11 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/28/09 6:54am)
WHEN ASKED to provide advice for incoming students at the University, my mind initially drew a blank. Every student's heard the typical stories of college. We all know to take advantage of meeting as many people as we can, to seek involvement in activities, and to keep our grades up as our first priority. I could give typical advice, but it would sound forced and redundant. I could give atypical advice, and risk sounding ridiculous in the eyes of over 10,000 readers. So I'll do my best to toe the line between the typical and the unusual, hopefully conveying at least a respectable image of myself in the next 700 words.\nThe best piece of advice before college is to know who you are before you ever arrive. For first-years, you've had about eighteen years to figure out what kind of a person you are. College certainly changes people, but most basic personality traits and interests are formed long before you set foot in Charlottesville. As bogus as it sounds, take time to do a little soul-searching; the clearer self-image you come into college with, the better chance you have of standing out amongst the crowd. Since all first-years live together in dorms, go to classes together in Central Grounds, and eat together in the dining halls, it's inevitable that the general student population will start to blend together. The better you know yourself at the start of college, the better chance you'll have of letting your unique characteristics show through to others.\nThe first month of college will be hectic, at best. Every time you go to eat or take a walk, you'll be bombarded with requests to meet new people. Each trip to class will yield a new discovery about our Grounds. The sheer volume of new information to take in during such a short period of time is difficult, so it's important to have some anchor to hold onto. This anchor could be a friend from high school or a roommate; you could find that watching a favorite television show every week or having a simple daily routine is enough to keep order in your life. It may seem obvious that you should avoid getting lost in the shuffle during the first few weeks of your college life, but it's easier to get off-track than you might think. College brings new opportunities for academic adventures during the day and a myriad of, well, "exciting" opportunities at night. Taking control of all the options college brings can be difficult, but is certainly made easier if you know your priorities coming in.\nOne of the most valuable qualities of a residential University environment is the diversity of experiences each person brings to the table. Each person here comes from a different past, and each has an interesting and unique perspective on life. It's important not to discount the opinions of others because of superficial reasons. Diversity is not limited to diversity among race, sex, or economic class, although there certainly exists a rich diversity in these areas in the college environment. More importantly, the University seeks students in its application process who have a diversity of ways to view the world. Going to class is just one way to broaden knowledge in the college environment. It can be even more enlightening to examine the way another person views the world, to understand a unique perspective, and to value an experience you may have never had yourself. The most important thing you can do as a student entering college is to know some basic priorities of your life but to keep an open mind; everything else will fall into place.\nThis University really is a special place. Its rich history and emphasis on tradition is largely unparalleled at other colleges and universities. Certainly you won't be interested in every activity or program offered, but my best advice is to keep your options open. I never imagined writing for a school paper in high school, but have grown to treasure the power of words writing for The Cavalier Daily in college. To begin college by closing doors and limiting options would be a mistake, as I'm sure you've heard countless times. Learning interesting and exciting things about the place you'll spend the next four years is often as simple as keeping your eyes and ears open to new possibilities.\nAnthony Noble is a columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.noble@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/24/09 12:17pm)
TODAY I registered a Twitter account. I had avoided it for as long as I could and was finally curious to see what all the hype was about. I quickly became a follower of Barbara Walters, CBS News, and a couple of friends, before proceeding back to my homepage to see what great things had begun. I had a few sentences, including Barbara Walters’s comment: “I am losing my twitter virginity.” Otherwise, I was very underwhelmed. The lack of punctuation in most posts was frustrating, and I didn’t really need to know both when a Somali hijacker was being transported and when he had arrived in New York to await trial. Twitter is a useless fad exploited by the media to seem like something exciting and innovative.There are several reasons I haven’t been terribly impressed with the site besides the specific instances above. First off, Twitter is completely impersonal. Don’t get me wrong, sites like Myspace and Facebook have their level of impersonality as well, but at least you can call the people you associate with “friends” on those sites. On Twitter, you become a follower. Or a fan. I’m not really sure what the difference is. In either case, Twitter encourages high degrees of impersonal relationships by its very nature. As soon as you sign up, the site encourages you to “follow” celebrities and other people you don’t know. Even if you do know those who you follow on the site, the level of interactivity afforded is pathetic at best. There are options for personal messages, but the primary mode of communication on Twitter is to update with posts for all your followers to see. Communication becomes less about the relationship between two individuals and more about my reflections on my own life. Other people are passive observers of what’s happening to me.Not only is the communication one-way, but it’s also extremely shallow. The character requirements encourage brief statements that are superficial, often just including what you are physically doing at any given time. There is no opportunity for reflection or analysis. It could be viewed as an efficient streamlining of important information, but only if any of the information people posted was important in the first place. Instead, Twitter takes a bare-bones approach to information I didn’t need to know in the first place.More than any other site, Twitter seems to