14 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/24/10 6:29am)
As executive editor, I spent a lot of time becoming familiar with the workings of Student Council and the Honor Committee. I was completely blown away by the amount of information I did not know about these student bodies. Even after spending a year at the Cavalier Daily copy editing and writing opinion columns, and reading the paper nearly every day, I still had to do a lot of research and ask a lot of questions about any issue pertaining to the University's student self-governance organizations. And I am still vastly uninformed about many things within Council and the Committee that did not come up during my term. From this I learned two things: the students who are part of these entities, especially the ones in charge, know their constitutions and by-laws backwards and forwards. And they are pretty much the only ones on Grounds who can say that. Most students simply do not pay a lot of attention to Student Council or the Honor Committee until a controversy arises, and even then they become focused on one issue and fail to learn more about the body and its general workings at the University.
(01/30/09 8:58am)
CURRENTLY the commonwealth of Virginia does not allow anyone to carry a firearm on school property, including university property. A bill has been introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates that would allow full-time faculty members to carry a concealed weapon on the grounds of the public university they are employed by . Allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to bring a concealed weapon on to university campuses is the best defense available against violent attacks. Students should also be allowed to carry concealed weapons, but this bill is a step in the right direction for securing universities across the commonwealth.This law is necessary because those who want to enact violence will not be deterred by the illegality of bringing a concealed weapon on a university campus. That will only be the first law they break. Therefore law-abiding citizens who only desire to use a firearm in self-defense must be allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon. In order to receive a carry and conceal weapon permit in Virginia, residents must pass a court-approved firearms training course and submit an application to their local court. The court has 45 days to issue or deny a permit. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The traits associated with gun owners show virtually no statistical association with criminal or violent behavior. If anything, gun ownership is inversely correlated with criminal characteristics.” Allowing faculty members, who have been determined to be responsible and law-abiding citizens, to carry a concealed weapon acts both as a backup to University police forces and a deterrent to attacks ever happening in the first place. Knowing that concealed weapons are legal and likely present on a university campus will deter most criminals. As seen by the Virginia Tech shootings, however, crimes committed on a university campus can be perpetrated by psychopathic individuals. In such an instance, university police may be minutes away from the scene. Concealed weapons carriers can provide an instantaneous response. Whether scaring the assailant off or being able to disarm him, the diversion created by revealing a concealed weapon can save lives. Studies have shown that making concealed weapons legal reduces violent crime. John R. Lott, Jr., a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, has done multiple studies on the subject and all support the conclusion that concealed carry laws cause a decrease in violent crimes. In a commentary published on July 13, 2003, in The Los Angeles Times, Lott said, “Examining all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 shows that on average, states that adopt right-to-carry laws experience a 60 percent drop in the rates at which the attacks occur, and a 78 percent drop in the rates at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.” This is because criminals try to avoid concealed weapons carriers and tend to commit more personal property offenses like grand larceny. The end result is that people are safer, though the same cannot be said of their possessions. On a university campus, the most important safety concern is for the university’s people. Universities are not like grade schools, restricted to one building that has a police officer constantly present. University campuses are open to everyone, and the police can only be in so many places at once.Right now there is nothing to prevent a person from carrying a concealed weapon on a university campus. If a weapon is concealed, no one is the wiser until someone gets hurt. It is unlikely law-abiding citizens will bring a weapon on to a university campus under the current law. This makes it imperative that such law-abiding citizens be allowed to do so. There is no reason an eligible student should not also be allowed to carry a concealed weapon onto a university campus. If the commonwealth has determined that citizen should receive a carry and conceal weapon permit, allowing a student to carry concealed firearms can only increase the security of the campus. In the event an attack occurred, there would only be one person in the room allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and the faculty member may or may not be exercising that right. Students should also be given the opportunity to defend themselves and should not have to rely on faculty members to do it for them. The deterrence and additional security provided by allowing concealed firearms on university campuses could only be enhanced by allowing students the same rights as faculty members.Since concealed carry laws have been shown to decrease violent crime, they should most certainly be incorporated into the security plans for university campuses. Allowing faculty members to carry concealed weapons is a good first step towards increasing security. When every person on a university campus has the right to defend themselves, there will be less crime and the university will be a safer place.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/23/09 6:59am)
THIS MONDAY was a day off from classes in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. This federal holiday always falls on the third Monday in January, meant to be around King’s birthday, which is Jan. 15. Jan. 19 was also the celebration of an actual birthday — the bicentennial of Edgar Allan Poe’s. I am sure this is a surprise to many, since the University has so studiously ignored the occasion. While Edgar Allan Poe cannot be said to merit the same acknowledgement as King, the 200-year anniversary of his birth should have been commemorated by the University.The absence of anything to mark the occasion in Charlottesville was picked up by The Hook in a column published last week. According to The Hook, “There are literally dozens of events scattered among Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, and Richmond.” Among these events was a lecture at the University of Richmond, which is not among the colleges that Poe attended (in addition to the University, he also attended West Point). Why then, nothing in Charlottesville? Poe is certainly one of the University’s more distinguished students. His room on the West Range has been set aside and returned to the condition it was in while Poe was here, raven and all. Perhaps the University considered that a sufficient enough celebration of Poe for all the rest of its days. But in addition to the University’s oversight, no student groups chose to recognize the event.13 West Range is preserved by the Raven Society, which also failed to recognize the bicentennial on the actual day. The group’s very name, according to its Web site, “honor[s] the most famous poem of the University’s most famous poet.” Obviously