see a pack of hoodlums clustered on a concrete playground. Soon, the Jets are dancing through the back streets of New York.When the Virginia Film Festival announced its schedule for this year’s program, themed “Aliens!” I was admittedly suspicious of the inclusion of certain films centered around issues of immigration. The term “alien” is at best a questionable term when used in reference to undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Why call attention to this pejorative term by including films, like West Side Story, that are by or about immigrants? Why equate immigrant populations with extraterrestrials, the green, oval-eyed beings that saturate our movies and cartoons? Film Festival Artistic Director Richard Herskowitz explained in a press release that, given the fact that immigration is such a hot political topic, “it seemed worth finding films that will allow audiences to question and debate the use of the term in defining immigrant populations.” Regardless of his intent, or perhaps in spite of it, I still remain suspicious of the fact that watching a movie will engage us in a larger conversation about racism, cultural identity and acceptance. Herskowitz’s belief in the power of cinema is misguided: To use the term “alien” in the context of films about immigration is not to question the validity of such a word, but instead - however unintentionally - to legitimize it as a valid description of an outsider population.Before seeing West Side Story at the festival on Friday, like many other attendees of the screening, I already understood the ultimate message of the movie. The battle between the Sharks and the Jets is not a duel between families, but between cultures, one considered distinctly American, the other labeled as distinctively foreign. The drama concludes when everything is lost: Maria has lost her true love, the gangs have lost their leaders, the city has lost its status as a symbol of promise and opportunity. From here, no one can do anything but hope to rebuild, this time on a foundation much more solid than the faulty one formed from racism and hate. By the end of the film, even the audience has lost its innocence. We are bluntly told that if these are the rules we choose to live by, then this is the outcome of the game we play.But what else are we told? We are not told by the festival organizers that Natalie Wood, the actress who played Puerto Rican immigrant Maria, was actually the daughter of Russian immigrants, and that her voice was dubbed over by a Puerto Rican actress. We are not told that the actor who played Maria’s brother Bernardo was also not Hispanic but of Greek origin. Additionally, the playwright and the two directors of the film were born in America and were not of Hispanic origin. Nowhere before or after the screening did organizers attempt to start a dialogue about the cultural assumptions made during the writing and filming of the movie. No one openly stated that “alien” is a derogatory term that should never be used to describe a human being.So on one hand, I can understand Hersowitz’s assumption that putting a pejorative term out in the open can engender a lot of productive dialogue, under certain conditions. But throwing a word out there in the context of a film about immigrants without initiating a dialogue isn’t helping anything. The festival organizers took a film festival intended to entertain too far by attempting half-heartedly to investigate more important historical and social questions.Forty-seven years after its debut, West Side Story is in many ways an outdated depiction of a cultural group as a foreign “other” rife with stereotypes. Yes, the Puerto Ricans should be accepted, the film implies, but it is still okay to characterize them as hot-tempered and sensual. Such an implication detracts from the film’s ultimate message. If we are truly supposed to understand each other in order to live and work together harmoniously, how can that understanding take place if we rely on cultural stereotypes and naturalized traits as definitions of what it means to be Puerto Rican — or Mexican, or Chinese, or white, or black? Nowhere did the Virginia Film Festival attempt to make such statements. Herskowitz and others began a debate without equipping viewers to participate in it. They sparked controversy, but they did not resolve it.In the end, though the festival’s in-your-face attempt to call into question how we go about defining the people we encounter in our daily lives — whether in person or on the news — certainly tries to force us to stop and think, for all of its poking and prodding at the question of how we define others, the film festival’s “Aliens!” theme can only say so much. Just as Doc asked the Jets in response to their continuous attacks on their Puerto Rican counterparts, “What does it take to get through to you?”It will certainly take more than a movie.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/29/08 5:51am)
NEW YORK Times columnist Joshua Kurlantzick says in his travel article “36 Hours in Charlottesville, Va.” that “arriving in Charlottesville from the lush, rural Virginia countryside, you almost feel like you’ve stepped back into ancient Rome.” What follows is an elaboration of this statement, a description of Charlottesville as a city that is classical in appearance, European in feel, and quaintly Southern in taste. Kurlantzick relies on readers’ common assumptions of what this kind of culture implies in order to explain his perception of Charlottesville as some sort of ideal Southern paradise.Conversely, take Saturday’s Culturefest, where more than 20 University CIOs performed dances, prepared food and put on a fashion show in order to demonstrate the customs and traditions of their respective cultures. What Culturefest lacked was a more inclusive view of culture. Organizations without an ethnicity in their title were absent from the program predominantly because students have come to perceive such an event as focusing on non-Western and non-white cultures only. James Burney, the co-director of the University Program Council’s Art and Enrichment Committee, which sponsored the event along with Student Council, said, “We sent the Culturefest invitation to pretty much everyone this year: IFC/ISC, Multicultural Greek Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council, and all CIOs and it was still the usual group of people.” Both of these cases — Kurlantzick’s elitist notion of culture and students’ notion of culture as something possessed by the non-white “other” — confirm that it is time to engage in a more universal dialogue about what exactly culture means.Kurlantzick sticks to the high culture theme throughout his travel article, describing the downtown mall as a rich haven for artists, street performers, and musicians, peopled by casual diners relaxing at outdoor cafes. He also writes about unassuming farmhouses speckled throughout the rolling mountains, wineries whose regional vintage would make Thomas Jefferson proud, a “Gone With the Wind-style Southern mansion” (the Clifton Inn), and “dining amid the ruins” at the Palladio Restaurant in Barboursville. If I hadn’t lived here for the past four years, I wouldn’t recognize the place from the description, not because all of this doesn’t exist, but because the culture of Charlottesville is more than just fine wines and quaint cafes.But it isn’t just what Kurlantzick says about the Charlottesville scene: it is also what he doesn’t say. Nowhere does he mention