encourage obsessive use. Millions of Americans waste countless hours of each day in the office, checking for Twitter updates from those they are following. The triviality of each post just encourages others to do the same, pausing between every activity to update the world about their whereabouts and activities. A mere ten minutes after I created an account on the site, I was already being followed by someone I’d never heard of. Is there a way to stop her from following me? I’m not sure, and I don’t really care. The truth is, anything I bother to post on Twitter will be so meaningless that I’m not worried about a stranger having access to it. Even with all these faults and limitations, Twitter might be able to benefit the society in some small way if it was nearly as popular as the media makes it out to be. News networks tout Twitter as a valuable tool for our society, political leaders and celebrities update on the site regularly, and Twitter has quickly become an everyday term in the American household. Maybe it’s part of an attempt for the media to embrace vibrant youthfulness, but they are quick to embrace a fad that isn’t actually a fad. Twitter might have garnered a fairly large online following, but it’s not by any means universally-accepted and much fewer people use it to effectively relay important information. Almost all other online trends take their root in youth, but the youngest generation of socially-active Americans is largely ignoring Twitter, wondering what all the hype the news media has created is actually about.This article has done little besides condemning Twitter as useless, but there isn’t much constructive criticism to provide for the site. Twitter could add more features, but other sites like Myspace and Facebook already accomplish Twitter’s primary function while providing a myriad of other services available to the user. Twitter is simpler and more user-friendly, but at what cost? It’s easy to make a site user-friendly when there’s nothing on the site in the first place. While it’s harmless to take part in a trend just for the sake of trying it, it’s important to remember that more permanent and meaningful forms of communication will persist. Despite what the media would have you believe, Twitter’s just an easy gimmick to relay often-meaningless information. Anthony Nobles column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/17/09 4:56am)
A fellow first-year recently encountered the University’s parking system first-hand. She would be in Charlottesville five days between visits back home to Virginia Beach, a relatively short time around which it would not make sense to get a three-hour ride between here and Virginia Beach from her parents. Instead, she contacted the Office of Parking and Transportation to receive a temporary permit, and arrived back at the University Sunday afternoon. Since the parking office was closed, she rode to University police, where she was told to place a note in her windshield in place of a permit. In spite of this note, she received a warning. Upon leaving the University five days later, she drove her car from the University Hall parking lot to the McCormick Road lot near the Astronomy Buildings. In the four minutes she was out of her car to retrieve her belongings, she received a $45.00 ticket from the University police. The parking office never once gave my friend the benefit of the doubt or took extenuating circumstances into account until a formal complaint was lodged. I understand the need to lay down a firm position on parking policy, but the first priority should always be service to University students. The Department of Parking and Transportation is making some good changes toward meeting student needs, but should seriously consider further lowering prices to make student driving easier.The high cost of student permits is the main problem with the system. Even though the office is not increasing student rates for next year, our parking rates are already notoriously high when compared to other universities. Virginia Tech permit rates are $114 per year for all students, with James Madison University charging $192 per year. A comparable permit at the University costs $192 per year at the Emmett/Ivy parking garage. Even though Rebecca White, Director of Parking and Transportation, acknowledged that the central lots fill yearly, this charge seems exceptionally high for a simple parking permit, especially when most of the lots are still far from Central Grounds in the first place.High permit costs also represent another nail in the coffin for on-Grounds upper-class housing, most of which is only accessible through the Northline bus system, an hour round trip. Parking permit fees and other such costs are likely part of the reason that on-Grounds housing falls to around 30 percent among third-year students. Huge costs for citations, which run higher than parking violations in Charlottesville city, contribute further to the problem. Even with parking tickets running at over $45 an offense, it would take ten parking citations to even match the price of student parking for a year. Despite this, the Department of Parking and Transportation is taking some measures in the direction of acknowledging student needs. The most significant of these measures was the recent decision by the department to cap student permit prices for the 2009-2010 school year. Despite the economic situation and increasing demand for parking permits, the University will keep almost all prices the same for the upcoming year, a move that White estimates will cost $260,000, or 2.7 percent of the total revenue budget. This move is only positive news for the students: the transportation office is forced to avoid salary increases and allow positions to sit vacant to keep prices from rising. The University’s massive bus system is also a testament to the hard work of this department, with exceptional efficiency and convenience for students getting around Grounds. The department is certainly doing its best to meet student needs with the budget it is provided.The University also places a great emphasis on charging the student body to get involved in the Charlottesville community, touting close-by experiences to prospective students and encouraging service through Madison House and other relatable projects. If the surrounding Charlottesville community and Albemarle county are to be available to students, the University should place a greater emphasis on allow students the convenience of parking a car on-Grounds. Doing so should never be a privilege of the few who can afford it; instead of raising prices as demand for parking spots increases, extra lots or garages could provide a reasonable solution.As the University continues to add academic buildings and increases the size of each incoming class despite the trying economy, care should be taken to ensure parking for upper-class students. Perhaps short-term and metered parking spots on Central Grounds could enable greater convenience in retrieving and dropping off belongings. Decreased cost for parking citations for students would ensure that the University community isn’t turning its back on those it strives to serve. The department seems to be doing its best to handle the financial situation, but it should not solely rely on self-sufficient revenue from parking permits and other means; the University needs to acknowledge its commitment to student needs, enabling greater parking flexibility with a higher budget for the parking department. Capping the costs of upper-class parking permits is a good first step toward more student-centered parking system, but should not be the last.Anthony Nobles’ column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/10/09 5:32am)