Poe cannot be said to be the University’s most famous writer. As the University was founded by Thomas Jefferson, perhaps it is difficult to get excited about a mere literary figure, no matter how important. Jefferson was the very definition of a Renaissance man and Poe only a writer and a drunk. According to the University, “Poe is generally recognized as the father of the genre of the detective story as well as a major influence on the literature of terror and horror,” and yet that still isn’t enough to grant him some recognition on his birthday. While the Jefferson Society is proud to claim Poe as a former member, it also did nothing to publicly celebrate the bicentennial. According to its Web site, it occasionally does readings of Poe’s works in keeping with its literary origins, and yet did nothing on Poe’s bicentennial.The exhibition “From Out That Shadow: The Life and Legacy of Edgar Allan Poe” will run from March to August in the Harrison Institute and is “the most comprehensive exhibition ever devoted to Poe,” according to the University Library’s press release. The reason for the March opening has to do with dates the gallery would be open and when items could be loaned out, according to University Library Exhibits Coordinator Mercy Quintos Procaccini. The exhibition will include not only original manuscripts but also records of Poe’s time at the University and many other rare pieces of Poe history that make it well worth the wait. Despite the commendable efforts of the University Library in putting on this exhibition, which is to coincide with the bicentennial year, it is still shocking nothing was planned for Jan. 19, especially considering that The Edgar A. Poe Bicentennial Symposium (1809 – 2009) is to be held at the Harrison Institute in April. Procaccini noted that there is no umbrella planning organization for the Poe bicentennial, which is likely the cause of this egregious oversight. “The library has its piece of it, and anything else was left up to others in the University system,” said Procaccini.With all the free time students had Monday, some of them — myself included — would have enjoyed attending a reading of “The Raven” or a screening of one of the many movies based on Poe’s short stories. Perhaps the University did not want to detract attention from the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Yet I think both occasions could have been celebrated without detracting from each other. This moment for celebration has slipped by, and while the exhibition and events planned for later this year will certainly commemorate the bicentennial, the University has missed an opportunity to celebrate such a distinguished former student. Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/16/09 9:06am)
THE VIRGINIA General Assembly convened for the first time this year on Jan. 14, and the most pressing issue on its agenda will be balancing the state budget. The current budget shortfall for Virginia is estimated at $3.2 billion and could possibly reach $4 billion due to falling tax revenues. Along with other cost cutting measures, Gov. Tim Kaine proposed releasing 1,000 non-violent inmates from state prisons 90 days early. This measure is estimated to save $5 million by 2010 and should be enacted quickly in order to have the maximum fiscal benefit to the state. Though public safety must be taken into consideration, if handled correctly this would be an easy way to reduce the state budget without cutting crucial government programs such as education. Additionally, this fiscal crisis provides an opportunity to reconsider the state prison system and how it may best ensure public safety in the most cost-effective manner.Virginia is not the only state considering the early release of prisoners in order to save money. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is looking to reduce the prison population by 15,000, and Kentucky has gone so far as to release even violent offenders in a cost-cutting measure that released almost 2,000 prisoners early. Rhode Island also proposed reductions in prison time for good behavior that included violent criminals. The need for public safety cannot be pushed aside for budget cuts, but budget reductions are necessary and can be accomplished without compromising the safety of Virginia’s citizens. Kaine’s proposal would leave the decision as to which prisoners were released early up to the director of the Virginia Department of Corrections and does specify that only nonviolent inmates are to be released. A potential problem with this proposal lies in the ambiguity associated with defining a nonviolent prisoner. An inmate who is currently incarcerated for a nonviolent crime but that has a previous conviction of a violent crime could potentially be considered for release. Since sentences are generally longer for repeat offenders, it makes sense to have previously violent criminals serve the entire sentence for a nonviolent crime. Before this measure is enacted, the term nonviolent needs to be defined in such a way as to include a criminal’s entire record. If only truly nonviolent prisoners were released, public safety would not be adversely affected, and the state could save its resources. Parole was abolished in Virginia in 1995, although currently, inmates can earn up to a 15 percent reduction in their sentence for good behavior. Another way to cut costs would be to increase the reduction across the board for nonviolent prisoners and especially for first time offenders. Longer prison terms are not associated with a reduction in repeat offenses. While imprisonment does serve to punish offenders, the length of a prison term is unrelated to correcting behavior. Therefore, it does not make sense to have lengthy prison sentences for nonviolent offenders. Virginia should take this opportunity to cut costs now, and in the future should revisit incarceration policies to allow for punishment of criminals in the most cost-effective manner. Several states are instituting policies to send drug offenders to rehab instead of prison; this is much less expensive than prison and has a better chance of reforming the criminals’ behavior. Other states like Texas and Kansas release prisoners early after they complete specific programs in prison and are expanding their treatment and deterrent programs to reduce the numbers headed into prison.While a complete overhaul of the prison system will not come quickly or without cost, the budget crunch provides an ideal opening to address what is and is not working in state prisons. All state agencies could stand to be made more efficient, but reducing the number of inmates will have an immediate affect on the state budget. As long as the early release prisoners are nonviolent offenders, public safety will not be adversely affected, and there can be no reason not to enact this proposal. Releasing nonviolent prisoners early is a cost-cutting measure that would be beneficial for all even without the budget shortfall. The General Assembly should act quickly to save the taxpayers’ money and preserve vital government programs that are needed more than ever in a recession.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(12/05/08 8:21am)
