82 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/07/13 3:54am)
At a time when college costs are rising and economic uncertainty poses additional challenges to already low-income families, the Board of Visitors’ decision to scale back AccessUVA for the University’s most needy students is—at best—a step in the wrong direction. At worst, it threatens to put an end to the program’s loftiest goals, as envisioned by the late Dean of Admissions John Blackburn and former University President John T. Casteen III.
(02/24/10 6:38am)
Jimmy Breslin used to hit the bottle like a bloodied, swollen-eyed prizefighter in a marathon 12-round bout. Now he's just punch-drunk when I call.
(01/30/09 9:13am)
Nine days after the passing of former University Admissions Dean John Blackburn, the University named one of Blackburn’s protégés, Senior Associate Admissions Dean Greg Roberts, to the top admissions post.“There is perhaps no other office at this University that demands the judgment, fairness ... and ability to call shots when one needs to like admissions,” University President John T. Casteen, III, said yesterday, later noting that Roberts possesses the skill-set and determination needed to set him apart from a competitive field of candidates. Roberts, who held admissions positions at private institutions prior to coming to the University as an associate dean in 2003, took over much of the day-to-day directing duties of the admissions office last year, during Blackburn’s prolonged bout with cancer. The combination of University experience and Roberts’ reputation both on Grounds and across the nation made him the most obvious and qualified candidate for the position, Casteen said. Roberts’ candidacy for admissions dean also was supported by Blackburn, Casteen said. He noted that Blackburn wrote in a letter to the admissions dean search committee that Roberts’ six years at the University have more than adequately prepared him to take on greater responsibilities.“This position carries with it a fair amount of stress and it requires that the person in the position be able to handle the pressures and still maintain a positive attitude,” Blackburn wrote, according to a University press release. “It requires flexibility and a clear sense of University priorities. All of us know that the University of Virginia is unique among American universities, and I think understanding what is unique about it is essential if one is to be successful in this role.”With that understanding, Roberts said he aims to continue Blackburn’s almost three-decade legacy of enhancing University diversity and access. During Blackburn’s term, the University saw an increasingly diverse first-year student class, especially in recent years, and also made an effort to increase the availability of financial aid funds via programs like AccessUVA. Now, Roberts said, the University is faced with new challenges, including a rapidly shifting economic landscape and the need to reach out to a truly global student body.“I look forward to building on Jack’s legacy,” Roberts said, admitting that he “has big shoes to fill.”Under Roberts’ leadership, the admissions office will continue to try to meet the needs a of a top-tier academic institution and to expand student outreach efforts and financial aid programs. “We will look to see how we can attack these challenges,” Roberts added, noting that his office — just as it did under Blackburn’s leadership — will continue emphasizing “Jeffersonian values” like honor, dignity and respect. “We’ve really only reached the tip of the iceberg in terms of availability for low-income students and students of color.”Fourth-year College student Chalais Massard, who served as the student member of the admissions dean search committee, said she is confident the selection of Roberts will be positive for the University.“He has the ability to synthesize many aspects of the admissions process,” Massard said, noting Roberts’ “very good ability to process and understand information.”
(01/28/09 6:42am)
In a slumping economic climate, the University has not been alone in suffering severe endowment losses, according to a new report of 796 schools released Monday. At the same time, though, the University’s endowment is still out-performing many other higher education institutions’ because the University’s has remained the country’s 20th largest rather than dropping in the rankings, stated Leonard Sandridge, University executive vice president and chief operating officer, in an e-mail. “The economic downturn hurt everyone,” Sandridge stated, citing the report by the National Association of College and University Business Officers. “No one institution was singled out. All of our peer institutions experienced similar endowment losses ... more than 400 institutions had investment returns that had dropped more than 20 percent.”The long-term investment pool managed by the University Investment Management Company saw a 26-percent loss in value from July through December last year, University spokesperson Carol Wood said. That equates to a decline from $5.1 billion as of June 30 to $4.7 billion as of Sept. 30, to $3.9 billion as of Dec. 31, Wood noted. Harvard University, which topped the report’s endowment listings at $36.5 billion as of June 2008, and other top — primarily private — higher education institutions also reported significant losses during the same time period. According to a Harvard press release, that institution’s endowment lost approximately 22 percent from July 1 through Oct. 31.Though other schools might suffer similarly, Sandridge stated that the University’s endowment has performed admirably considering the circumstances.“Many of the institutions ranked above us are private institutions with endowments that have existed for many generations and have long histories of philanthropic giving,” Sandridge stated. “The University of Virginia came late to this environment because we relied so heavily on state support. When state support began to diminish, it became clear that in order to retain our excellence — and in fact build on it — we would have to rely more heavily on additional revenue streams and build an endowment that would allow us to plan for the future.”Though the University’s endowment has seen recent losses, Sandridge and Wood both noted that they consider the growth of the University’s endowment a success because of how far the endowment has come in a relatively short period of time. Using a conservative, long-term approach to investing, the UVIMCO staff has been actively seeking to grow the University’s endowment without creating undue risk primarily since the mid 1990s, Wood said, whereas private schools such as Harvard, “have had to rely on their endowments and know the value of aggressive fundraising campaigns much earlier on.”That conservative approach, though, is a smart one, Sandridge and Wood added, and it is one that has allowed the University’s endowment to survive — and even grow — in tough economic times marked by a fluctuating stock market and state budget cuts.“It would be nice if we could look into a crystal ball, but since we cannot, the staff of UVIMCO is watching the global economy, the markets and even our national political arena moment to moment to help them assess what they need to do in regards to placing the University in the best possible position for recovery,” Sandridge stated.Increasing financial strain, however, has forced the University to rely more heavily on its endowment despite losses. Last June, the University’s Board of Visitors increased the percentage of the endowment that can be spent from 4.5 percent to 5 percent. That means $163,634,000 of the University’s $2 billion budget will come from the endowment during fiscal year 2008-09, Wood said, also noting that the Board may consider increasing or decreasing the allowed distribution, within limits, at this June’s meeting.Endowment losses and potential payout changes will not, however, affect the University’s day-to-day operations nearly as much as the commonwealth’s pending budget cuts for 2008-09 and 2009-10, Wood stated in an e-mail. Gov. Tim Kaine proposed a 2009-10 budget reduction of 8 percent, Wood stated, on top of the proposed 7-percent cut for this fiscal year, for a total $23 million reduction in funding for the University. If the reductions are approved, everything from tuition rates to capital renovation projects to Medical Center revenues could be more affected by the cuts than by endowment losses, Wood added, especially because there is no guarantee that state legislators will not approve more extensive cuts.Though endowment losses and budget cuts may have a negative impact on certain programs and services, Sandridge and Wood said the University remains poised to continue pursuing its institutional goals. Meanwhile, smart fiscal management practices and continued fundraising efforts will be required to navigate the downturn successfully.“While this is the worst economic downturn that I have experienced in my time at the University, I know that the University is a stable institution that will survive an economic crisis and emerge a stronger organization,” Sandridge stated.