THE 2009 election stands a decent at once again turning Virginia red. As we wind closer to November’s gubernatorial election, the advantages of the Republican position become more apparent. Even though Virginia currently has two Democratic Senators, six Democratic Representatives, and voted for President Obama as the presidential candidate last year, the Republican party maintains control over the state legislature and stands a fair shot at seizing the office of governor in 2009. While the focus of the Democratic party has been divided among three potential candidates, the Republicans have already united behind Bob McDonnell and created a clear vision of their goals for Virginia’s future.The Democratic primary is not scheduled to take place until June 9, 2009. With former state Delegate Brian Moran, state Sen. Creigh Deeds, and former Democratic National Committee head McAuliffe all leading fairly entrenched campaigns with close poll numbers, the Democratic party will not secure a definite candidate until the primary is over. This allows, from the present, two extra months for Republican candidate McDonnell to run a general election campaign, appealing to all voters of Virginia on both sides of the aisle. He is able to craft his message and reach out to all Virginia voters between now and the primary, while Democratic hopefuls must appeal primarily to strong party supporters. Even moderate Democrats are unlikely to vote in the mid-summer primary, so Moran, Deeds, and McAuliffe must appeal to more liberal Democrats in hopes of gaining the party’s nomination. This gives McDonnell the clear advantage: he can begin to market a more centrist, unifying agenda now, appealing to both Republicans and moderates. Democratic candidates all have different agendas and plans for the economy. After the primary, it will likely be difficult to unite the party behind one clear message, as Democrats so successfully did in 2008.It is clear even early on that the Democratic primary will cause a significant divide in the opinions of party enthusiasts. The most controversial candidate is arguably McAuliffe, former leader of the national Democratic Party, who has a strong national following. After raising more than $4.2 million in the first three months of 2009 and maintaining a staff of nearly 100 paid positions — unprecedented in state history — McAuliffe has actually fallen behind in the polls. He has lost a narrow lead in the polls to Moran, even with the highest spending this early in the campaign in Virginia history. McAuliffe even has a negative favorability among young voters. Despite the opinions of the polls, in my opinion, McAuliffe has the best chance at securing the Democratic primary because of his wide favorability with party enthusiasts, most of whom are likely to turn out on election day. Should McAuliffe win the primary, however, the job of the Republicans in securing the governor’s mansion will become even easier.McAuliffe is clearly a Democratic candidate with a primarily liberal agenda. Whereas Sen. Mark Warner and Gov. Tim Kaine won the office of governor because of their moderate economic and social policies, the Democratic candidates in 2009 are considerably more mainstream and will be significantly less likely obtain bipartisan support. The actions of Obama and the Democratic Congress are only fueling discontent among Republican voters, with a huge government budget and hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending. Democratic promises for bipartisan action during the election have been overlooked in the first few months of Obama’s presidency, and Republicans could see large amounts of voters come out in November in support of McDonnell if they can take advantage of this widespread frustration among the party out of power. In order for the Democrats to have a fighting chance at retaining the governor’s position in 2009, several key things need to happen in the party. One of the candidates will probably need to drop out of the race in the coming weeks. As the system currently stands, most Virginia voters are not even aware of who the Democratic candidates for governor are. If the ultimate candidate cannot even receive a majority of the Democratic vote — which he inevitably would not in a three-way race — he will probably fail to capture the attention of the wider party in the general election. In addition, the Democrats will have a lot of catching up to do following the primary, with the presumptive candidate needing to initiate a grassroots campaign, similar to Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. The Democrats could maintain control of the governorship in Virginia, but are clearly behind the Republican candidate as the playing field currently stands. Anthony Nobles’ column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/03/09 4:31am)