STUDENT COUNCIL recently submitted a proposal to the University’s Parking and Transportation Committee to implement free late-night parking in the Central Grounds Parking Garage next to Newcomb Hall. This proposal is, more than anything else, aimed at providing students a safe way to get home after late nights in the library. Similarly, earlier this semester Council unveiled FreeRide, a program that allows Council to pick up the tab for any late-night taxi rides home. Both of these projects are meant to prevent students from walking home late at night. Clearly, Council feels strongly that students should not be walking home late at night. The question is, why don’t students feel the same way?SafeRide was started as a joint venture between the University Police Department and Council in the 1980s. Its main purpose is to provide students who would otherwise have to walk home alone after midnight a safe alternative. Many of the current complaints against SafeRide include the amount of time students have to wait in order to get picked up and then the additional time spent waiting to be dropped off. SafeRide drops students off in the order they are picked up, but also make detours to pick up more students. And the waiting only starts once you get through to SafeRide. Sometimes the call goes straight to voice mail, forcing students to call again and again, or just to give up. This was a major reason behind the creation of FreeRide — a taxi ride is much faster and more direct, although that comes at a cost to Council. After the initial trial period, it will be difficult to continue funding FreeRide. One possible source of funds could come from an increase in Student Activity Fees. This may be worth it if it prompts more students to get home safely, instead of walking. SafeRide and FreeRide attempt to fill the same need, and it is interesting that Council has come up with the second program. Since students are unwilling to wait for SafeRide and would rather walk home, regardless of the safety concerns, FreeRide is attempting to give students a greater incentive to wait for a ride by making a safe way home quick and convenient. The problem with this solution is that it removes responsibility from the students to provide for their own safety and transportation. The fact that many students would rather make the unsafe trek home than wait for SafeRide is a reflection both on their poor judgement and on the effectiveness of SafeRide. If students are out late at night, they should have a plan to get home safely. As adults, it is our own responsibility to ensure our well-being, and that includes taking necessary precautions. Too often students throw out caution in favor of convenience. If a late night is unplanned and students find themselves without a plan to get home, that is what SafeRide is for. FreeRide has been created because too many students are unwilling to wait and unwilling to pay. The existing Dean of Student’s Yellow Cab program allows students to take a taxi home and pay at a later date. Cab fare seems a small price to pay for safety, and yet too many students would rather walk.The free late-night parking program is one way Council is working to hand responsibility over to the students. Student Council President Matt Schrimper said, “This program gives students more ownership and responsibility over their own willingness to get home safely.” Though I have my own concerns about students driving home in the middle of the night, when they would be less alert and more prone to mistakes, again, that is under the control of the students. The free late-night parking program gives students an incentive to provide for their own safe return from the library, and if they feel too tired to drive, SafeRide and FreeRide are still available. This program makes it easier for students to take responsibility over their own safety, and I hope many students will take advantage of it.Students like to believe that they are invincible, that nothing bad will happen to them. It’s not just something you hear about on the news. Walking home late at night is dangerous and should not be taken so lightly. That Council felt the need to create FreeRide and the late-night parking program tells me that students are not acting safely. While the late-night parking program will not be operational this semester, I hope students will utilize the extended bus hours as well as SafeRide and FreeRide to get home from the library late at night during exams. With all of these programs aimed at getting students home, it seems that more students need to take their safety as seriously as Council does. Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/21/08 5:56am)
THIS WEEK, Congress debated whether or not to bail out the American auto industry, specifically the Big Three companies of General Motors, Ford Motors and Chrysler. Of these three, only GM is in danger of immediate bankruptcy without federal intervention. Once again, the American people may be asked to pay for corporate mistakes. Since the original federal bailout of Wall Street has done little to improve the economy and is only barely serving to keep things from getting worse, it would be reckless for the federal government to take on more corporate debt at the expense of the taxpayers.One source of trouble for the Big Three is that in recent years, most of their auto sales have come from SUVs and trucks. However, these gas-guzzlers were not destined to be on top forever. It would seem good business sense to anticipate the direction the market was headed and shift production to meet demand. GM, Ford and Chrysler lagged behind in developing hybrid vehicles because they had little capital to invest after paying the union workers artificially high wages. Toyota and other foreign companies not beholden to unions were able to develop hybrid vehicles, just in time for the spike in gas prices this summer. Demand for trucks and SUVs has plummeted, and U.S. automakers’ sales along with it.At best, bailing out the Big Three would be a stop-gap to keep them afloat a few more years. Supporters of the bailout say this is all they need, since in 2010, a deal struck with the United Auto Workers union shifts retirees’ health-care costs from the corporations to union-controlled trust funds, along with other cost-cutting measures. A large part of why the Big Three are no longer competitive is pressure from the unions for high wages, expansive health care and restrictions on layoffs. If a company wants to lay off union workers, it has to buy them out. In the past four years, GM has laid off 43,000 union workers in an effort to reduce costs. If GM were forced to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, in which the company sheds contracts that it cannot afford while still continuing to operate, it would give the company a chance to get out of contracts with unions and pay workers a lower, more competitive wage. While consumers may be hesitant to purchase vehicles from a bankrupt manufacturer, GM would have the opportunity to become more efficient and competitive to salvage the company. It is reasonable to expect that a company take on the responsibility for its own poor management and inability to say no to unions. Proponents of the auto industry bailout are saying that between factories, dealerships and suppliers, 1.6 million American jobs are tied to the Big Three. However, all of these jobs would be lost only if all three companies declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in which the company shuts down and sells off assets to cover debt. It is extremely unlikely that this will happen, and if it did, it would not happen all at once. Ford and Chrysler are in much better shape than GM and will likely make it through 2009 without bankruptcy. By 2010, a combination of planned plant closings and expected increases in auto sales will make the production of these companies match demand. The only company that desperately needs a bailout is GM, and while it is the largest of the three, federal assistance is still unwarranted.All auto makers have been hit by the economic downturn, including giant Toyota Motors. The difference is that U.S. automakers have had three bad years prior to this one, and Toyota and other foreign automakers have not. Despite decreasing truck and SUV sales, U.S. automakers failed to adapt to the market. If the U.S. still wants to maintain that it is a capitalist economy, it needs to allow the market to cleanse itself of unprofitable companies.If the U.S. would like to shift over to a more socialist economy, by all means, bail out American automakers. Despite recent events, I do not think Americans are ready to