22 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/17/13 2:56am)
In his Oct. 16 column, “The descent of Manning,” Conor Kelly objects to Peyton Manning’s serving as the valedictory speaker for the Class of 2014. Kelly argues that “this year’s selection seems inconsistent both with the University’s past and with its vision. We have invited academics, governors, senators, poets, journalists, professors — you get the idea — yet not a professional athlete.”
(10/08/09 6:55am)
(04/06/09 5:17am)
When I first set foot on Grounds in the fall of 2005, I had two goals: to join Student Council and to write for The Cavalier Daily. Unfortunately, I missed the House Council elections, which seemed to me like the likeliest stepping-stone to Student Council. To make matters worse, my tryout columns for The Cavalier Daily Opinion page were summarily rejected. Although it took me three full years to recognize it, these developments, which seemed like unambiguous failures at the time, were just as valuable as any of my (significantly less numerous) successes.It would take a potent case of polydactylism before I could count on two hands the number of awards, scholarships, positions, and honors I have sought unsuccessfully during my time at the University. Still, I have accomplished far more than my two initial goals by following wherever the next opportunity led and staying flexible.As a result of my early setbacks, I dedicated the next two years of my University experience to other clubs and activities, primarily Men’s Water Polo and the University Democrats. I was having a blast, meeting new friends and making waves in the pool and the political world alike. Student Council and The Cavalier Daily were the furthest things from my mind. Only after three years did I return back to my previous goals. Looking back, I achieved both goals, albeit with varying degrees of success. To accomplish the first, I applied to be a co-chair of a Student Council committee. After a few months on that committee, I even ran for Student Council president. Although that effort landed in the “failure” column, it was, once again, one of the most valuable pieces of my University experience. I met groups I never would have otherwise and made lasting friends across Grounds. I also got the sense that I made an impact on the University by spurring conversations about “socioeconomic diversity” and “educational affordability,” which was my focus during the campaign.After the loss, I was urged to apply to for an executive board position on Student Council for the next year. I thought it over and it seemed like a good fit, but I asked one of my closest mentors at the University. He urged me to reconsider, saying, “Don’t try to force open doors that have already been closed.” After mulling it over, I realized that it would probably better just to move on instead of playing second fiddle on the bill I had wanted to headline. It was a smart decision based on sound advice (advice that Joe Biden must have never heard).Instead of grasping at the wisps of my old dream, I dreamt up a new one. Well, not entirely new. Once again, I wanted to be a Cavalier Daily opinion columnist. The big difference in my tryout columns the second time around was that I knew a lot more about the University and about myself. My first-year tryout pieces were on the topics of Observatory Hill Dining Hall and Iraq. In the intervening two and a half years, I learned a lot more about the University than just its dining options and I learned how little I actually knew about Iraq. Not only was I smarter about University issues, but I was smart enough to leave the national ones alone.As you might have guessed, I was accepted as a columnist, which is why I have the pleasure and indulgence of penning this farewell column. As a columnist I strove to focus on crucial issues of student self-governance, whether in the realm of honor, Student Council, athletics, or student life more generally. I wanted my columns to provide accurate information and an experienced student’s perspective on what was really going on and what course should be pursued. I hope future columnists will follow a similar creed and I hope all students will realize that your opinion does not have to be written in print to matter.Ultimately, I will not judge my time at the University by my successes or setbacks. I will look back and fondly recall each experience for what I learned and whom I met. I will be proudest, not of a grade or a column, but of the friends I made and the impact I had. I am grateful that I have had so many, and such varied, opportunities and that I have had the time to sample them all.That is my message to my fellow students: do not assume that your college experience will be one straight line. If a door is closed to you, find another door. There are hundreds of equally great opportunities for you to make a lasting impact on this University. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of the activities I have undertaken, from the water polo team to the University Democrats, and from Student Council to The Cavalier Daily. Still, I know there were many other paths I could have taken, which would have brought me different joys. This, I imagine, is true for all students. There are limitless ways to enjoy your time at the University and seemingly limitless numbers of organizations you can join, each as worthy as the next. Do not lament the doors that are closed to you, as it is inevitable that not every extracurricular attempt will meet with success. Instead be open to the pleasant surprises that await behind the door you choose next. That is the advice I would like to pass on. Well, that and eat at Wayside Chicken, Café Europa, the Local, and Christian’s Pizza. And spend at least one summer in Charlottesville. Of course, I couldn’t leave without offering what I hope will be my greatest contribution of all. Over the past four years I have diligently tasted dozens of Charlottesville restaurant’s steak and cheese offerings, to compare them and find the greatest cheesesteak in town. The results are in: Pacino’s wins. Isaac Wood’s column appeared Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/30/09 5:33am)