The primary representative body of the student population at the University has the potential to be extremely unrepresentative. Whether or not the current administration of Student Council is effective or understanding of the student population’s wishes, the system itself has some serious flaws. Most notably, the process for electing and appointing students to positions of power has the potential to exclude a large portion of the student population. When the majority of Student Council elections are uncontested — or fail to produce a candidate in the first place — the democratic nature of the organization is at serious risk. As the new administration begins its year of serving the University community, it’s important to look back at the election process that promotes these students to positions representing the entire student body. Some changes can be made to increase the value of Student Council, including a more broad-based recruitment process and education initiative.The 49 percent undergraduate participation rate from the College in this year’s University elections is admirable, at least compared to recent years, but this column doesn’t deal with low voter turnout; rather, the greatest flaw in the representativeness of the system arises from low candidate turnout. Of the 54 total races handled by the University Board of Elections this year, 34 races were uncontested. Neither the election for the College or Engineering Student Council representatives produced enough candidates to fill the number of seats available, meaning that all of the candidates for both positions were uncontested. Had any other candidate taken the time to file for election with the University Board of Elections, they would have essentially received a free ticket into these prestigious representative positions, whether or not they were qualified to do so. If there is no opportunity for students to choose their representatives in an election, I fail to see how the election can be called democratic in the first place. Unquestionably, more choices are better than fewer when selecting those to make decisions on Council.At first one might assume that this void of candidates could result from an overcomplicated or biased system in selecting candidates. Alisa Abbott, Chair of the University Board of Elections, maintains that UBE is “entirely transparent and democratic and all of [its] processes, rules, and procedures are made available to candidates.” While there is a process candidates must undertake to appear on the ballot, it is unlikely to deter those seriously interested from seeking office.Abbott commented that “it is the duty of the organization . . . to ensure that they will have a group of students to continue to lead the following year,” and this certainly seems to be the root of the problem. By relying on organizations to spread the word on the intricacies of running for elections, the organization may lean toward in-breeding candidates to run for office. In many ways, the system discourages the broader student population, with no experience in Student Council or other UBE-monitored organizations, from filing candidacy. This tendency for students currently involved to renew participation has advantages: leaders have a clear idea of how the system works through experience and are acquainted with operations. But more significantly, the broader student population can feel excluded from the election process if the students in positions of power seem somehow predestined to be currently involved.Council’s potential to misrepresent the student population arises because those already involved with the organization are also those familiar with it. While the higher positions are elected, the vast majority of students involved in Council are appointed to their positions, including the committees, the primary functioning bodies of the organization in terms of day-to-day operations, and half of the executive board, including the Chief of Cabinet and Director of University Relations. These appointments aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but Council must make a deliberate effort to seek out qualified individuals from a diverse University pool. Council should advertise open council meetings or an educational event, similar to Honor’s Awareness Week. To those who would argue that giving students incentive for involvement is unnecessary, I revert to Jefferson’s still-applicable warning: democracy will only function with education of the masses.Council should begin now to make its decision-making processes and actions more apparent to students, especially those in the upcoming class of 2013. At least through my perspective on the University, it seems that a vast majority of students don’t understand how Council works on the most basic level. The Cavalier Daily could also do a better job outlining the various functions of Council, outside of the weekly coverage on actions of the executive board. Students may be more empowered to run for office if they understand how the system works. Without an awareness of the association, which a broad majority of the student population seems to lack, not only will voter turnout in elections remain low, but positions will continue to be unfilled, perpetuating the already undemocratic pattern.Anthony Nobles’ column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/27/09 5:43am)
President Obama’s 2010 federal budget, released recently to Congress and the public, marks some important changes from former President George W. Bush’s budgets over the eight years of his presidency. The best of these changes, unfortunately, is that Obama’s budget has a sleeker and more visually appealing cover page. Obama’s public relations team used a deep, comforting blue color and that modern, exquisite font Obama so effectively used in his presidential campaign. It even features a catchy subtitle to entice readers: “Renewing America’s Promise.” Obama’s budget sounds pretty good for the first page, and his team does a moderate job defending it throughout the rest of the text. They attempt to mask the budget’s serious inadequacies and hypocritical aspects behind the broad, vague promises the American people have associated with the Obama administration, but their arguments still have serious flaws.A month ago I condemned Democratic runaway-spending policies in the stimulus bill, acknowledging that hardly enough time had passed to assess the policies. While this is still largely true (Obama has only been in office two months), things don’t look any better.The overall theme of Obama’s budget seems to be its claim to cut down government deficit spending by one half by the end of his first term. Obama spends a great deal of time condemning the “deep fiscal irresponsibility” of the last administration, citing frightening statistics about how much reckless deficit spending was carried out. Obama’s response to this reckless spending, you ask? He wants to increase deficit spending to pull us out of the economic crisis. Obama gives no reason that increased government spending might pull us out of a potential depression and touts in the rest of the budget — quite proudly — that he will eventually decrease the deficit. But in a tiny paragraph tucked away in his introduction, Obama tries to convince the reader that huge amounts of government spending are a necessary evil. Obama’s budget totals $3.55 trillion. This figure doesn’t take into account the almost $1 trillion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and various other stimulus bills passed by the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. On top of this, Obama is maintaining his tax cuts for middle class Americans, while drastically increasing taxes on higher-income Americans. I