give up on capitalism just yet. Bailing out the Big Three would be a drastic step that may lead to federal ownership of these companies. This would eventually make the industry inefficient and uncompetitive, as with all government-owned industry. Additionally, this would be discriminatory against foreign automakers that have remained competitive and also employ American workers. Toyota, Honda and others pay millions of dollars of taxes each year to the United States in order to maintain their American plants. Bailing out the U.S. automakers would ignore the contributions these foreign automakers make to the American economy.Bailing out the Big Three would set a terrible precedent of federal intervention when companies are floundering. The Wall Street bailout has done little besides stop the downward spiral of the markets, and an auto industry bailout could not be expected to do much more. Declaring bankruptcy will allow the Big Three to pay lower wages and shed executives, freeing up capital to reinvest in the company. For the United States to maintain its status as a capitalist country, it needs to allow companies, even major ones such as GM, to go under when they fail to be competitive in the marketplace.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/07/08 5:00am)
LAST WEEK, Student Council passed a resolution supporting the creation of the community Garden Project proposed by the Environmental Sustainability Committee. Everyone can agree that we need to consume and waste less, and this project takes those ideals from words to actions. The University has recently taken several different steps to reduce its environmental impact and this garden is another step in the direction of sustainable living at the University. The initiative shown by the Committee is admirable, and the garden deserves the support of faculty and students alike.The benefits of locally grown produce include reducing foreign oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and eating food that is fresher and less processed than produce that must travel to the grocery store and then sit there for a few days. The more people buy locally grown food, the more farmers will grow and sell food locally once they know there is a market for it. Sustainable living must be spread throughout a community in order for the benefits of it to be reaped. Sustainable living begins with education, in order for people to know what impact their everyday habits have on the environment. This is why the Community Garden Project will be so beneficial. It will consist of an academic component that teaches students how to enact sustainable living practices. This program is very similar to the ecoMOD project taken on by the Engineering and Architecture schools. This joint venture has recently completed its third house. Each house built through ecoMOD has had a different focus, but all work to bring together sustainability and affordability in housing. The houses built by the ecoMOD project are made for low-income tenants, who can truly benefit from the reduced energy and water costs that these sustainable houses have. This is a real world project in which the Architecture and Engineering students design and build houses themselves with faculty guidance. The benefit of projects that take sustainability from classroom teaching to real world living is that the more people understand sustainable living, the more it can be implemented in everyday life. As more and more students have hands-on experience at the college level, it will begin to show up in community planning across the nation. It’s not enough to say that sustainability is a worthy goal — we must give towns and cities the resources to become sustainable, and the most important of those resources is knowledgeable people that can assist in transitioning societies from old habits to new ones. The second goal of the Community Garden Project is also a worthy one, although it could be improved upon. Currently the Committee plans to send the produce grown to a local homeless shelter. Since the garden could not, in its initial stages, turn out enough produce to supply the University dining halls, the food it does produce should go to those who need it most. However, what would truly be sustainable living is if the garden were to be expanded to meet at least some of the needs of the University dining services. While that would be a huge undertaking, it would save the University untold amounts of money by growing its own produce, as well as being a profound educational experience for those involved in such a large project. If the garden were to be taken in that direction, it would be a giant step towards making the University a sustainable institution unto itself. Melissa Warnke, the Committee Chair, said that the project is intended to “start small, on-Grounds.” She added that if it is successful, the Committee hopes to expand it to a larger plot capable of fulfilling some of the University’s produce needs. As it is, the Community Garden Project is a great idea and will provide a valuable educational experience for students, as well as locally grown produce for the less fortunate. If the initial project is successful, it would be a great idea for the committee to take it a step further and try to address some of the University’s produce needs. Sustainable living is something that must be cohesively practiced within a community for it to have a real effect, and locally grown food is a major component of sustainable living. Sustainability must start somewhere, and it is promising that the committee has taken this step toward making the University a more sustainable community.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com
(10/31/08 8:17am)
A DEMOCRATIC wave is sweeping the country, and many Democrats are hopeful they will secure 60 seats next Tuesday to make the Senate filibuster-proof. Virginia is a potentially blue state for the first time in 44 years. Mark Warner seems to have a lock on the recently vacated Senate seat, but to have two Democratic Senators from Virginia would be unrepresentative of this great state. As a lifelong Virginian, I know that the Democratic Party, and Mark Warner in particular, do not represent the values Virginians hold dear. The economy may be the most talked about issue today, but the most important issue in the long run is national security. There is only one senatorial candidate with any national security experience, and that is Jim Gilmore. The backbone of Virginia is our military, and we need representation in the Senate that understands how important the military is to Virginians. Warner has made little effort to reach out to veterans and the military. As a veteran, Gilmore understands the sacrifice servicemen and women make on a daily basis, consistently putting their country before everything else. Gilmore’s foreign policy experience makes him much more suitable to represent Virginia in the Senate.Warner has no foreign policy experience, and as governor of Virginia he really didn’t need any. But in the Senate, foreign policy experience is a must. Gilmore is an Army veteran who served in the 650th Military Intelligence Group during the Vietnam War. Because of his national security expertise, he was chosen to chair a commission to make recommendations to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Following the 9/11 attacks, 146 of the commission’s 164 recommendations were adopted by Congress. Gilmore is a member of the American Legion and spoke at the Virginia convention this year, which Warner declined to attend. Gilmore understands the commitment all military have made to their country and honors that commitment by supporting the new GI Bill, increased support for military families, and adequate resources for the men and women in harm’s way. Several veterans groups have endorsed Gilmore, and many more individual veterans and servicemen and women support him. The Senate seat being