Let’s talk about money. Every year, the fourth-year class undertakes a class giving campaign to raise money for the University. While this is a vitally important mission, the target of that mission has been somewhat misplaced, as the student trustees are aiming simultaneously to raise large amounts from a small number of students and a small amount from a larger group of students. Instead, the focus of class giving should be entirely on achieving greater class participation, which provides many more benefits than raising a larger amount of money from fewer students. Accomplishing the goal of greater participation will require some changes in how trustees operate, but will be well worth the effort.The benefits of higher participation are two-fold. First, it will increase the University’s school ranking and reputation and, second, it will get students into the habit of donating money to the University and start what can become a tradition of giving.According to an e-mail from Class Giving Chair Kathy Feeney, “The percentage of graduating seniors who give back to their respective university is a factor used to compute rankings by organizations like US News & World Report.” By increasing the participation percentage, students can improve the ranking of their alma mater. Students should strive for higher rankings for the University, not only because of school pride but also because a higher ranking will reflect well on University graduates in their professional lives.Conversely, the college rankings do not take into account the size of each student’s gift. While raising a few million dollars through class giving is clearly a benefit to the University, it is only a drop in the bucket to a University that received nearly $190 million in gifts in 2007. Spending less time soliciting quick cash in order to invest in a much larger number of smaller donors, who could end up donating again and again, can definitely pay off. Just ask President Obama. If a student does not donate in his or her fourth year, when emotions and nostalgia run high, that student is unlikely to suddenly donate many years later. Donating to the University “becomes a habit,” said Mary Elizabeth Luzar, assistant director of reunions and class activities, in a Cavalier Daily article (“Trustees seek to amp up fourth-year giving rate,” 1/13/2009). A study from the University of San Francisco found that there was indeed a “correlation between senior-class giving programs and first-year alumni giving participation rates.” In other words, encouraging donations produces returns that last beyond just that initial class gift.In order to make a focus on broader participation successful, the trustee program must be improved. The group of 59 trustees should be more completely trained in development, a subject in which the University is well-versed, so that each crop of fourth-year students need not reinvent the wheel. That is to not to say that there is no room for student innovation, but only that tried and true methods of fund-raising should be used with greater regularity. Events, for example, are a much-overlooked development opportunity. Currently, according to Feeney, “The only time we are really face-to-face with the class to solicit gifts or pledges is during Cap and Gown Week.” Relying on traditional techniques is necessary, but not sufficient to achieve higher participation rates. In addition, trustees must come up with innovative ideas for soliciting gifts if participation class giving is to extend beyond the group it currently consists of. This extension of the scope of class giving will require personal contact. Those groups represented within trustees likely already contribute to the class gift, but new students must be reached out to by someone they know and trust, which is not always a member of trustees. To make giving more personal, trustees should visit the leaders of CIOs across Grounds and ask these leaders to solicit class gifts from that CIO’s graduating members. These class gifts can be earmarked for the use of that CIO, giving CIO leaders a great incentive to ask their members for a donation. Fourth-year students will be much more likely to give, since they know the person who is asking them and they know exactly where their money is going. The use of this new strategy would yield more money for many cash-strapped CIOs and no doubt increase class giving participation as well.With this idea, and the countless others that the trustees could certainly add, the University could vastly improve its class giving figures. This year’s goal is just 66 percent participation, which is almost embarrassingly modest when compared to rates in excess of 90 percent at most elite Northeastern schools. Even worse, current participation is only at 34 percent, according to Feeney. With this anemic rate, trustees should waste no time in instituting a new participation-based focus for class giving.Isaac Wood’s column runs Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com
(03/23/09 6:36am)