am all for cutting taxes for average American citizens — I believe that would have been more effective than a stimulus package — but broad tax cuts are totally inappropriate when Obama plans to actually increase the spending policies of the Bush administration. The federal deficit, with all these factors, is estimated to total about $1.75 trillion in 2010.. Our national debt, over the last 200-plus years of American history, totals around $10 trillion. In a single year, Obama plans to add $1.75 trillion more to this debt. He insists that the deficit will be cut in half by the end of his first term, but at what cost? The deficit proposed is unprecedented, and totally inappropriate in the wake of an economic crisis.In response to criticism concerning the budget, Obama responds by asking members of Congress to propose alternative solutions to the problems facing the country. It almost sounds like he’s trying to humiliate members of Congress: If you could do better, let me know. What Obama assumes, however, is that the government should be taking action on the specific fronts he proposes. Call me a Jeffersonian, but I personally believe the government has no business spending $46.7 billion in a single year through the Department of Education. This is in addition to the $81.1 billion provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Primary education systems are one of the few areas of exclusive rights that the states retain, with some level of governmental control. Obama’s plans list education as a priority with energy and healthcare, totally taking for granted the relative independence states once retained in this aspect.Obama’s administration would, no doubt, counter that his policies are a total change from the George Bush policies, claiming that the Obama budget is a more effective use of the tax dollars it takes in. Regardless of how well the Obama budget completes the initiatives it proposes, however, the question remains whether or not these policies should be initiated by the national government in the first place. Every administration uses propaganda to persuade the people that its policies are worthwhile. It’s important, though, to remember that Obama’s budget, while staggeringly huge, is not the only spending this administration will initiate. Congress continues to pass bail-out after bail-out; average citizens should understand that this kind of government action has never been undertaken in human history. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen. In the meantime, we should watch Obama’s actions with careful scrutiny, remembering that what may be a casual assumption for Obama could be unheard-of governmental action to the rest of the country.Anthony Nobles’ column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/20/09 5:37am)
Anytime a student submits work for evaluation, that student relies on the objectivity of the grader to receive a fair grade. With hundreds of instructors across dozens of departments, this objectivity seems difficult to guarantee. Multiple choice tests might seem a more fair alternative; but why should students in chemistry receive curves on these tests while psychology students receive a flat percentage? Finding a uniform way to measure student success should be a priority, but student grades should not be altered for the purpose of meeting statistical norms or artificial benchmarks of fair grading. Academic departments at the University should seriously reconsider any artificial changes to grading standards to address rising national averages in GPA. These policies would fail to take into account the changing characteristics of the student population and ignore differences between classes within departments and differences among departments.Last Monday, The Cavalier Daily reported on rising GPAs nationally in recent years (“Research cites grade inflation as cause for national increase in GPA,” 3/16/2009), citing a study by former Duke professor Stuart Rojstaczer, in which Rojstaczer suspects informal grade inflation as a primary cause. From 1991 to 2007, national GPA averages for public universities rose from 2.85 to 3.01. While the article stated that several departments did not feel that rising grades were a significant concern at the University, some departments, including the department of Spanish, Italian, & Portuguese and other foreign language departments, have implemented alterations to the grading scale to cement student grades to a certain achievement level. In an ideal situation, grades should match to certain degrees of achievement among students, and these levels of achievement should be relatively similar from year to year. But this is simply not the case.It’s important that grades change to reflect the changing characteristics of the student population. Departments alter grading scales in an attempt to stabilize the relationship between grades and student achievement under the assumption that each class of students entering the University is identical. Certainly, with an entering class of over 3,000 students, significant change from year to year is fairly unlikely. But there are definitely gradual changes in the student population over time. The GPA statistics listed above display about a 5.6% increase in GPA over the 16-year period. In addition to this GPA increase over time, however, there has been an increase in the mean SAT score of students entering universities. For instance, Harvard College’s mean admitted student SAT verbal score in 1985 was 659, compared to 738 in 2004, displaying a 12.0% increase. The years may not match up perfectly, but there has definitely been a rise in student achievement over time. The grade increase some departments are seeking to control may actually be derived from increases in student performance, and Rojstaczer’s article addresses this concern in his study. Until the specific cause of grade increases can be identified, arbitrary policies to prevent these increases should be avoided.Discrepancies among classes and departments should also be taken into account before inflicting policies. It is always possible that specific classes could happen to have higher achievement rates among students than other classes, so professors should not be pressured to achieve a balance of letter grades in each of their classes. In larger lectures, there is likely to be a relative normalization of scores, so professors initiating a curve system or changing standards to meet the class average seems somewhat reasonable. But in smaller classes, it could be that one class coincidentally has higher-achieving students than another. Instructors in these smaller classes should be the most careful to achieve objectivity, even if the nature of assignments in these smaller classes makes complete objectivity