vacated has been held by a Republican for 28 years, and Virginia has already sent one Democrat to the Senate. Jim Webb is an ardent supporter of our military and a good senator, but Warner has made no effort to reach out to our military, and he will not adequately fill the hole John Warner is about to leave. Despite the importance of national security, the importance of the economy cannot be ignored in this election. While initially Warner may seem the likely choice based solely on economic experience, a quick look at his campaign reveals otherwise. One thing especially dear to those of us here at the University is honor, and Warner has been lying throughout his entire campaign. He has repeatedly claimed that Gilmore left the state with a 6 billion dollar budget deficit. Not only is this untrue, it is impossible. States are not allowed to have deficits, and Gilmore’s final budget was balanced as mandated by the state constitution. The recession in 2001 caused tax revenues to fall, and in 2003 Virginia had a 2.1 billion dollar budget shortfall. Over the entirety of Warner’s tenure as governor, the budget shortfall reached 6 billion dollars. Warner handled that budget shortfall admirably, and it is a shame he has chosen to mar his record with lies. Despite being a successful businessman, Warner said in the third senatorial debate that he supported the bailout. As Gilmore was quick to point out, no good businessman would think buying stock in sinking companies was a sound decision. Gilmore stated clearly that the burden of bailing out Wall Street was not something that the taxpayers should have to carry. Since it was passed, the bailout has done little to reverse the current economic trend, and the government is signing away more and more taxpayer money every day. Despite Warner’s previous economic record, Gilmore has shown much more economic sense in this campaign.While the economy is foremost in voters’ minds right now, it will rebound eventually. National security is a concern that will never lose its importance, and in Virginia, a vote based on foreign policy experience can only be for one candidate. Gilmore has proven himself worthy of representing Virginia’s values in the Senate through his years of service to his country and the seat being vacated by a Republican needs to be filled by one.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/24/08 4:00am)
COMMUNITY service is a big part of life at the University. When Madison House takes over Newcomb Plaza to promote all of their service programs, the sheer number of poster boards to choose from is amazing. Programs such as Alternative Spring Break have more volunteers than they know what to do with, getting so many applications that three more winter programs were created. Only at the University is community service competitive. Yet the rush for community service hours is sometimes more directly related to the state of one’s resume than any true desire to improve the community. While any community service is certainly beneficial to the community, what is more important is that people commit to causes they truly believe in. Sleepout for the Homeless requires a commitment to ending homelessness because participants must give up their warm and comfortable beds, at least for one night. This embodies the true spirit of community service, giving to a cause because it is important to you and not just because you think you should. Sponsored by the Jewish Social Justice Council, Sleepout for the Homeless originates from the Jewish holiday Sukkot. Sukkot is celebrated by sleeping outside in a temporary shelter known as a Sukkah to remember the 40 years the Israelites spent wandering in the desert. Zev Lebowitz, Chair of the Jewish Social Justice Council, said that Sukkot is a time of celebration, but that the committee thought it was appropriate to consider those who have to sleep outside as well. Lebowitz also said that one of the goals of the program is to, “Raise awareness among U.Va. students,” about homelessness in Charlottesville. Sleepout for the Homeless brings together students of all faiths for one week to realize the struggle of being homeless and to raise money for the benefit of those who are. Students can sleep for one or more nights and get family and friends to sponsor them for the nights they spend sleeping out. The money raised from these sponsorships goes to a different program that supports the homeless each year. Lebowitz said this year Charlottesville Health Access was chosen from seven proposals because “Health services for the homeless are really lacking in the community,” especially considering that health care costs can sometimes cause homelessness. Additionally, “A lot of volunteers are U.Va. students, and we wanted to support our colleagues at U.Va.”There is nothing glamorous about spending the night in a tent, and certainly nothing convenient about it on a school night when you have class the next day. There isn’t even any kind of instant gratification to be had, unlike being a tutor or mentor. Spending the now very cold October nights outdoors in order to raise money for the homeless is a self-sacrificing act for the betterment of the Charlottesville community, and that’s it. This program will continue to grow because it is self-reinforcing: Experiencing a small bit of what it is like to be homeless makes the participants want to do more to help the homeless. Too often, the meaning of community service gets lost as students struggle to fit the requisite hours into their schedules. That’s not to say that everyone doing community service is only doing it to impress graduate schools and future employers. Most people doing community service believe in the causes they support and enjoy the time they put into bettering the community. However, community service has changed from doing it because it’s worthwhile to doing it because it’s expected.Sleepout for the Homeless is a model for true community service because it helps students identify with the homeless. With the many activities students are involved in, not to mention the reason we’re all here, getting a degree, it should not be expected of everyone to be actively involved in community service unless that service is meaningful for them. Giving back to the community only makes sense if you support the values of the community you live in. Community service should be about fixing what you personally think is wrong with the world. No one can make a difference by being in five different organizations and only doing a little bit in each one. Only by focusing on a passion can one person hope to truly affect change in that area. Community service is more valuable when it comes from the heart, both for the server and the community. This kind of community service will produce programs with more passion, more enthusiasm, and better results. That is what makes Sleepout for the Homeless such a great program: Its focus is on those truly committed to making a difference in the lives of the homeless, because its volunteers have lived it, if only a little bit. Working for a cause that is close to your heart is much more rewarding than working for a cause that looks good on your resume. Community service should be about more than a good cause — it should be about a good cause that you believe in.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/17/08 8:49am)