(01/22/09 7:25am)
University Admissions Dean John Blackburn succumbed to his battle against cancer Tuesday night at his home in Charlottesville, surrounded by family. He was 67.Blackburn, known to many close friends and associates as “Jack,” began working at the University in 1979 and served as admissions dean from 1985 to 2009. Previously, he had planned to retire in June. According to an e-mail sent by University President John T. Casteen, III to faculty and administrators, Blackburn, a recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Award, the University’s highest honor, helped make each class at the University as talented and diverse as possible. “He built each class with careful attention to the talents of students from every conceivable background — students whose common qualities have been uncommon intelligence, personal integrity, and ambition,” Casteen wrote. “Jefferson imagined our University as an attraction for students from everywhere, and he admired talent and ambition above any kind of entitlement or privilege. Jack made the University what Jefferson intended it to be.”Blackburn was at the helm of University admissions during a period when the school was attempting to diversify its student body and raise its national academic profile. Under his watch, the number of female and minority students grew and the University’s financial aid program came to include AccessUVA.Assistant Admissions Dean Greg Roberts said Blackburn went above and beyond the call of duty while serving the University as its admissions dean. “No matter how busy he was, he would come out and meet with families — he traveled extensively to meet with students,” Roberts said. “He really loved his job, and he loved the people that he met in his field ... He was a trailblazer and legend, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find four or five deans of admission in his field that are as well-respected by their peers.”Blackburn also will be missed by many on a personal level. Gordon Burris, senior assistant to Casteen and a past assistant admissions dean, said he fondly remembers how he and Blackburn became close friends almost three decades ago after Blackburn was hired by the University. Burris said he had known Blackburn since Blackburn’s days as admissions dean at Mary Baldwin women’s college.“We trained together for the Charlottesville 10-miler, every Saturday from January until April, when the race was held,” Burris said. “And we traveled together, occasionally taking short trips with our families. We’d go to Maine in the summertime — often not the same place, of course, but ... he absolutely loved Maine.”Burris added that Blackburn possessed an uncommon interest in the lives of both current students and potential applicants, taking the time to learn about and talk with those around him.“When history is written, you’ll have probably known one of the greatest ambassadors to walk the Grounds of this University,” Burris said. “The world was his stage ... and I’ll always remember him as one of the nicest, most sincere human beings.”College Associate Dean Gordon Stewart similarly noted in an e-mail to Garrett Hall staff members that Blackburn was a loyal and dedicated University employee with an exceptional attitude.“The University of Virginia owes so much to this gentle, kind man with the engaging manner and radiant smile,” Stewart noted. “For nearly thirty years he committed all of his energies to making the University a better place. All of us who interacted with him, and we number in the thousands, will remember him with fondness, respect, and appreciation.”Blackburn’s legacy will live on in the form of a recently unveiled scholarship fund for low-income students. The fund currently totals more than $1.5 million. The 1963 Western Maryland College graduate and former U.S. Army family notifier is survived by his family, including his wife, sister, children and grandchildren. Memorial services are scheduled for 11 a.m. Saturday at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville. There will be a reception afterwards in Alumni Hall.
(01/13/09 5:00am)
“Honor, of course, is a complex and multidimensional principle,” according to the University Honor Committee’s constitutional bylaws. “A moral aspiration that defies simple characterizations.”Perhaps because of this sometimes ambiguous nature, the ideal of honor, and its associated body at the University, the Honor Committee, has on numerous occasions faced questioning by University students, ex-students and members of the greater community. This past August, the system came under scrutiny for its Semester at Sea policies, which have since been revised. In that incident, two ex-Semester at Sea students and others familiar with those students’ cases alleged that several Honor policies were unfair and potentially in violation of the Honor Committee’s own constitution. Now, another ex-University student has made similar allegations about the honor system, calling into question procedures and standards meant to ensure the fairness of case investigations and adjudications.The former student, whose name is being withheld by The Cavalier Daily on her request, said she was brought up on plagiarism charges by her then-Psychology 456 professor, Angeline Lillard, for a final paper last April. Lillard, who taught the class “Child Development Research and Schooling Today,” declined to comment about specific Honor cases, but an e-mail Lillard sent April 30 — included in the Honor trial evidence packet as the student provided to The Cavalier Daily — stated, “Your paper for Psych 456 is largely plagiarized. Given your 3rd year standing at UVa, your having completed [PSYC 305/6], your correct use of quotations and citations in places, and the vast extent of copying and sometimes reshuffling of words, I have to think this was intentional, and therefore out of respect for the University, integrity, and the educational enterprise, I must submit it and the sources found for consideration by the Honor Committee.”The student said such instances of alleged plagiarism were unintentional and were the product of sloppy note-taking, hurried writing and inattentive editing. The alleged source of the plagiarism, a paper by John F. Wakefield titled “A Brief History of Textbooks: Where Have We Been All These Years?”, had been quite useful, the ex-student said.“When I found it, I knew immediately that this was it,” she said. “I had one of those lightbulb moments. It covered all the points I wanted to make.”For this reason, the student said, she heavily relied on Wakefield while writing her paper. She also said, however, that she never intentionally plagiarized and actually cited Wakefield on several occasions. A copy of the paper, included in the Honor trial evidence packet, includes those citations.“Obviously, the paper is a mess,” the ex-student stated in her personal statement, originally read at trial Oct. 26. She later added, “While I thought I had cited enough to each of my sources, I didn’t proofread and didn’t see that I had made some mistakes. If I had tried to pull a fast one on Professor Lillard, I most likely would have never cited the source.”At trial, a jury composed of randomly selected University students found the student guilty, agreeing with the counsel for the community’s opening contention that the student’s alleged plagiarism was intentional and serious in nature. Citing the Honor Committee’s current standard of intent — did the student know or should the student have known that the act in question could be considered an Honor offense — counsel argued that the paper was intentionally plagiarized, because the student had purchased the book “Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing” and because she had written at least one substantial paper before. As for triviality, counsel contended that “Lillard will testify that she believes this pattern of lacking citation proves that [name withheld by The Cavalier Daily] deliberately plagiarized on her final paper.”Now, though, the student — whose appeal both on the grounds of “good faith and fundamental fairness” and “new evidence” — was denied Dec. 7, has alleged that several Honor procedures were not followed during her trial and that she was the victim of a faulty system. Similarly, Hoos Against Single Sanction President Sam Leven, a second-year Law student who assisted the ex-student in putting together her appeal and who also serves as an Honor counsel, said he finds fault with the current system. Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang declined to comment about specific Honor cases but noted that the procedures in place are carefully scripted and designed to ensure fairness.The ex-student, who has not yet decided whether to take legal action against the University, said that a series of incidents at trial compromised the fundamental fairness assured every accused student in the Honor Committee’s constitution and bylaws. She said her trial chair failed to conduct the trial in a manner befitting the circumstances and was unable to restrain an “accusatory and argumentative” counsel for the community, who “tried for the win instead of the truth.”Included in the ex-student’s appeal are several claims regarding her trial’s jury and chair. “During my trial, several jury members fell or started to fall asleep,” she said. And although the one jury member “who actually dozed off” was dismissed by the trial chair, the idea that the case was decided with one less juror and by a group “which overall seemed disinterested in the proceedings” is distressing, the ex-student said.“A trial chair may dismiss a juror at his or her individual discretion,” Huang said in reference to general Honor Committee procedures, declining to comment about specific cases. As a matter of principle, Huang said, sleeping would most likely be a significant enough reason to dismiss a jury member, but such a dismissal does not require the trial chair to fill the vacated jury spot.Additionally, the trial chair seemed unfamiliar with her responsibilities, the ex-student said, noting that the factual contentions for each side initially were not read.