even more difficult to achieve. If departments deem that a change in academic policy is absolutely necessary to adjust to changing national standards, a University-wide policy should be initiated first to avoid making some departments more difficult in grading than others. It is not fair to penalize a student’s GPA for interest in one major while a merely average student may get higher grades in another.Instead of inflicting uninformed policies to standardize student grades, University departments should emphasize changes in instructional policy to meet the changing needs of the student population over time. Psychology Department Associate Professor Shigehiro Oishi teaches Introduction to Social Psychology, a large lecture course. He taught at the University of Minnesota for several years before moving to the University, and acknowledges changes in the preparedness of the student population at each University. Although he taught different courses, Oishi stated that he did little to alter evaluation techniques between the schools. Here, he just has a different method of instruction: he is not forced to dumb-down information when giving lectures, but still has the same expectations for students when being tested. It is important that the University community recognize changes in student GPA over time, but specific departments should not initiate policies to combat these changes until their causes can be assessed. Anthony Nobles’ column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.nobles@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/13/09 5:36am)
A few weeks ago, while watching Law and Order: SVU on the USA Network, the usual commercial breaks were interrupted by a corporate-sponsored public service announcement. The segment informed me that having a lawn of grass and other plants uses up excessive amounts of water. The best way for me to “go green” would be to remove the plants in my backyard and replace the grass with stones and pebbles to decrease water use. I’m no expert on environmental sustainability; maybe creating a rocky desert in my backyard actually will help the environment (I would use less water, after all). But that’s irrelevant. The truth is, the nationwide “going green” movement, exploited by corporations solely for the sake of profit, is a hypocritical fad with no real global impact. Never before has the idea of environmentally-friendly individual action so thoroughly permeated our culture. The environmentalist phenomenon is a marketing tool that organizations use when it is convenient and financially lucrative to do so.Almost all television networks, radio stations, and Web sites have segments on tips for environmental sustainability, and almost all of these tips have corporate sponsors. Organizations strive to be associated with the environmentalist movement, and the easiest way to make this association is to pay for network spots encouraging individuals to “go green.” These so-called public service announcements are just commercials for large corporations to improve their image. If there was a true concern for environmental reform on the individual level, media outlets would not air friendly advice only when corporate sponsors are available.Not only are corporate supporters of the environment insincere in their statements, but their actions also reflect a willingness only to take part in environmentalist policies only when it is convenient to do so. Last fall, when University Dining removed trays as part of an environmental promotion program, some students claimed false intentions. Coincidentally, by cutting the use of water, University Dining also cut its spending on water. This may not be the best example: University Dining has a number policies that are cost-increasing but help the environment. However, in many cases, companies advertising energy efficient or ecological programs are putting a positive spin on cost-cutting measures. Even if they happen to reduce costs coincidentally with their “go green” systems changes, the fact remains that companies avoid environmentally-friendly overhauls that cost large amounts of money. As a consumer, it’s important to remember that the primary interest for any corporation is the bottom line. The environmentalist campaign is the perfect way for manufacturers to advertise new and improved products with better energy use and more environmentally-friendly operations. New appliances may actually have more improved and energy-efficient abilities, but products are constantly in a state of improvement. A new refrigerator this year probably has better energy efficiency than one produced last year, but next year’s refrigerator will be even better. As a customer, it’s important to understand the motivations of corporations when making decisions.The “going green” campaigns fail to address the greatest issues of the environmental crisis. The campaign should reallocate the millions of dollars in spending on advertising toward creating a completely new energy infrastructure and promoting international awareness over the problems facing the environment. A total restructuring of the global energy system is necessary to prevent the kind of environmental destruction widely feared. The technology exists to eliminate reliance on fossil fuels in several decades, but only with significant investments starting now. When American companies realize that the only way to ultimately go green is to eliminate dependence on coal and oil, their investments in nuclear, solar, and wind power will drastically increase. While Americans should lead the way to more sustainable lifestyles, they are not the ultimate solution to the world’s environmental woes. Even if every one of the 400 million people in America practices a significantly greener lifestyle, this still only represents a small portion of the six billion-plus world population. While the United States has the largest emissions of carbon dioxide, it by no means accounts for the majority of the world’s emissions. Truly, an international understanding of the environmental crisis and large-scale reform of the industry are the only ways to turn around the impending crisis.As individuals, we certainly shouldn’t stop following the tips proposed in the going green campaign. Many of the suggested actions really do help the environment, even if in an incredibly small way. It’s important, instead, for individuals to understand the motivations of large corporations and be wary of their decisions as consumers. Ultimately, American policy-makers and corporate leaders will realize that more than advertising gimmicks will be necessary to transform the American infrastructure and turn around detrimental environmental impacts. Anthony Nobles is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.