Today the wishes of students become reality. In a ceremony at 6 p.m., John Nelson will officially take up the mantle of Student Council president, accompanied by newly elected Vice President for Organizations Colin Hood and Vice President for Administration Nikhil Panda. Looking back over the month-long transition period between the Council election and the new members taking office, the incoming leaders have used their time well. Looking at the year ahead, despite some causes for concern, there are positive signs for progress within Council.The transition between outgoing Council President Matt Schrimper’s administration and Nelson’s poses several challenges. First, all of the appointed positions on Council, from the Executive Board to the committee chairs to the hundred or more committee members, must be filled almost entirely from scratch. Applications for the four appointed Executive Board positions, Chief of Cabinet, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and Director of University Relations, were due last Wednesday and interviews will be conducted soon. Applications for those applying to chair one of ten committees are due today.Nelson, in an interview, offered assurances that “nothing has been decided so far” in regards to who will fill any of these positions. He also stressed that “no one is being handpicked for any of these positions.” While that is almost always admirable in an appointment process, the position of Chief of Cabinet is unique and Nelson might be better served by picking someone with whom he is already close. According to the description on the position’s application, “The COC is charged with overseeing Council’s ten standing committees ... [and] relaying information between the President and cabinet.” In effect, the Chief of Cabinet is the president’s lieutenant and right-hand-man. For this type of position, the personal relationship with the president is just as important as any other qualification. While a rigged application process is almost never acceptable, this might be the exception to that rule.Publicizing this array of positions and opportunities is also a daunting task, but on the whole, Nelson, Hood, and Panda have done an admirable job. Although not every student is likely aware of these opportunities, it is a smart decision to target these announcements to certain students and save the all-out blitz for the recruitment of committee members which will take place over the next month. An innovative addition to that stage of recruitment will be the decision of the newly-elected Council leaders to allow returning committee members to forgo the application process and instead sign a “recommit form.” Although Council clearly benefits from hearing from different voices, there is no reason why this decision precludes that. Additionally, by encouraging past members to continue on Council and decreasing the barriers to their doing so, this new process will offer greater institutional memory and continuity, a welcome change from past practice.One last problem in the personnel department is the vacancies within the representative body. Both the Engineering School and the College of Arts and Sciences did not field enough candidates in the election to fill their constitutional allotment of representatives. Now each of the schools’ individual councils must complete an application and appointment process to fix this problem. Although the lack of willing candidates raises questions about the efficacy of Council and the new process undermines its democracy, the effect of this hiccup will likely be negligible. Nelson is convinced that “we will definitely have our entire [representative] body by that first [representative body] meeting,” which will take place a week from tomorrow, on March 31.In addition to picking the people who will make up Council next year, Nelson, Hood, and Panda have spent time ruminating on the issues on which they will focus. Chief among these, says Nelson, are outreach and better budget management. In broad terms, these indeed are the two most pressing concerns for Council. One of the primary reasons for so few candidates running in the past election was a lack of outreach by Council to students over the past few years. When Council has attempted outreach in the past, however, it has often been in the form of a costly giveaway like the $1,800 Free Rita’s Day last year. Instead of casting such a wide net, Council should seek out under-represented groups where they currently are and not wait for those groups to come to Council. If Nelson can find meaningful methods of outreach that replace extravagant spending with bona fide interaction, both goals can truly complement each other.While Nelson hesitated to give specifics on many issues, this is more a sign of pragmatism than lack of planning. If Council is to motivate its members to accomplish its goals, it must make sure to incorporate the views of the representatives and committees, in addition to its executive leaders. With the committees and representatives yet to convene, it would indeed be hasty to make proclamations regarding anything more than the most general of goals. Nelson himself, though, is quite wary of the perils of haste. While he touts the progress that has already been made in the few short weeks since his election, he notes there is no need to rush so long as “we will have the positions we want in place by the time that we want them to be in place.” In the end Council looks to “not just fill the positions, but fill the positions with very strong candidates.” “It’s not simply quick that we want, it is moving efficiently,” says Nelson. Surely words for Council to live by, the whole year through.Isaac Wood’s column runs Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com
(02/23/09 7:18am)
THE UNIVERSITY Board of Elections has been a failure. Since its inception in 2003, the organization has drifted away from its duties and established procedures with disastrous results. Fortunately, a new board will be appointed on April 1 and current student leaders have the opportunity to hold the UBE to its constitution and demand changes in its operation. Students who think constitutional rules are mere technicalities need only read recent headlines to see what the effects are of the UBE acting without checks. The chaos surrounding the Unity Project referendum is only the latest symptom of a deeply flawed system, but hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call to those who can restore rules to the UBE.As everyone who voted in last week’s election undoubtedly noticed, the Unity Project referendum could not be voted on. The Cavalier Daily reported last Tuesday that there was a “glitch” causing the choice between four possible options to be reduced to a choice between “yes” or “no” on the