AFTER a scary downward spiral, the economy seems to be looking up, at least for now. Two weeks after the so-called “bailout” bill passed, the federal government finally decided what to do with the money it had been begging for. The Bush administration is not solely to blame for the economic crisis, but the administration made the mistake of taking a hands-off approach to the economy. The government is never able to control the economy; it only has a small amount of influence that it should exert at all times in order to have any impact on the economy at all. Economies are cyclical and will oscillate up and down no matter what the government does. But the government should always be giving the economy a nudge here and there, in order to keep the cycles in check.Many of the deregulatory policies being blamed today for the economic crisis originated with the Clinton administration. President Clinton worked to lower credit and down payment requirements so that more low- and middle-income families could afford homes. What sounded like the realization of the American dream for many ultimately led to the collapse of the housing market. Sub-prime mortgage lending can be traced back to government intervention and not corporate greed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created as a secondary mortage market, to ensure that funds were always available to lending institutions that provide mortgages. Fannie and Freddie buy up mortgages and resell them as securities to investors in order to increase the money available for mortgage lending. As government institutions, Fannie and Freddie were tasked with meeting the federal Housing and Urban Development goals of home ownership, which included improving home ownership to low- and middle-income families and in underserved areas. Though these goals began with President Clinton, President Bush furthered the problem by continuing to promote home ownership for low-income families. Under the Bush administration, home ownership reached an all time high of 69.2 percent. However, that number is rapidly falling as foreclosures rise. Steps should have been taken to partially reverse the Clinton administration’s policies when it became apparent that banks were using them to give people houses that they truly couldn’t afford. There is a level of personal responsibility involved. A person should never take on debt he can’t possibly pay off, no matter what the bank says. But a few government regulations, instead of the removal of regulations, could have eliminated many problems. It has become clear that some regulation and oversight is necessary for the functioning of a healthy economy. Since in a free market, the government does not control the economy, it must use its small amount of influence at all times to keep the economy on track. Over a two-term presidency small measures of influences would add up. If President Bush had taken steps early on in his presidency to reverse the lowered requirements for home ownership enacted by President Clinton, the collapse of the housing market would have been less severe. Since President Bush chose not to act until the last possible moment, the government’s intervention must be massive, and therefore it cannot possibly have the intended effect. Calling it a “bailout” is a misnomer because it won’t correct the current problems, only prevent future ones. It takes time for the effects of government intervention on the economy to become known. Keynesian demand management policies, used in the post-World War II era to justify government ownership of industries, ultimately led to a sluggish economy 10 years later. The world economy was stuck in a cycle it couldn’t get out of until many industries were returned to the private sector. Unless the federal government wants to take over the economy completely (which is obviously a bad idea), buying up large portions of it with the express intention of re-privatizing it again when things get better is little more than a stop-gap. The bulk of the bailout bill provides for oversight so that a crisis of this magnitude can be stopped before it ever starts again. This is smart, as long as the oversight doesn’t go too far out of the sheer nervousness of Congress. A quick fix for right now is impossible and impractical. The bailout bill is not going to end the economic crisis; it can only lessen the impact on citizens temporarily. The Bush administration had no idea what to do with the $700 billion once it got it from Congress — it had to spend two weeks figuring that out. The economy is beyond the scope and comprehension of any one group of people, no matter how large and talented they may be. The federal government can’t do very much to affect the economy, but what it can do should be done all the time, so that massive intervention is not deemed necessary again. A touch here and there will have a much greater and more positive impact than major changes all at once. Since the effects of such changes cannot be known, it makes sense to stick to little adjustments to see what impact such adjustments have on the economy.If the government exerts a little influence at all times, the authorization of major government intervention will not be necessary and the economy and the people it affects will be better off.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at a.robertson@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/10/08 8:20am)
THIS MONDAY, Student Council and the Arts & Sciences Council flooded the University with 1,500 copies of the New York Times and USA Today. Last time I checked, if you wanted a copy of the New York Times, subscriptions are available. There are many problems with this program, including its waste of student money, counteraction to personal responsibility and the 1,500 additional papers going into the trash every day.According to its Web site, Student Council allocates the Student Activity Fee funds. That means that every student at the University contributes to all the programs Student Council funds, whether they agree with them or not. While I may not always benefit from these programs, for the most part, I see a point to them. This program is different in that it seeks to provide something entirely unnecessary for students. In an interview, Student Council President Matt Schrimper said that the funds for the papers have been in the Student Council budget since the summer. He added that many schools with similar programs have a fee for this service and, “The last thing we want to do is put another fee on the student body.” In that spirit, Student Activity Fees should be lowered by eliminating this program. Since subscriptions to these publications are available, it would make more fiscal sense to allow those students who want subscriptions to purchase them on their own. In these uncertain economic times, fiscal sense is much needed. This program is not one that originated with student interest or desire for free papers. Schrimper said that “Over 400 universities across the country have similar programs” and that these programs are “wildly popular.” He added, “U.Va. students live in a bubble” and that reading a physical paper is “very different” from online versions. National periodicals are currently provided in the libraries, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Anyone interested in the smell of fresh newsprint can go to the library to get the latest. It is up to the individual to educate himself on national news, and it is not Student Council’s responsibility to spend students’ money to educate a few. A more troubling issue is what happens after these papers fly off the shelves and subsequently into the trash cans. 1,500 papers is a huge amount of waste to be generated by a community supposedly concerned with sustainability. Since there are no longer trays in the dining halls in order to cut down on waste, it would seem prudent to continue the trend in all other areas, to avoid sending a mixed message. The Student Council Environmental Sustainability Committee spoke out against the program, citing alternative plans such as providing online memberships for students. Although recycling bins will be placed next to the newspapers, it is unlikely someone will still be near them when they finish reading the paper, and entirely likely they will just find the nearest trash can to dump it in. All of these problems do not even address what I find the most compelling argument against this program: Who has time to sit down and read a paper anyway? I struggle