(02/27/09 6:47am)
ON ANY weekend night at the University, one could potentially find thousands of students at any of dozens of locations on or off Grounds drinking alcohol. It’s a reality of the college experience. And inevitably, of these hundreds of students, any number of students have had too much to drink, and some will require medical attention for alcohol-related health issues. Students not only need to understand the valuable resources the University has to offer in these potentially dangerous situations, but also that these resources function properly much more than most students are aware.In a recent weekend, a first-year friend of mine — for the sake of anonymity, let’s say his name is Donald — was one of these students who had had too much to drink. Donald arrived at an apartment party already drunk, and proceeded quickly to become more impaired through consumption of hard liquor. He was carefree, quiet, and had trouble standing on his own-not attracting attention to the danger of the situation. He was accompanied back up to his dormitory, where his friends remained with him, constantly monitoring his situation. Around 3 a.m., Donald became unresponsive completely and stopped breathing. This is where the University’s valuable network of alcohol support services came into play. Residents informed Donald’s Resident Advisor of the situation, and the RA called the University police. In Donald’s situation, there was no mention of administrative action, punishment by the RA, or legal consequences through the University police: Donald was escorted to the hospital, where he spent the rest of the night. Donald was processed quickly to leave the hospital when he awoke the next morning, no questions asked. He was contacted several days later by a dean and summoned to a meeting regarding the incident. The end result? Donald left a life-threatening experience with a warning from the administration.Of course this could be seen as potentially dangerous, opening the door for the situation to repeat itself. On the contrary, every student at the University is an adult, responsible for his own decisions. Creating overly harsh punishment for the incident would harbor ill will among students, probably perpetuating dangerous alcohol practices in the future. Donald commented that he “know[s] what alcohol does to the body. [He] drinks fairly regularly, but this time just got way out of hand.” In these removed situations, the subdued but available response of the administration is almost definitely for the best.Myths are common among University students that reporting cases of over-drunkenness could lead to administrative action or disciplinary consequences. Despite what the Stall Seat Journal and the Office of Health Promotion proclaim, I found it difficult to believe that the administration would handle the situation with discretion and understanding. But Donald’s case seems to almost-perfectly reflect the way the University’s alcohol response system ideally operates. Susan Bruce, director for the Center for Alcohol and Substance Education even acknowledged that the University has “got good procedures in place... but there’s always the rumor mill.” She admitted that there are police stationed at the hospital for the security of the University, but that students have no reason to fear punishment. “There may be a follow-up conversation with the Dean on-call or the Area Coordinator [to see if the problem is on-going] ... but it’s not UJC charges,” Bruce confirmed. Obviously, the student’s health is not only the first priority in these situations, but is the only priority of those involved.While underage drinking has gone underground in recent decades because of its national illegality, the University does a surprisingly good job of being tolerant of drinking situations and handling them with the care of the student as its utmost concern. The answer to over-indulging rests in the availability of resources. It’s important to understand that Donald’s case is not extraordinary, and you could encounter a similar situation in your time at the University. Simply put, be aware of the resources available, and use them.Anthony Nobles is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.
(02/20/09 6:27am)
IT’S BEEN just a few weeks since Barack Obama took office as President of the United States, but judgment on his presidency is hardly premature. The passage and signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this week was no small measure and largely reflects on how the national government will function for the next two years. Democrats are ignoring bipartisanship and exploiting their majority, Republicans are angry, and the government continues to spend with no regard for responsible fiscal policy. Regardless of what was proclaimed during election season, politics as usual continues to dominate in Washington. The ARRA is one-sided and wasteful, but it’s nothing we haven’t come to expect.Democrats, who seized large majorities in both the House and Senate as a result of the elections, have ignored compromise in favor of a mostly polarizing plan. To simplify the positions, Democrats favor government spending to stimulate the economy, while Republicans favor tax cuts. The plan certainly includes tax cuts, but much more heavily favors government spending — almost three-quarters of the plan focuses on new government initiatives and investments. Democrats in the House and Senate loaded the bills with large amounts of government spending, and passed the bill as soon as a simple majority could be achieved. The Senate version passed with just three Republican votes, while the House version passed with none at all. With the election of Obama and vast majorities for Democrats in 2008, the American people demanded a change from the partisan politics of the last eight years, not a new domination by the opposite political party.Despite the fact that the package was full of Democrat-endorsed initiatives, it’s not fair to completely blame the Democrats for the problems with the act. The plan includes more than $200 billion in tax credits for American citizens and businesses, and the Democrats did meet with Republicans prior to passage of the bill. Before the writing of the bill in either house, newly inaugurated Obama met with party leaders on both sides, actually spending more time meeting with Republican legislators than Democrats. The discussions gave the illusion of cooperation among the two parties, but ultimately ended with Obama reiterating the non-negotiable parts of a Democrat-sponsored stimulus package and Republicans frustrated with the huge amounts of spending. The dialogue provided a forum for Republicans to voice their concerns, but seems to have had no real intention of altering the legislation in favor of compromise. Even though these initiatives were present, cooperation was apparently not vital to either side; once again, consensus was ignored in favor of partisan bickering.Whether you support a Democratic- or Republican- leaning stimulus package as described above, it’s my opinion that no stimulus package, at least on the size and scale of the ARRA, will do much to solve the economic problems our country faces. The Congressional Budget Office released a report on the bill predicting that, if passed, the gross domestic product will have an overall decrease by 2019. Any capitalist economy operates in a cyclical nature, with economic recessions eventually giving way to times of prosperity. The ARRA may ease the impact of this economic downturn in the short-term, pleasing the masses of American people demanding government action, but large amounts of government spending will actually hinder progress in the long-term, nursing industry away from competitive capitalism. And these disadvantages ignore the biggest problem with the act: unprecedented amounts of government spending. With no capital to back up the dollar, widespread insecurities about the economic system, and a $10 trillion national debt, the American economic system is already on shaky ground. The last thing our country needs is $700 billion-plus more uncontrolled, unaccounted-for spending by the national government. With countries around the world feeling the global economic crisis, foreign investment will hardly be a source for the billions of dollars called for by the stimulus package. Instead, the government will be forced to print the money, boosting inflation yet again and continuing the downward spiral of destabilization in our national economy.Of course, I’m oversimplifying the issue. The conference committee’s report was over 1,000 pages, so it’s impossible to sum up the expansive intricacies of the package. It’s also slightly naïve to suggest that a body so entrenched in stagnation as Congress could make any kind of fundamental changes in its structure over such a short period of time. The new administration has made some efforts at bipartisanship, and that is certainly a step in the right direction. The stimulus will by no means spell the end of the United States and probably will function to assist slightly in lessening the impact of the recession, but will have little effect on our economic patterns in the long-run. For now, we must accept business as usual from Washington.Anthony Nobles is a Viewpoint Writer for the Cavalier Daily.