ballot. This oversight forced Student Council to resort to an online poll on its Web site as a substitute. Without the resources of UBE and the security of their voting system, however, that poll is now entirely useless, as students are permitted to vote an unlimited number of times. What is most maddening about this error is that it was not a “glitch” at all. As UBE Chair Alisa Abbot explained in an e-mail interview, “This error occurred because the UBE failed to recognize that the computing system that we use can only support Yes/No questions for referendum.” This is not a new system facing the UBE. It is the same system used last year, and even then the UBE has had an entire year since last year’s election to familiarize themselves with it and make sure they understood how it works.The UBE even had a full 20 days to review and prepare the Unity Project referendum, since it was submitted to them on January 27 and voting did not begin until February 16. Unfortunately for the thousands of voters who will be denied the chance to vote on it, the UBE did not conduct a single test to see how the system would display the referendum. “Currently, the UBE does not have a system in place for testing the way the voting system will actually look online,” said Abbott. This is a gross oversight that makes one question how the UBE spent the year between elections.Ultimately, though, the blame should not fall just on the shoulders of those 11 students who currently serve on the board. UBE has had big problems for years and this year’s struggles only differ by degree. The blame belongs equally to the current board, past boards, and the student body, which has been negligent in holding the UBE to its constitutional responsibilities.The UBE was first voted into existence, rather ironically, through a referendum on November 19, 2003. The constitution ratified by the student body on that day still binds the current board, despite actions which suggest the contrary. That constitution requires that each new board be selected by a panel of five students: “the outgoing Student Council President, Honor Chair, University Judiciary Committee Chair, Fourth Year Council President and UBE Chair.” These students are tasked with reviewing the applications of prospective members, listening to input from each school council’s president, and appointing a board of 11 members. This selection committee is further directed to endeavor “to provide each school with representation on the Board” and “ensure that four of the eleven Board members shall be graduate students.” Current practice violates almost every single constitutional requirement.The most flagrant violation is who currently chooses UBE’s members. According to Abbott, “The people who selected the current members were last year’s Chair and co-Chair Neha Kumar and Le-Anh Bui, respectively.” Instead of rectifying this mistake and reinstating the selection committee, Abbott says, the chair and vice-chair will select this year’s new members. With UBE handpicking its own successors, inevitably, the mistakes of the past few years are likely to be repeated. In fact, the current system has no democratic check at all. If students are fed up with the mistakes of the UBE they have no elected representative to complain to, nor can they contact the members of the UBE whose names appear nowhere on their Web site. To restore the democratic link set up in the constitution, the heads of Student Council, the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee, and Fourth Year Trustees must demand a seat at the table as part of this year’s selection committee.Furthermore, UBE should once again be constituted of a diverse group of students, as constitutionally required. The current membership consists of two Darden students, one Law student, one Nursing student, and seven College students, according to Abbott. The constitution clearly states that four UBE members must be graduate students, while currently only three are. The constitution also calls for “each school” to have representation on the board, yet the UBE has no members from the Engineering, Commerce, or Architecture schools, to name only the most populous omissions. If you doubt whether this is a relevant provision, consider that many school councils allow the UBE to run their elections without any representation or say into how their own elections are conducted.That the UBE is failing has been an open secret for some time. Our elected leaders, who are the constitutional safeguards on our democratic rights, must band together and assert their roles to restore balance to the system. With their successors already chosen, and this year’s election concluded, it would be a well-appreciated final addition to these leaders’ legacies. Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/16/09 7:16am)
THE CHOICE of Student Council Vice President of Organization (VPO) is an important one. The position is entrusted with almost $600,000 in student tuition, in the form of the Student Activity Fund, which it doles out to CIOs. The two candidates, Colin Hood, Student Council Safety and Wellness Vice-Chair, and current Appropriations Committee Co-Chair Brendan Whittington, are both thoughtful and responsible, and either of them would be able to carry out the basic duties of the position. Hopefully the following information from research and candidate interviews will help students decide for themselves who would be best suited for the job.Colin Hood’s argument for why he is the best candidate is that the VPO does more than just appropriations. While he acknowledged the importance of appropriations to CIOs who depend on that money for their operation, he lamented the fact that, in the past, the VPO had been merely “a third appropriations co-chair.” Hood’s vision extends beyond this, as he believes increasing the connection with CIOs is key. Hood wants to reach out and encourage CIOs to come to the VPO, who is the “easiest person to have that quick access to the administration to