“My counsel reminded [the trial chair] of this procedure, but she had already tried to contact the first witness, Professor Freeman, via telephone,” the student stated in her appeal. “He did not answer, so she started reading the factual contentions ... while she read mine, the phone rang ... [and] she continued to read, despite the disturbance.”Adding to what the ex-student referred to as the “unfair atmosphere of the trial room,” the counsel for the community was belligerent at times, the ex-student said. She alleged in her appeal that on several occasions the counsel for the community asked circular or accusatory questions and noted that although the counsel was occasionally asked by the trial chair to refrain from such behavior, he persisted, at one point asking an almost identical question multiple times.“He was going for the win,” the ex-student said. “His questions were definitely argumentative in nature, and he asked questions that were out of scope, too. Some of them were confusing; I had to ask for clarification several times, as did the trial chair.”The counsels for the community listed on the evidence packet, third-year College student JJ Litchford and second-year College student Scott Bowman, declined to speak about the student’s case or about general counsel procedures, instead referring The Cavalier Daily to Huang. Huang also declined to speak about specific cases but generally noted that Honor counsels should always seek the truth, as opposed to a courtroom victory.“Our counsels are trained not to look at cases as a win-lose situation,” Huang said, adding that trial chairs are similarly trained to halt proceedings if a counsel deviates from his stated responsibilities or if Honor procedures are not followed correctly. Additionally, an official trial observer is on hand at all Honor trials to “make sure everyone does the right thing,” Huang said.Other aspects of the trial proceedings, though, imply that while this policy may work in theory, it fails in practice, the ex-student said. At one point in the trial, the ex-student said, the trainee for the counsel for the community — “sitting in the jury’s direct line of vision” — started to act unprofessionally, rolling her eyes and “making faces” while the ex-student explained her side of the story.“That would be something addressed in training, on a professional conduct level,” Huang said when asked about a hypothetical instance of a trainee behaving in such a manner. “But I have full confidence that someone addressing the case is deciding the case as they should. I highly doubt that University of Virginia students are going to let facial expressions determine what they think about a case.”It is situations like these, though, in which the ex-student and Leven said the trial chair should take a more active role, asserting his or her authority instead of simply letting potential problems slide.“I would really like to see our trial chairs get more involved,” Leven said. “In the case of trial counsels, they are supposed to be aiming for the truth. I feel that for the most part they are aiming for the truth, but that’s not everyone. I feel like we’ve had some problems.”There is sometimes reluctance among trial chairs to intervene during trials, Leven said, even though, as Huang noted, they are trained for the position. That alleged reluctance, however, is not the most glaring fault with the current system, Leven said. “What I really think the biggest flaw in our system is, is our appeals process,” Leven said.During his five years of experience working with Honor, only one Honor Committee in his opinion proved capable of making entirely objective appellate decisions, Leven said. Moreover, Leven and the ex-student alleged a potential conflict of interest inherent within the current Honor appeals process.“They are deciding whether to grant an appeal that basically says someone else on the Honor Committee screwed up,” Leven said.Though Huang noted that efforts are made by the Committee to avoid potential conflicts of interest during an appeal, Leven said the fact that Honor oversees its own appeals leaves open the possibility that Honor Committee members will share a competing interest while attempting to make appellate decisions.“A lot of the people, even if they haven’t served on the same case or something like that, are good friends,” Leven added. “And that’s understandable; they participate in bonding activities and spend just about every Sunday together. But it’s fundamentally wrong ... They aren’t necessarily able to make entirely objective decisions.”Huang, however, said her experience serving on Honor appeal review committees has shown the opposite.“Having sat on numerous appeals, we will go through each point that is brought up,” Huang said. “At no point is it about whether so-and-so did a good job.”Both the ex-student and Leven said that even if current Committee members are deciding appeals objectively, the potential for problems — or, at the very least, perceived problems — still exists. As the Honor Committee’s current Code of Ethics states, “For purposes hereof, a ‘Conflict of Interest’ shall be defined as a situation in which any Honor Committee member, Advisor or Counsel has, with respect to the case in question, a competing interest which would make it difficult to fulfill his or her Honor Committee responsibilities fairly or, even lacking evidence of such competing interest, would create an appearance of impropriety and thereby undermine confidence in the Honor System.”Huang declined to comment about whether she thinks the current process might be seen as running counter to the above portion of the Code, and similarly declined to comment about whether the current process might be seen as flawed in any way by some University community members.“It’s not my place to speak on behalf of what students think,” she said.Huang also said, though, that the current appeals process is in place to protect and uphold the rights of students.“Every single appeal is vetted by legal counsel,” Huang said. “That’s the double check.”Additionally, Huang said, it is important to note that the appeals process is not a retrial, nor is it about whether an Honor offense occurred. That is why, Huang said, the appeals process is overseen by the Honor Committee.“Thus it is imperative that the Committee members who sit on appeal decisions to be well-versed with our bylaws and, as you said, intimately familiar with our process,” Huang stated in an e-mail. “Jurors are the sole deciders of whether an accused student is guilty of act, intent, and non-triviality, and it is with these criteria that they make their decision. These two deciding bodies are not evaluating the same thing.”Huang noted that the appeals review board, composed of Honor Committee members elected by the student body, is tasked with performing an internal review.“As such, Committee members are qualified both in training of Honor policies and procedures and in the power that the student body has chosen to delegate to them,” Huang stated. “Thus, Committee members serve on appeals in the interest of the greater student body and Community of Trust.”On the other hand, Leven said he believes students would be better served with an appeals process overseen by an outside body. University Board of Visitors member Glynn Key said Honor appeals have always gone through the Honor Committee as opposed to an outside body. Key, who served as Honor Chair during the 1985-86 term, said this is because the Honor Committee is extended its authority over all Honor proceedings through the Board.“If people have any questions or any concerns, that’s something they should be coming to the committee with,” Huang said, noting that people should be asking questions to understand how and why the system works.
(11/05/08 10:04am)
History was made yesterday when American voters elected Democrat Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama said at his victory celebration in Chicago.Riding a wave of early voter support from the East Coast, Obama jumped out to a lead and never looked back. As news stations and media groups called states, as the electoral college votes were predicted and tallied, it became clear that Obama’s rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was not going to be able to accumulate the 270 votes needed for election. McCain called Obama and conceded defeat at approximately 11 p.m. EST“I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain,” Obama said. “He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves.”Despite McCain’s campaign efforts, Obama was able to secure the electoral votes of several states that traditionally vote Republican. In Virginia, a state that had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, 1,740,478 voters chose Obama, according the Virginia State Board of Elections Web site with 2,448 of 2,496 precincts reporting, allowing the future president to edge McCain by a close margin in the popular vote. In other states traditionally won by the Republican Party, such as Indiana and Montana, Obama, at the very least, made headway, said Dan Keyserling, deputy director of communications for the University Center for Politics.“I think you can attribute [Obama’s victory] to a combination of things,” Keyserling, a former Cavalier Daily executive editor, said. “It was destined to be a good year for Democrats ... and I think any analyst could argue that Obama ran what is the greatest political campaign in history.”Keyserling noted that Obama’s campaign not only excelled in its scope and scale but also in its precision and courage. He said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod envisioned a new electoral map, adding that the campaign then managed to implement its strategy without spreading itself too thin in an effort to pick up additional states. Moreover, Obama used a massive fundraising campaign, new media and the Internet to a decided advantage, Keyserling said.“They honed in on a theme and maintained it throughout the election,” Keyserling said, noting that though any Democratic candidate had the potential to win the election this year, only Obama and his team had the ability to win by a landslide margin.Keyserling also reiterated the historic nature of Obama’s campaign, a nature similarly picked up and highlighted not only by media networks but also by McCain in his concession speech.“This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight,” McCain noted. “I’ve always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that too.”In keeping with that American ideal, Obama’s personal story resonated with voters, Keyserling said, adding that it especially did so among minority and youth voters.