(02/13/09 6:59am)
PROPONENTS OF the honor system in its current form are getting desperate, resorting not only to scare tactics in recent weeks, but also to blatantly lying about what the new referendum will do. Whether or not you support single sanction, it’s important to get the full story on what changes the referendum will bring about. For that reason, I’ll try to dispel some of the myths that the referendum’s opponents have claimed.Posters condemning the proposed changes proclaim that you could be kicked out of the university for telling a girl you’ll call her and failing to do so or eating a roommate’s Pop-Tart. These statements are clearly exaggerations, but the effect is still misinformation about what the proposed amendment will do. With fliers appearing around grounds touting these harsh and frightening situations, it is easy to see why people might fear the proposed changes. These claims are misleading, and derive from three misconceptions about the proposed referendum: confusion over the meaning of the word “trivial,” mistaken beliefs among students about how the honor process works, and claims that no appeals are allowed through the new process.These posters claim that all honor offenses, no matter how trivial, will be punished under the amended honor system. While this is true, it is important to remember that the definition of “trivial” as defined by the Honor Committee is different from the dictionary definition of “trivial.” In the current Honor constitution, non-trivial acts are acts which “open tolerance thereof would be inconsistent with the community of trust.” In the past, trivial actions, as ruled by the Honor Committee, have included lying to the UJC about completing sanctions or working together on assignments worth 10% of a class grade. These “trivial” actions, under the current system, would receive no punishment. The current system forces polarization of actions: either the action warrants permanent expulsion or it warrants no action at all. This system may work for some honor violations, but simply doesn’t make sense for many possible situations. If the proposed amendment is passed, trivial actions such as these will not result in immediate expulsion, but also will not result in the Honor Committee’s inability to sanction a punishment. Despite this, the question remains: will insignificant cases, such as those mentioned on the anti-referendum posters, be punished? Simply put, this is highly unlikely. Sam Leven, proposing the referendum with Hoos Against Single Sanction, states that “a student would really be no more likely to face a significant sanction for stealing a pop-tart under our system than a student is to face expulsion for doing so now.” He went on to describe five different criteria that an individual case would need to meet, one by one, in order to receive a sanction. First, an individual would need to be angry enough over the incident to go through the cumbersome process of reporting the case to Honor Committee. Next, the Honor Committee would need to determine that the claim was not made in bad faith (out of the anger of the individual reporting), and then a three-member Honor Committee would need to determine that the charge was serious enough to go to trial. Fourth, there would need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and fifth, four-fifths of a jury of the student’s peers would need to determine that the action was completed with dishonorable intent. Even if all these conditions are met, the new, multiple sanction system would allow for lesser punishments to be inflicted for actions such as those described.Finally, these visible posters claim that students will have no right to appeal the decision of the committee delivering the sanction. Of all the claims made, this one is the most flatly untrue. If a sanctioning panel is created under the proposed referendum (which the referendum calls for), the Honor constitution states that the student may “appeal the panel’s finding on the basis of new evidence affecting that finding or of a denial of a full and fair hearing in accordance with this constitution.” This appeal can occur for the trial panel or the sanctioning panel of the process, allowing more appeal opportunities under the new system than what is allowed now with one single sanction.Voting by the public is only valuable when the voting population is aware of the issues. I find myself constantly frustrated with citizens who vote, but don’t bother to become educated on the consequences of that vote. I maintain hope that at this University, which proclaims itself as a home of intellectual freedom and student self-governance, students can ignore the outright lies of those who support single sanction. The proposed referendum is the best way to implement a multiple sanction policy, and I would urge those who support honor sanction reform to support this referendum.Anthony Nobles is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.