every day to find a few minutes to read The Cavalier Daily, and I work for the newspaper. Anything larger would surely not make it into my schedule. Headlines are provided on the home page of every major news outlet, and checking the news online is much more cost effective and time efficient. Additionally, the program removes the burden of remaining educated and informed from the individual. Schrimper said students will be “better informed because these [papers] are available,” adding that at other schools where this has been implemented, there was a 33 to 35 percent increase in newspaper readership. It is not the Council’s responsibility to disseminate news throughout the University. If a student doesn’t care about national news, that’s his or her choice, and the Student Activity Fee should not be used because the councils think students are too wrapped up in the “bubble” of Charlottesville. This program removes personal civic responsibility from the equation, and it uses our money to do so. If the councils want everyone to be informed about national news, I would suggest they find other funding sources with which to do it. Personally, I will continue to go to CNN.com every time I want to know the latest news, and I am sure others will continue to be oblivious to national news as they were before. Providing national papers for the student body sounds nice, but it’s a half-hearted effort, wasting a lot of money in the process. $14,000 could be put to much better use at the University.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
(10/03/08 7:41am)
LAST WEEK, I chided the University Judiciary Committee for placing too much emphasis on race by surveying its membership to determine the percentage of minorities. UJC’s actions are indicative of the larger problem of affirmative action. Recently the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a letter instructing colleges not to use affirmative action in admissions processes and if they do so, they must justify it to the OCR. I see no problem with requiring colleges to supply a legitimate reason for using racist policies in their admissions process. The NAACP disagrees. It appears that discrimination is fine, as long as it not against a minority group. Stephanie J. Monroe, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, stated in the letter that the Supreme Court, “provides broad parameters to guide postsecondary institutions through the constitutional and Title VI issues that arise if race is used in admissions.” In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on two affirmative action cases brought against the University of Michigan: Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Gratz applied to Michigan’s undergraduate program which used quotas in the admissions process, while Grutter addressed affirmative action in admissions processes of the law school. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Gratz but against Grutter, stating that affirmative action was fine, but using quotas was not. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voted to uphold the legality of affirmative action in Grutter but also said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Maurice Apprey, Dean of the Office of African-American Affairs at the University, said that Justice O’Connor is presenting a “challenge to improve K-12 programs, so that students will be ready in due course.” He also said, “It is in the self-interest of the University to complement the moral, legal and ethical issues that come under this domain.” The University does use affirmative action in its admissions policies, according to Associate Dean of Admissions Greg Roberts. He cited the 2003 Supreme Court Ruling as justification enough for the practice, and added that the University is “more than happy to comply” with the OCR’s justification policy.The NAACP is concerned that by requiring justification for affirmative action, the OCR is moving to end affirmative action completely. In an interview with The Cavalier Daily, Anurima Bhargava, NAACP Legal Defense Fund assistant counsel, said, “What OCR is trying to do is create a chilling, intimidating effect on efforts to promote diversity.” Apparently the only diversity recognized by the NAACP is race-based diversity. There are other forms, such as socio-economic, that are a better measure of prospective students. If the concern is that African-Americans are typically poorer and have fewer opportunities than their Caucasian peers, a race-blind admissions process would not inherently ignore these factors.Looking at parents’ income and if a student’s parents went to college doesn’t require a racial profile. A first-generation college student should be rewarded for his or her efforts. Without the advice of college-educated parents as a guide throughout school, lower grades would be acceptable. Looking at the courses offered at a student’s high school and what course load is chosen from those offerings is a good indication of a student’s drive and ability to succeed, even if the applicant’s schedule is not loaded with AP courses, since at that school, AP courses are unavailable.Things like socio-economic status and fewer opportunities for advancement can be discovered without looking at a person’s race and would be a better indicator for preference than race alone. Race is an arbitrary factor to use to evaluate prospective students since it is not skin color that constitutes diversity, but life experiences. I understand and support the fact that the University wants to bring together people of all different experiences to promote growth and a greater understanding of the rest of the world. Beliefs must be challenged in order for them to ring true, and diversity is a large part of that. But racist policies benefit no one and are a sore spot for those they discriminate against. Eliminating affirmative action is about ending discrimination for everyone. College applicants should be evaluated on the basis of having made the most of the opportunities before them — if a student had many opportunities, that student should meet higher expectations than someone who did not. It would be impossible to evaluate all prospective students on a level playing field. There are many reasons for one person to have a higher GPA than another — an after school job, varsity sports, or having to look after younger siblings while parents worked. People cannot be reduced to numbers, but they cannot be reduced to their race either. Using race to give one student an advantage over the other when they are otherwise equal is still discrimination, despite what affirmative action attempts to overcome. Roberts said there is no timeline for phasing out affirmative action at the University. Dean Apprey said that Justice O’Connor has a point and that, over time, needs will change. There is no need to wait 25 years to eliminate racist affirmative action policies in admissions — affirmative action can be eliminated right now.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
(09/26/08 4:00am)