the city’s various music venues — save for Miller’s, at which he recommends catching the “famed bebop jazz trumpeter” John D’earth. The restaurants he recommends are all upscale regional gourmet in fare, and he omits mention of the dozens of other cuisines available to the weekend traveler. Finally, he suggests a stop at the Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection as a “fascinating detour” filled with “stark and sometimes inscrutable works of art.” The art museum, for the writer, is a detour rather than a stop along the way, a break from high culture and a peek into the exotic world of a cultural other.I could go on about Kurlantzick’s perception of Charlottesville, but I think you get the picture. What his article amounts to in the end is an endorsement of the age-old model of Western cultural superiority, of columned buildings, presidential houses, and wineries as the quintessential definition of American high culture. Everything else is disregarded as an illegitimate tourist destination.Similarly, for all the work Culturefest does to give CIOs the opportunity to make themselves visible to the University community, the divide between those who decide to participate and those who do not makes evident exactly what students think about culture. It is quite illuminating to look at who is on stage and who is in the audience. The physical divide between these two groups mirrors the unspoken divide that we live with everyday on Grounds, the divide between who we think constitutes a culture and who we think defines the norm.The point is that culture continues to lack definition. For some, like Kurlantzick, high culture implies elite, European-style living or a Scarlett O’Hara-like outlook on Southern history. It’s the only culture that counts. And while Kluge-Ruhe may offer a glimpse into aboriginal life in Australia, that culture is something to be gawked at rather than enacted. It is intriguing, but for Kurlantzick, it is not attractive. For others, like some who attended Culturefest on Saturday, culture amounts to anything that is deviant from the mainstream. It is something to be gawked at and somehow understood by observing a dance, listening to a song, or reading a poster about another country. Neither definition is tenable, and both are highly dangerous. Kurlantzick’s version of Charlottesville can easily be found if people come looking for it. Hopefully, however, that is not all that they will see. The same applies to Culturefest. While it is entertaining to watch the Indian Student Association dance for 10 minutes, such an act hardly counts as cultural enlightenment. So before we collectively commence once again to construct our own notions of a culture, we should take the time to think — and to talk — about exactly what culture means. If we are truly able to do this, we may arrive at some striking conclusions. Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/22/08 6:59am)
THERE’S nothing like turning on Saturday Night Live at the end of another long week of hearing political attack after political attack. Just when Sarah Palin’s run-on sentences become so nonsensical that you almost sympathize with her total inability to sound intelligent, Tina Fey’s dead-on impersonation of her reminds you that you are not alone in your frustration. Just as the incessant arguing of television’s most annoyingly opinionated political pundits makes you tighten your fists in irritation, the familiar sound of The Daily Show’s theme music fills the air — and you — with relief.Ever since the presidential campaign began, and arguably much earlier than that, we have relied on comedians, YouTube videos, political cartoons and satirical blogs to remind us exactly how much of a farce this entire period has been. In the space separating the left and right wings, the liberals from the conservatives, political humor beckons to both sides. So why do we continue to take politics so seriously when it appears that in the absence of seriousness, we can all come together and laugh at how ridiculous our political institutions have become?That is not to say I condone embracing “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” as your only news source. There is something to be said for actually picking up a newspaper and reading more than just the headlines. However, when the news inevitably gets to be too much, political comedians come to the rescue. Not only do they help us find something to laugh at, but they also offer us comfort by reminding us that ridiculous statements, whether they are racist, misogynist, naïve or misguided, make the most sensible of us cringe in disbelief and shame. They illuminate the absurdity of these comments, and in doing so, they allow us to come together in laughter.Not only is the most pressing news dealt with and processed by comedians and humorists through various forms of media: Sometimes the most pressing news revolves around these very media. The announcement that Sarah Palin — yes, the actual candidate, not one of the many YouTube impersonators — would appear on Saturday Night Live became one of the only breaking news stories that didn’t involve the economy, Bill Ayers or the War in Iraq. According to the Associated Press, her appearance on the show gave NBC its highest ratings in 14 years.Even the two major presidential candidates have been able to shed their partisan exteriors in pursuit of a little fun, attracting the attention of the news media at the same time. Both Barack Obama and John McCain recently exchanged jabs at the Al Smith Dinner, a charity event at which presidential candidates who attend have traditionally given comedic speeches. Both men were in fine form, and it was almost refreshing to see McCain finally smile naturally instead of forcing a spectacularly creepy half-grin. Reviewing the Smith Dinner, Wall Street Journal columnist Laura Meckler wrote, “Both men offered good-natured and well-crafted nods to their own foibles as well as gently placed digs at their opponents. The result was a remarkable night of comity in a presidential campaign that has been at times brutally tough.” If only we could have a few more remarkable nights.Today, we tend to paint critics and comedians like Jon Stewart and Tina Fey as heroes who are far more representative of our worldview than actual politicians and political experts. Perhaps this is because politics is such a dirty game, and we question the motives of anyone who opts to play it. Or perhaps it is because deep down, we understand the absurdity of it all, and that the game is not so much dirty as it is ridiculous. Regardless of why — personally, I’m a proponent of the latter explanation — the fact is that for a lot of Americans, the light at the end of the electoral tunnel is not just the victory of either Barack Obama or John McCain. Instead, the light is found in listening to those who truly speak to us, whose message is clear and blunt, straightforward and free of hidden agendas.This belief in the freeing nature of humor is what will hopefully help bandage the rifts that have been growing throughout the country — political rifts, racial rifts, ethnic rifts, class rifts. The election of a new president, whoever he may be, will no doubt incite a variety of reactions among Americans. I doubt very strongly, however, that it will ever be able to incite one single reaction among us all: laughter.Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesday in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.