“Everybody talked about the youth vote in this election,” Keyserling said. “I wouldn’t call it a deciding factor, but perhaps an influencing factor ... What I saw was that the youth enthusiasm for Obama was contagious and it affected older people who saw the young people say, ‘This guy inspires me.’”In the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, that enthusiasm for Obama was reflected in the polls, as the Democratic candidate won handily in both areas. And at a celebration for fellow Democrat and potential future Rep. Tom Perriello, R-Charlottesville, in downtown Charlottesville, state senator and 2009 gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds told a crowd that “We’ve elected a president tonight that’s going to bring real change to this country.”Obama himself, in his victory speech, said just he will strive to do just that, but he acknowledged that the road ahead could be fraught with difficulty.“The road ahead will be long,” the next president said. “Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America — I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you: We as a people will get there.”Several students at a viewing party held in Newcomb Hall last night commented that they were excited to see Obama win.Marvin Richards, a first year College student and member of Hoos for Obama, noted that he was not only amazed and in disbelief over Obama’s win, but that he was excited to see the end result of his effort in Obama’s campaign.“Personally, it feels really rewarding to know that my work, and that other people’s work has paid off,” he said.Many Americans, though, believe McCain would have been a better choice to follow current President George W. Bush.Janet Mease, office services supervisor of Spotsylvania County Health Department and a self-described fan of Virginia’s Republican base, said at an Election Day event for House candidate Virgil Goode that she was sad to see McCain fall.“It seems like Obama is going to be the winner and I hope that he is going to do what he has said he was going to do for us to make it a better country to live in,” Mease said, noting that McCain “served the country with honor, with a military background, [and] I just think that the American people should have been behind him.”Likewise, Mary-Lou Gibson, also a Republican supporter at Goode’s event, said she is disappointed with the election results.“I think it’s going to be tough,” Gibson said. “Things are going to be different – it is really kind of scary not knowing what is going to happen.”Obama, too, admitted that not everyone will agree with his decisions while in office. He said, though, that he will strive to listen to citizens and be honest with them whenever he can.“So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other,” Obama said. “Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers — in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.”Keyserling, however, also cautioned against treating Obama as a savior. “He’s human,” Keyserling noted, saying that Obama will face both the normal challenges of assembling an administration and delivering on the tremendous expectations placed upon him by the electorate yesterday.“He was basically crowned the prince of the 21st century,” Keyserling said. “It doesn’t get much more elevated than that. People are going to expect him to revolutionize the world.”In that regard, Obama will be aided by Democratic gains in the House and the Senate, Keyserling said. Still, the expectations are tremendous, perhaps unrealistic.“If Obama fails to walk on water, he will have let them down,” Keyserling said. “But Obama will also enter the presidency with a political mandate like no other before him.”But as McCain noted at the end of his concession speech, America and its next president may be up to the challenges ahead.“Americans never quit,” McCain said. “We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.”
(10/21/08 5:12am)
The University Medical Center and Culpeper Regional Hospital are one step closer to a mutually beneficial partnership, officials said, now that the two health institutions’ boards have both agreed to a University investment in the hospital totaling $40 million.The deal, which must be reviewed by Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonell prior to being finalized, will greatly benefit the growing Culpeper area as a whole, as well as the hospital’s many patients, Culpeper Regional Hospital spokesperson Abra Hogarth said. The partnership is expected to be fully approved by Jan. 1, Hogarth said. “It gives us access to capital, technology and expertise,” Hogarth said, noting that the agreement will help the hospital increase bed space and allow it to hire more personnel.Culpeper Regional Hospital, however, is not the only party that would benefit from the investment. Larry Fitzgerald, University Medical Center chief financial and business development officer, said the agreed-upon partnership is a furthered commitment to the Medical Center’s priorities.“The fundamental reason that we make any investment like this is that the patient is the center of our universe,” Fitzgerald said. He noted that some Culpeper residents requiring more advanced care currently have to be cared for at the University Medical Center, about an hour from their homes. Because of this new partnership, though, residents may be able to acquire specialized care at their regional hospital, he said.In turn, Fitzgerald said, space in the University Medical Center will be freed up, allowing more patient care in Charlottesville. He said bed space is frequently at a premium in the Medical Center, and an agreement of this type will be mutually beneficial.Both Fitzgerald and Hogarth said the agreement may also lend itself to an increase in residencies for University Medical students. “It’s possible,” Hogarth said, noting that the two institutions should be able to more fully articulate the implications of the deal in the near future. “We’re in the process of exploring what we can do together.”As part of the investment, the University will now have five members on the Culpeper Regional Hospital board, Hogarth said. The remaining eight members will be from Culpeper, and the hospital will still control daily operations and retain its independent, non-profit status, Hogarth said; however, the University will have “an added interest” in the hospital because of the deal.
(10/10/08 8:28am)
Which would a college student rather do without: beer or wireless Internet access? That question is one of many asked in a recently released survey of college students, organized by the Wi-Fi Alliance, a global non-profit organization representing the wireless Internet industry, and conducted by Wakefield Research. According to the survey, which interviewed 501 students in September from a variety of schools, wireless access has impacted the world of higher education to such a degree that Wi-Fi is now recognized as a selling point for restaurants and universities, not to mention as a tool both in and out of the classroom.Mike McPherson, University associate vice president and deputy chief information officer, said wireless Internet access is widely available on Grounds and is “very popular with the University’s student body.” He also added that his office firmly believes that this type of access to the Internet has strong educational value.Just how popular is Wi-Fi, though, among undergraduate students across the United States? According to the Wi-Fi Alliance survey, nine of 10 college students said wireless access is as “essential to education as classrooms and computers.” Moreover, three in five students said they wouldn’t go to a college that did not offer free wireless access, more than half said Wi-Fi availability influences their choice of coffee shop and 79 percent of those surveyed indicated that without wireless access, “college would be a lot harder.”“I wouldn’t say you couldn’t do without it, but it does make life a lot easier,” first-year College student Akshat Khaitan said of the service.The survey’s statistics largely can be attributed to a growing affinity for Wi-Fi services by the general public, and increased use of wireless Internet in residences across the country, a Wi-Fi Alliance representative said.“Wi-Fi has become a universal expectation among college students, and their attitudes towards technology are a good indicator of broad changes underway in how we as a society learn, work and communicate,” Wi-Fi Alliance Executive Director Edgar Figueroa stated in a Wi-Fi Alliance press release.The survey supports the notion that the popularity of Wi-Fi has had a significant impact on student habits. According to the report, 55 percent of undergraduate students go online in coffee shops and/or restaurants, 47 percent do so in parks and 24 percent log on in their cars. Not all students, of course, do so — fourth-year College student Matthew Marcus said he rarely brings his laptop out of his room and frequently uses an Ethernet port connection to surf the Internet — but the survey reports that Wi-Fi use has become dominant on American campuses.Not only is Wi-Fi use widespread on campuses in general, it has affected students’ behavior in class. According to the survey, 44 percent of students use Wi-Fi to start assignments early, and more than half of respondents check either Facebook or MySpace and their personal e-mail accounts.“We put [Wi-Fi] in for educational purposes,” McPherson said, noting, though, that he is aware that students regularly check and send e-mails during class. He added that some faculty members have concerns about the use of computers in the classroom for this reason. The University considers such an issue to fall under the domain of classroom management, he said, leaving choices about whether to ban or accept laptop use in class to the discretion of each professor.And as for alcoholic beverages and wireless access? According to the report, if forced to choose, 48 percent of respondents would give up beer before giving up Wi-Fi.“Drinking beer is not going to do ... anything great [for you], but Wi-Fi is really helpful, so it’s an issue of convenience, really,” Khaitan said, noting that he would give up his dining plan to keep Wi-Fi if faced with a possible choice to save one or the other.—Dalia Mortada and Prateek Vasireddy contributed to this article.