IF YOU didn’t go to see Voices of the Class, you should have. One thing that piqued my interest, and my concern, was the number of times diversity was mentioned in the sketches. One sketch involved a college applicant speed dating the Dewey Decimal System to find the perfect book for his essay, and each book told him to be sure to mention how diverse he was, as if the book itself were less important than its ability to showcase his diversity. Two days later, I grabbed The Cavalier Daily on my way to class and discovered, front and center, that the University Judiciary Committee is concerned it has too many white people. UJC used a self-reporting survey to gather demographic data and around 25 percent of the committee did not participate in the survey. From the data received, 71 percent reported themselves as white, while 62 percent of the University community is white. This is alarming, mostly because UJC found it notable. In no way can any organization on Grounds be expected to be perfectly representative and UJC’s demographics are actually close to the makeup of the student body. Also, 5 percent of surveyed members reported themselves as black while 9.4 percent of students are black. Asian-Americans are seemingly overrepresented — 12 percent of those who participated in the survey were Asian-American, but only 9 percent of the student body is. That these miniscule differences in percentage points is cause for concern to UJC perfectly illustrates what Voices of the Class made entertaining: the overemphasis on diversity at the University. I understand that the Office of Admission uses affirmative action programs to increase minority enrollment and the more minorities that attend the University, the better we look in the eyes of the world. But such unwarranted alarm from such an important University body is a slippery slope to be headed down. According to UJC Chair Merriam Mikhail, the spring executive committee e-mailed minority organizations about having UJC representatives speak at their meetings to encourage more minorities to apply to UJC. The Minority Rights Coalition and Black Student Alliance also participated in setting up a study session with UJC that addressed the best ways to study for the test and prepare for the interviews. This study session was open to all students but was specifically marketed to minorities. Mikhail talked about providing knowledge and increasing awareness about UJC as the “best place for us to start” improving minority participation. These actions in themselves are not cause for alarm. But since all applicants have to take a test and go through two rounds of interviews in order to join the committee, it seems unnecessary that once on the committee, race should still be deemed important. I understand that minority students are needed on the committee in order for students brought before it to feel that they are represented by it. However, there are minority students on the committee, and it would be impossible to achieve completely proportional representation. The numbers from UJC’s survey actually inspire some confidence in me that the committee is not entirely white and minorities are participating. If UJC wants to increase its outreach to minority students, that is understandable. It is a little disconcerting that despite four percent of University students being Hispanic, there are no Hispanics at all on the committee. However, setting any kind of goal for decreasing the number of white people on the committee — which is what increasing minority participation will do — would be racist. Mikhail assured me UJC is “absolutely not” considering quotas or any kind of affirmative action in the application process. Then why is it important how many minority students made it through that process? The number of minority applications would be a better measure of the effectiveness of outreach programs. I’ve filled out many applications with a box asking ‘how did you hear about us?’ Something of that nature would more adequately assess minority interest. UJC members must already go through a rigorous application process to be on the committee, and once on the committee the focus should be on their contributions to the committee and not on their race. UJC must continue to have a color-blind application process, in the search of the ideal candidates and not the ideal skin color for their demographic surveys.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
(09/19/08 4:25am)
IN THE United States, we only have two viable choices when Election Day rolls around: Democrats or Republicans. The United States has a two-party system, which means that our electoral laws are structured in such a way as to support only two major political parties. These two main political parties wind up being very close to each other, since they are competing for the same votes. This makes our federal government very stable, but it also means it is hard for major change to occur. Real change occurs at the local level and citizens should be less focused on national campaigns and more concerned with what takes place in their own backyard.With only two major parties, only one can be in power at a time, unless the executive and legislative branches are split, and then no one is completely in charge. When the balance of power does shift, it only goes so far to the left or right since the two political parties tend towards the middle anyway. Sure, Democrats and Republicans have their differences, but when the government changes hands we can all still agree on the need for public education, a well-trained military and clean drinking water. While ideological views may be very far apart, the resulting policies tend toward the middle in order to get enough votes to pass.The vast majority of the public thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, and yet our governmental structure does not allow this to be easily changed. Real change would be better enacted by lining up Constitutional amendments to federalize education, outlaw abortion or whatever else strikes your fancy. But Americans can’t agree on these topics and so the government stays in the center and out of the line of fire as much as possible. Our two-party system has effectively ensured that change is not coming, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.If change is what the people want, and I hear this country’s government is subject to the will of the people, they should work on issues closer to home instead of expecting Washington to deliver a magic bullet that fixes all of their problems. Voting isn’t the end of civic responsibility — our governmental lackeys can only do so much.In smaller electorates, communities are able to debate and discuss the best policies for them, which may be very far from the center. Communities have similar concerns that could never be understood on a national level. Issues like affordable housing and a living wage are specific to different areas and small changes have a big impact. There is no need to wait for the national government to lower taxes if that’s what people want and need right now. Higher standards for education do not require a federal mandate to be enacted, just concerned and engaged citizens. Universal healthcare is within the reach of each county in Virginia, if they want to expand coverage and open their hospital doors. It turns out it’s not so important if Democrats or Republicans gain control of Congress, since in either event there will still be taxes. The Democrats will raise taxes and the Republicans will cut them, canceling each other out over time. It’s not so important which man — and I have to say man, since the U.S. has yet to join developed nations with a female executive — runs the country, since no matter who wins, we will still have battles to fight in the Middle East. How those battles are fought are influenced by but still beyond the control of only one person. Small changes in policy do not change a country overnight. Major changes, like a declaration of war, are a product of more than partisanship. Every president faces decisions that are easy for his opponents to condemn him for, but global situations are to a large extent beyond executive control. Never mind that the economy is almost completely beyond their control — the market will always have its highs and lows, and the natural cycle of the economy should not be used to evaluate the government’s job performance.It is hypocritical for Americans to clamor for change and yet be unwilling to work for it in their own communities. Presidential elections are glamorous and exciting, but local politics are much more meaningful. Voting in major elections is like asking your mom for money. Becoming engaged in local politics is like getting a job to earn your own.Annette Robertson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.