(09/19/08 6:57am)
In advance of the upcoming Oct. 4 home football game against the University of Maryland, the University has once again issued a statement allowing Lawn social events, albeit with several new provisions designed to better control excessive crowds and maintain the historic Lawn community, Dean of Students Allen Groves said.The new provisions, which reverse the tailgate ban issued following the home football game against the University of Southern California, are the result of extended discussion with Lawn and Range residents last week, Groves said. The new rules and regulations were outlined in a “Summary of Revised Procedure for Lawn and Range Resident Social Activities on Home Football Game Days,” effective Oct. 4 and provided to The Cavalier Daily via e-mail by Groves.“University policy (contained in The Record) and applicable local and state law have long provided that alcohol is not to be consumed in public areas of the Lawn and Range residential communities (including the historic Lawn itself and alleyways), absent express prior authorization,” the summary states. It continues to explain that Lawn residents may host no more than 40 people — including themselves — in each room, that residents must remain present at their rooms, and that residents are responsible for their guests’ behavior.These stipulations mirror the procedures in place prior to the USC game, Groves said. There are, however, additional regulations designed to better manage the large crowds that frequent the Lawn prior to home football games, he noted.“Lawn and Range residents will be provided with specially colored wristbands prior to game day to distribute to their invited guests,” the summary states. “These wristbands will help identify who has been invited to attend that resident’s private social activity. Each Lawn and Range resident remains solely responsible for ensuring that any invited guest who is provided a wristband and served alcohol by that resident is legally permitted to consume alcohol.”According to the summary, all alcohol provided at a Lawn or Range resident’s social event must be served inside. Alcoholic beverages may be consumed outside but may not extend past the patio space, and access to those drinks must be restricted. Furthermore, any alcohol to be served on game day must be carried to the Lawn or Range before 8 a.m. on game day.Groves said the changes will allow residents to better manage their social events and will help the University avoid chaotic situations like those that occurred before the USC game. At that game, Groves said in an earlier interview with The Cavalier Daily, there were numerous instances of public urination and rowdiness.“We need to move away from people thinking that the Lawn is an open bar on game day and get back to what the policy has always been: private, small social functions hosted and managed by the residents who live there,” Groves said about the new policies.Lawn residents interviewed said, in general, they agree with the new policies and understand why changes were made. Lawn resident Davis Zaunbrecher said he is currently satisfied with the changes, noting that he “certainly hopes” the new procedures help resolve the tailgate issue.“There isn’t ever really going to be a perfect outcome,” Zaunbrecher said. “But I can’t see another solution that would move us forward in the same way this one does.”Lawn resident Adam Robinson said he, too, likes the changes. He noted that having wristbands should provide residents with more autonomy, allowing them to clearly distinguish who should and who should not be in attendance at a tailgate.When tailgates were banned following the USC game, several residents and University officials said many of the problems were caused by parties other than those invited by Lawn or Range residents.Lawn resident Thaddeus Darden, however, expressed some concern about the new policies. He said he “certainly understands the need to control crowds, and is certainly in favor of doing so,” but also said he hopes the new policy does not come across as being excessively exclusive or pretentious.“There needs to be a balance,” Darden said. “We’re going to see how it works out ... I just don’t want the Lawn to be seen as more exclusive because of new policies.”Groves said it is important to keep in mind that having social events and living on the Lawn is a privilege.“The current residents of the Lawn are the trustees of that privilege, for the third-year class and all who come after them,” Groves said, noting the responsibility conveyed upon residents under the new policy to ensure compliance and maintain order. Groves said visitors to the University and other members of the community are welcome to visit the Lawn before games, as long as they behave in a proper manner.Visitors to the University and other members of the U.Va. community are welcome to experience the Lawn on game day,” the summary states. “However, consumption of alcohol will not be permitted in the Lawn and Range community on game days unless the person is wearing a wristband and is an invited guest of a Lawn or Range resident acting in a manner consistent with this revised procedure.”The new policies also provide portable toilets in selected alleyways on game day, trash barrels and trash bags and an increased police/security personnel presence before games, Groves said. All of these provisions are designed to keep the Lawn looking as best it can, Groves noted. “The Office of the Dean of Students will assist in educating the larger student body regarding this revised procedure, including collaborating with Student Council, the Inter-Fraternity Council, the Inter-Sorority Council, the Athletic Department and Alumni Hall to distribute information regarding expectations for game day social activities in the Lawn and Range residential community,” the summary states.Groves said the revised procedure will go into effect prior to the next home football game. From that point on, it will be evaluated on a game-by-game basis and revised as needed, in consultation with residents, administrators and law enforcement officials, he said.Editor’s note: Editor-in-chief Elizabeth Mills did not edit this article because she is a Lawn resident.
(09/19/08 6:55am)
Volkswagen Group of America announced a five-year, $2.1 million education initiative and partnership yesterday with six institutions in Virginia and Washington, D.C., including the University.At the University, the initiative, called “Partners in Education,” will fund a new international component of the Rodman Scholars program and a graduate engineering student fellowship, Volkswagen Group Communication Director Jill Bratina said. The international component will allow students to travel abroad, Rodman Scholar Program Director Dana Elzey explained.“I’m envisioning that students will now be able to go abroad and focus their engineering studies on the global challenges facing us today,” he added.Across the state and Washington, D.C., five other institutions — Fairfax County Public Schools, Northern Virginia Community College, the D.C.-based Excel Institute, George Mason University and Virginia Tech — will also participate in the partnership, Gov. Tim Kaine spokesperson Gordon Hickey said.Bratina said the automobile maker decided to fund the program because of its commitment to continuing education from the high school level onward.“The governor is thrilled with it,” Hickey said. “Volkswagen is proving to be what the governor thought and knew they were, just a great corporate citizen.”Elzey said his program and the Engineering School will benefit tremendously from the partnership because of the funding initiative. The University will receive $500,000 during five years, distributed equally during that time period. Elzey said the new program will increase both the visibility of the Rodman Scholars program and the academic opportunity it provides, noting that the funding will be divided equally between his program and the new graduate fellowship.Bratina said Volkswagen was attracted to the Rodman Scholars program because of the proposed emphasis on international learning experiences.“What was interesting to us with the Rodman scholarship was the desire to have an international component for students to go to Europe or Asia,” she noted. “And obviously being a German company, this was particularly appealing to us.”Bratina said she hopes University students will be able to get involved at either the Audi or Volkswagen headquarters in Ingolstadt and Wolfsburg, Germany, respectively. Both she and Elzey said, though, that the use of the funds is still being planned.“A lot of the details have yet to be determined,” Elzey said. “But it’s fairly simple to make a case for it. There isn’t to my knowledge a global leadership program for engineering students ... and this will allow students to be immersed in the problems of our time.”Initially, anywhere from 15 to 25 Rodman Scholars might be eligible each year to participate in the new international program funded by Volkswagen, Elzey said. In time, that number may grow, he noted, depending on how the program’s plans develop.
(09/05/08 8:00am)
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has asked all state agencies, including the University, to propose three different contingency plans reflecting 5, 10 and 15 percent budget cuts for the 2009-10 fiscal year, said Kaine’s spokesperson Gordon Hickey.The mandated plans for reduction are the third round of proposed state spending cuts imposed since last October in an attempt to cope with the slowing economy and declining tax collections, Hickey said, noting that the typical sources of government revenue recently have seen decline.Hickey also confirmed that the University, as well as other Virginia higher education institutions, would be affected by any proposed cuts ordered by the governor in an effort to balance the state budget.University spokesperson Carol Wood, however, noted that the University initially was unaware that it would be affected by the proposal.“When the original message came out, we did not receive it,” Wood said. “We didn’t have a copy of the memo, and ... I called the governor’s press secretary, and he assured me that higher ed was not involved. The next day, though, we did receive the e-mail.”That e-mail, Wood said, asked the University to create the three contingency plans. She said, however, that the University still has not yet received target numbers from the governor’s office, and noted that the University does not yet know exactly how much money it will have to cut from the budget.“We are now taking the required steps to plan for possible budget cuts,” Wood said. “It’s unlikely to know the actual reduction of the number before October, but we are proceeding in our planning.”Hickey said the contingency plans are needed for the governor’s office to get a better understanding of the present situation.“We’re being proactive so that when the time comes in early October, when the re-forecast is done, we will be ready to go,” Hickey said. Colette Sheehy, vice president for management and budget at the University, said that although the magnitude of cuts will not be known until October, the University is already deferring discretionary expenses and leaving positions vacant.“We have watched the situation deteriorate,” Sheehy said.She added that if the budget cuts are substantial, personnel may be affected, even though the University has avoided layoffs in the past.Wood, meanwhile, said the University “tries very hard to protect the impact [of budget cuts] on the students,” noting that even though budget cuts are a “painful process,” the University has been able to successfully manage such cuts in the past with little to no effect on academic programs.“We have every expectation that we can do it again,” Wood said, explaining that the University is preparing to slow down its rate of spending. “But that doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy.”
(09/02/08 1:54am)
On the heels of Allison Routman’s and Mark Gruntz’s dismissals from the summer 2008 Semester at Sea voyage, several honor-related procedural changes have been made to the fall 2008 Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook.Routman, an Ohio University student, and Gruntz, a California Baptist University student, were both expelled from the University-sponsored academic program after they were accused and convicted of plagiarizing from Wikipedia. The pair’s honor cases, which garnered national media attention, were heard by a panel of three University faculty members. Routman, Gruntz and others raised concerns about Semester at Sea honor procedures outlined and implemented in the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15.As a result of what Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang called “the Committee’s consistent re-evaluation of bylaws and procedures,” the handbook for the fall 2008 Semester at Sea voyage — which departed from Nassau in the Bahamas, Aug. 29 — has seen several changes to honor case investigation, adjudication and appeal procedures. Huang said no particular cases directly played into the decision to modify the Voyager’s Handbook.Chapter Three of the fall 2008 handbook, as provided to The Cavalier Daily by University spokesperson Carol Wood and last revised Aug. 24, reveals that students could play a more significant role in on-board honor cases than they did during the summer 2008 voyage.The fall handbook states that after an alleged academic honor offense is reported to the registrar aboard the ship, he or she will investigate the facts of the case, interviewing relevant parties and collecting evidence. After the registrar completes his or her investigation, he or she will then “compile interview summaries and other evidence in the form of an Investigation Log (the ‘I-log’) and subsequently “convene a panel of three randomly-selected Semester at Sea students (the ‘SAS I-Panel’).”Previously, under the revised summer 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, the registrar, upon completing his or her investigation, would decide whether to formally accuse the investigated student. Under the fall 2008 handbook, that responsibility is now delegated to the “I-Panel,” which will review the “I-log” and decide by majority vote whether to accuse the investigated student.Additionally, the fall Voyager’s Handbook also adds that “a trained member of the Honor Committee’s Counsel Pool, in Charlottesville, Virginia, will be available by e-mail (or, if possible, by telephone), upon request (and reasonable advance notice),” to discuss the accused’s case, answer procedural questions and help him or her create a defense.Just as in the revised summer 2008 handbook, alleged academic honor offenses will be adjudicated by a hearing panel. That hearing panel, however, according to the fall 2008 handbook, will now be composed of “four randomly-selected Semester at Sea students.” The new handbook states that the panel will be overseen by a non-voting hearing chair who is a member of the Semester at Sea faculty or staff, selected by the registrar, and a three-fourths majority vote by the panel will be required to convict the accused student.The fall 2008 Voyager’s Handbook’s increased emphasis on potential student involvement clarifies procedures found in the summer 2008 handbook and is closer to the student self-governance ideal, Huang said. She noted that student involvement was always an option under the summer 2008 handbook, but said the fall 2008 handbook’s language highlights that feature to a greater degree, while still leaving room to handle “logistical problems.”According to the fall 2008 handbook, the registrar reserves the right to appoint one or more Semester at Sea faculty or academic staff members as either the “I-Panel” or the randomly selected hearing panel. The fall handbook states that this provision, under which students would not serve on the “I-Panel” or hearing panel, is included for those times when it proves impossible to convene a fair and impartial hearing panel composed entirely of students.“That being said, if there is ever a possibility to use a student ... we would love to have that,” Huang said of the Semester at Sea honor investigation and hearing procedures.In addition to changes regarding the investigation and adjudication of honor cases, the fall 2008 handbook also includes modifications to the appeals process.In hearing a convicted student’s appeal, the new document states, the “Academic Dean, in consultation with the Chair of the University of Virginia Honor Committee (or, if the Chair is unavailable, in consultation with an Honor Committee Vice-Chair or other Executive Committee member designated by the Chair)” will make the final appellate decision. Previously, under the revised summer 2008 handbook, that duty solely rested with the voyage’s academic dean.The fall 2008 handbook also includes a change to the amount of time given to a convicted student to appeal his or her charge or charges. The appeal must now be given in writing to the academic dean within 48 hours — not within 24 hours, as was the case under the old handbook.Another change included in the fall 2008 handbook focuses on expulsion procedures. Previously, under the revised summer 2008 handbook, a convicted student would be immediately dismissed from the academic portion of the Semester at Sea program as well as the ship. Routman and Gruntz were both dismissed as soon as their voyage’s ship docked in Greece.The fall 2008 handbook, however, outlines a different procedure: “Following expulsion from the academic program, the Executive Dean, on behalf of [the Institute for Shipboard Education], will determine whether and when the student will be expelled from the voyage; such decision resides entirely with the Executive Dean, on behalf of ISE, and not with the Academic Dean or the University of Virginia.”Huang said removing a student from the ship does not fall under the Committee’s jurisdiction. She noted that the Committee’s and the University’s jurisdiction aboard the ship is limited to the Semester at Sea academic program.In addition to the changes made to the Voyager’s Handbook, students participating on the ongoing fall voyage were also required to sign a modified “Honor Certification and Pledge,” Wood said.Signing the certification confirms attendance at an honor system and proper citation style education session, knowledge of the Semester at Sea honor system as outlined in Chapter Three of the fall 2008 Voyager’s Handbook, and willingness to participate in an “I-Panel” or hearing panel if randomly selected.Routman and her father, Brent Routman, both said they very much appreciated the changes to the Semester at Sea honor system, but noted that, at least in the cases of Routman and Gruntz, the changes came “too late.”“I think that’s great,” Allison Routman said when informed of the nature of the modifications. “That’s exactly how it should have been for Mark and I. I definitely think that this is what was needed.” Brent Routman, though, also noted that the implementation of changes to the Semester at Sea honor procedures implies the need for “a do-over.”“I would hope that the University and the University community would see that there was a manifest injustice here, and I don’t think it would set a bad precedent, due to the highly unusual circumstances in Allison’s case... to look at this again,” Brent Routman said. No procedures exist for such a request, however, Huang noted.“Once an appeal is denied, that’s it,” Huang said.Allison and Brent Routman added that neither has pending legal action against the University.
(09/02/08 1:26am)
Ohio University student Allison Routman and California Baptist University student Mark Gruntz were expelled during the Summer 2008 Semester at Sea voyage for committing an academic honor offense — plagiarizing from Wikipedia. Both Routman and Gruntz, however, have since denied that they wrote the allegedly plagiarized portions of their papers with dishonest or deliberate intent, and both said they had “no idea” that what they did could be considered an honor violation. Honor and University officials, though, have maintained their definitions of plagiarism and said differing opinions on the matter have no bearing on the two students’ cases.Routman said her understanding of plagiarism may have been different than what was expected of her, noting that she had been told throughout her academic career that rephrasing information in one’s own words was acceptable.“When they asked me ... about how it looks very similar in structure [to the related Wikipedia article, which appears with excerpts of Routman’s paper, pictured left], I kind of told them, ‘How different can it be, if it’s a summary of a movie,’” Routman said. “But then they said, ‘You chose to talk about some of the same themes.’ And I said, ‘Well yeah, those are the important themes to what we are learning about.’ I can understand how people say it follows Wikipedia to a certain extent, but it never occurred to me that it was wrong. I didn’t take it word for word, and I wasn’t intentionally using the summary without watching the movie.”Portions of Routman’s paper, which was about the film “Europa Europa,” and the Wikipedia article about the film share similarities. Three sentence fragments appear nearly word-for-word in both documents.Routman’s paper contains the fragments “when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa,” “German-speaking minority outside Germany” and “who had just been released from a concentration camp,” while the Wikipedia article, as edited at the time of the incident, stated “when the Germans attack the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa,” “German-speaking minority outside Germany” and “who has just been released from a concentration camp.”Routman defended the use of such sentence fragments, saying “how different can two summaries of a movie be?” Her father, Brent Routman, meanwhile, noted that because such word-for-word fragments were so small as to be potentially seen as trivial, a guilty verdict in an honor case and subsequent expulsion from the ship, as experienced by his daughter, might not have been an appropriate penalty.“If you look at the three sentence fragments — there are only so many ways to say the same thing,” Mr. Routman said. “‘When Germany invaded...’ What are you going to say? ‘When some aggressive northern European country, without permission, crossed the border?’ I’m not sure what the answer is.”Gruntz, meanwhile, said he cited the Wikipedia article for “Burnt by the Sun,” the other movie Global Studies students could choose to write about, twice in his paper, which was not made available to The Cavalier Daily.“It wasn’t a great paper, but that doesn’t mean I plagiarized,” Gruntz said.The allegedly plagiarized portion of his paper was lacking proper attribution, though, he said. Gruntz said Lynch accused him of intentionally leaving out the third Wikipedia citation.In an e-mail, Lynch declined to comment on specific cases, citing honor trial confidentiality, but stated generally, “plagiarism is, simply, the use of the work of others, either by appropriating their language directly or paraphrasing it without attribution, so that it appears to be your own original work.”Other University staff members who dealt closely with Routman’s and Gruntz’s cases similarly declined to speak with The Cavalier Daily about the two former students’ honor proceedings.“I cited Wikipedia twice,” Gruntz said. “But [Lynch] said, ‘I believe you had the intention of not citing it a third time.’ What I want to know is how does he know my intentions? What evidence does he have?”Both dismissed students added that they did not know what they did could be considered an academic honor offense. Routman said she “had absolutely no knowledge what I did would get me in trouble.”Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang, though, said several educational sessions about the University’s honor system, as well as proper research and citation methods, were offered on board the ship. Similarly, Lynch stated in an e-mail that, “I will note as matters of general policy that we had an extensive and detailed set of briefings on the Honor Code on the ship before sailing and we offered seminars on correct citation, again before classes began.” Mary Johnston, Semester at Sea library coordinator at the University, verified Lynch’s statement, noting that Semester at Sea library officials gave “thorough” presentations on how to accurately cite scholarly articles.Additionally, according to Huang and the revised summer 2008 Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook, effective June 15, ignorance of an honor violation is not a valid argument against the prosecution of it. The Voyager’s Handbook states that “dishonest intent” is “established with respect to a particular Act if the actor knew, or should have known, that the act in question was or could be considered an Academic Honor Offense.” The Voyager’s Handbook’s definition of dishonest intent, as well as the hearing panel’s determination that Routman and Gruntz committed honor offenses, though, does not sit well with Alan Briceland, a retired Virginia Commonwealth University history professor who helped start that institution’s honor system almost 40 years ago. “Intent doesn’t mean ‘should have known,’” Briceland said.Briceland noted that, in his opinion, plagiarism has become one of the most misunderstood of the potential honor offenses, not just at the University but at virtually every single higher education institution. He outlined three different possible types of plagiarism — “deliberate,” “inadvertent” and “ignorant” — but said only the deliberate variety should be considered an honor offense. Deliberate plagiarism, Briceland said, occurs when a student makes a conscious and informed choice to circumvent the rules of academia. Because of this “choice” feature, deliberate plagiarism is a moral transgression, and is open to scrutiny by a university’s honor system, Briceland noted. The other types, he said, may lower the quality of a paper to abysmal levels, but they do not constitute an honor violation.“What has happened is that the people in charge think the physical paper, the plagiarism, proves the moral,” Briceland said. “And it does not.”However, Katie Povejsil, an expert on plagiarism and vice president of marketing at iParadigms, which provides the Turnitin.com plagiarism detection service, noted it is ultimately up to the institution and the human beings who run the adjudicating system to define plagiarism and to determine whether any intent was involved.“It’s the institution’s choice,” she said.Huang said the University’s honor system holds students to the standard of “should have known” because virtually all students attending the University either have been given multiple presentations on proper citation and plagiarism, and/or have had the opportunity to educate themselves on such matters. Moreover, she said, it is the Honor Committee’s definition of an academic honor offense that truly matters, because it is that definition to which students agreed prior to boarding the MV Explorer. As a condition of enrollment in the Semester at Sea program, she continued, participating students had to acknowledge the University honor system’s definition of dishonest intent as well as its definition of an academic honor offense. The dismissed students both said they did sign the “statement regarding the University of Virginia Honor System” before the voyage.Stephen Satris, former interim director for the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson University, however, said it was possible that students signed off on Semester at Sea Honor-related forms without truly understanding the system or what constituted plagiarism.“It could have been like when you are installing software on a computer,” Satris said. “And you have that long thing to read, but you don’t really read it, you just gloss through it and check the box, because that’s what you have to do to install the software.”
(09/02/08 1:23am)
Allison Routman and Mark Gruntz may not be traditional University of Virginia students, but when they signed on for the summer 2008 Semester at Sea program, sponsored by the University, they also signed on to a modified version of the University’s honor system. So, when they were charged with and later convicted of plagiarizing from Wikipedia, the University’s single-sanction system was carried out, and the students were dismissed from the Semester at Sea program as soon as the program’s ship, the MV Explorer, docked in Greece.Routman, a 21-year-old Ohio University student, and Gruntz, a 20-year-old California Baptist University student, told The Cavalier Daily that honor hearing panels composed of three faculty members found each of them guilty of plagiarism on the same assignment: the first paper assigned for the mandatory, 101-level “Global Studies — Europe: East and West” class taught by University Politics Prof. Allen Lynch. According to both Routman and Gruntz, students were told to watch one of two films and to write a paper relating the film they selected to their Semester at Sea port experiences and class lectures. The two movies, “Europa Europa” and “Burnt by the Sun,” both detail World War II-related events. Routman chose “Europa Europa,” while Gruntz chose “Burnt by the Sun.”Both students said they were confused after watching their chosen movie and wanted to check some facts for the purposes of writing their assignments.“The movies — they are difficult movies,” Routman said. “They cover a thick subject matter [and] many of them are in subtitles.”As a result, Routman and Gruntz consulted movie summaries available on Wikipedia, they said. “I wanted to make sure I had things in the right order and had the right terminology for the World War II events,” Routman said, adding that she “thought using Wikipedia to check some facts wasn’t a big deal” because the assignment was not a research paper.In composing their essays, Routman did not cite Wikipedia, while Gruntz did so twice, according to the students. Routman and Gruntz admitted the papers that led to their honor accusations were not the highest-quality work they have ever produced.“It was not the best paper I’ve ever written,” Routman said, while Gruntz noted that he didn’t spend much time on his paper.Nevertheless, both Routman and Gruntz said they were satisfied enough with their work to turn the papers in on time.“I didn’t even think twice before turning in my paper,” Gruntz said in reference to whether he considered that his paper could lead to honor accusations. Routman expressed a similar sentiment.“It never occurred to me that what I was doing could be considered plagiarism,” Routman said.Looking back, she said, the first sign of trouble might have been when Lynch devoted an entire class to proper citations after students turned in their papers. Neither Routman nor Gruntz, though, thought they had done anything wrong, they said, noting that they felt Lynch’s statements did not apply to them. Similarly, Routman and Gruntz said they thought Lynch was not addressing them when he later announced in class that some students were under suspicion of plagiarism. Lynch said, according to the students, that if students came forward and admitted guilt via a “conscientious retraction,” possible honor charges would be nullified before they were even filed. In an e-mail, Lynch declined to comment about specific honor cases, including Routman’s and Gruntz’s, citing trial confidentiality.The next day, Routman and Gruntz said, students received their grades.“When I got my paper back, it said that I had gotten a ‘D,’” Routman said. “It said that I hadn’t followed directions and that I needed to be more careful about citations. From that, I was like, ‘OK, fair enough. I understand what they are saying.’ But I figured that if I was getting in trouble for something, I would have gotten an F, or I would have been talked to.”Portions of Routman’s paper, obtained by The Cavalier Daily from Routman and printed below, are underlined. A proofer’s mark corresponding with an underlined portion on the first page reads “from Wikipedia.” Routman said the written comments on her paper were made by either Lynch or by a teaching assistant, noting that she was never told who wrote the comments. The writer stated, “Overall you attempt to tie in the the [sic] theme of the movie to your personal experience which is a start. However, keep in mind that the assignment was intended to be a reflection of your experience so far in the course with appropriate references to the movie, course materials and/or port experiences. Also, be extremely careful about your writing and the use of sources without citation.”A copy of Gruntz’ paper was not made available as of press time, but Gruntz said the comments on his paper focused on one passage in particular, allegedly plagiarized from Wikipedia without proper attribution. Gruntz noted that he had cited Wikipedia twice previously but said he unintentionally did not do so a third time.Both Routman and Gruntz said they were not informed when they received their graded papers back that honor charges would be pressed against them. But they soon received word of such charges.“So, then, from out of nowhere, I get an urgent letter from the registrar [Laurie Casteen], saying to come see her,” Routman said.Routman’s and Gruntz’s honor investigations, unlike those on Grounds, were coordinated by University staff members. Committee Chair Jessica Huang said the “unique nature” of Semester at Sea has led to the implementation of several modifications to the honor system in a guided effort to make the system more feasible aboard the MV Explorer.Pursuant to Honor Committee constitution bylaws, the Semester at Sea Voyager’s Handbook provides special procedures, the language for which is generated by the Committee, for the reporting, investigation and trial of Semester at Sea-related cases. According to the revised summer 2008 Semester at Sea handbook, effective June 15, all Semester at Sea student participants were subject to the University’s honor code during the voyage, whether they were seeking a degree at the University or at another institution. The general procedure for all Semester at Sea honor cases, the revised summer 2008 handbook states, is as follows: Anyone may report a suspected offense by contacting the registrar; the registrar will then investigate the case, conduct interviews and collect evidence. “Upon completion of the investigation,” the revised summer 2008 handbook states, “the Registrar... shall determine, based on the results of the investigation, whether or not to formally accuse the investigated student of an Academic Honor Offense.”If the registrar determines that an honor hearing is in order, an accusation letter will be sent to the implicated student, informing him or her of the charges. Routman’s accusation letter was provided to The Cavalier Daily and appears in print below. A copy of Gruntz’s was unavailable as of press time.At the scheduled hearing, a hearing chair and two other hearing panel members will review evidence and question both the case’s plaintiff and defendant, the revised summer 2008 handbook states. A majority vote by the three hearing panel members, including the hearing chair, is needed to either sentence the accused to expulsion from the ship and the program, or find the accused not guilty of any wrongdoing, the revised summer 2008 handbook states.If found guilty, the accused has an opportunity to appeal to the academic dean aboard the ship. A dismissed party may appeal if the established procedures were not followed or if new, supporting evidence not available at the time of the hearing is made available. This appeal, according to the revised summer 2008 handbook, “does not provide a second hearing of the case;” rather, it “will be based on the existing record and any additional information or new evidence provided to the Academic Dean.”If the academic dean receives a properly constructed appeal, he or she has the authority to affirm the decision of the hearing panel, determine that improper procedures were used and refer the case back to the registrar, or determine that new evidence exists and either refer the case back the hearing chair for a new hearing or dismiss charges.Routman and Gruntz both said they filed appeals after having been found guilty of plagiarism by the honor hearing panel. Routman’s appeal was provided to The Cavalier Daily, while Gruntz’s was unavailable as of press time; portions of Routman’s appears in print below.If the academic dean dismisses the accused party’s appeal, however, as was the case for Routman and Gruntz, that party will be immediately expelled from the MV Explorer, and no further avenues of appeal will remain open, according to the revised summer 2008 handbook.Huang said all trials occurring on board during the most recent Semester at Sea expedition happened in accordance with the revised summer 2008 version of the Semester at Sea handbook.“All procedures were followed,” Huang said.There was one discrepancy, however, according to Routman, who said she was not immediately dismissed from the ship, but was kept on board until the MV Explorer docked in Greece. The reason for this, Routman noted, was that her father, Brent Routman, was concerned about her safety in a country not originally included on the trip itinerary: the ship’s planned docking in Turkey was substituted for a trip to Egypt. With this exception, the outlined procedures were closely followed, according to the accounts given by the expelled students. Gruntz was also dismissed in Greece, but his expulsion in that country was expected, according to both students, because of the time at which his appeal was denied.
(04/25/08 4:00am)
Meredith Woo, associate dean for social sciences in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts at the University of Michigan, was named the new dean of the College of Arts & Sciences during a small ceremony at Carr's Hill yesterday afternoon.
(01/24/08 5:00am)
Republicans and Democrats clashed in the House of Delegates earlier this week before passing a bill that could delay mandatory human papillomavirus? vaccinations for school-aged girls.
(01/18/08 5:00am)
The University has seen a record number of undergraduate applications only one year after officials made waves in higher education by announcing that the University, like Harvard and Princeton, would no longer offer the option of early admission.
(01/16/08 5:00am)
Two ancient Greek sculptures currently on display at the University of Virginia Art Museum, long believed to have been looted from their rightful home by tomb raiders, will soon return to the island of Sicily after coming into the University's possession in 2002. The removal of the artifacts and subsequent changing of hands sparked controversy, and some experts are now commending the University for its efforts in seeing the artifacts sent back home.
(01/16/08 5:00am)
Two ancient Greek sculptures currently on display at the University of Virginia Art Museum, long believed to have been looted from their rightful home by tomb raiders, will soon return to the island of Sicily after coming into the University's possession in 2002. The removal of the artifacts and subsequent changing of hands sparked controversy, and some experts are now commending the University for its efforts in seeing the artifacts sent back home.