fix things for them.”He also cites the nascent CIO Consultant program, which was intended to replace the bygone Leadership Consultants, as an important piece of this change. Hood’s plan would be to “restructure it so each CIO consultant is personally assigned 20 or 30 CIOs” and each consultant would be responsible for giving advice to their constituent CIOs. He also would have these consultants assist in the appropriations process, making them available to review CIO budgets and “help them write efficient budgets” that will allow the clubs to go through their appropriations hearings smoothly. With the Leadership Consultants program discontinued and the CIO Consultants replacement not fully implemented, Hood says, if he was running a CIO under the current system, “I don’t know who I would go to.”Another area where Hood hopes to make improvements is the fall semester activities fair. He wants to “really show off the University,” incorporating student group performances and greater Charlottesville community involvement.Even though he has no Appropriations Committee experience, Hood has a unique outlook on the appropriations process, perhaps the most visible of the VPO’s duties. He has never been a member of the Appropriations Committee, so all the hearings he has attended have been on behalf of CIOs. Perhaps for this reason, he is strongly against the 61% across-the-board budget cuts levied against all CIOs who applied for funding at the end of the fall semester. On a YouTube video posted for Hood’s campaign, the words “No more budget cuts,” flash in front of a picture of the Rotunda. His opponent claims this amounts to a promise that Hood will eliminate all budget cuts, a dubious claim to be sure. For his part, Hood says, “I think that no budget cuts is something we have to go for. I apologize if people take that as a direct promise of something that is going to happen right now, because it is not.” Yet, he says, it is “something that we can achieve” through a combination of supply-increasing and demand-reducing changes. Hood also hopes to get more funding from the Board of Visitors, although he does not advocate for raising the student activity fee. To reduce demand for appropriations money, Hood hopes to find an array of alternative sources of funding for CIOs, and he wants to make more line-item cuts of specific extraneous requests.Hood is a compelling candidate. He has experience running a CIO as founder of Hoos Ready, which gives him a unique perspective into how the VPO should help clubs. He is both articulate and friendly and seems eager to undertake all aspects of the position. Some voters will also see his holistic vision of the VPO as something other than a “third appropriations co-chair” as a boon.Hood does have some negatives however. He is clearly the less experienced candidate, and his knowledge of certain areas of the VPO’s duties leaves something to be desired. He was less than fully informed about the Board of Audit Management and how much money certain clubs currently receive. Some also take issue with the “no budget cuts” platform, which even Hood admits is not a realistic goal for his term. Brendan Whittington, on the other hand, is a candidate who will appeal to those who believe appropriations experience is the most important qualifier for the office of VPO. Whittington has served on the Appropriations Committee for two years, this past year as co-chair of that committee. This experience has given him some strong opinions about Appropriations and the role of VPO.To start with, Whittington takes issue with Hood’s stance on across-the-board budget cuts, calling it “ridiculous.” Whittington says, “I don’t think that will ever happen,” instead setting his own goal of lowering the across-the-board cuts to “20 or 15 percent.” He also says the cuts “might even be healthy,” since they force CIOs to commit their own funds to the projects and events they propose. His experience with Council’s side of the process is unparalleled, as he estimates he has sat in on “over 100, maybe 150” appropriations hearings, although he has never experienced appropriations from a CIO’s point of view.From his experience, Whittington has put together a four-point plan to address other appropriations issues. He wants to institute “Marketplace UVA,” a Web site where CIOs could lend out their assets and equipment free of change to other CIOs and would be rewarded with a credit that would reduce the across-the-board cut the lending CIO would be subject to during subsequent appropriations. He would also change the appropriations formula to create incentives for CIOs to fundraise, ending the current practice where every dollar raised is equal to a dollar reduction in their appropriation. Additionally, Whittington wants to “reactivate” the CIO Consultant program and the Board of Audit Management. The Board of Audit Management would be tasked with tracking CIO assets and ensuring CIOs report accurate information during the Appropriations process. Lastly, Whittington wants to form a committee of Student Council and CIO representatives to rewrite the Treasurer’s Manual which governs and explains the appropriations process.Whittington’s experience is clearly his greatest asset, but the detail of his plans for next year are admirable as well. He is authoritative, confident and passionate, all of which would be beneficial to anyone serving in this type of leadership position. He is also realistic, hesitant to make any promise that he does not fully believe is capable of being carried out within his one-year term.His candidacy does have three main drawbacks, however. First, his experience is entirely from the side of the Appropriations Committee, limiting his understanding of how the process works for CIOs. Second, Whittington has a somewhat undemocratic view of appropriations, saying unapologetically that the Appropriations Committee is “semi-autonomous” from the elected Student Council body. Lastly, he has already committed University Board of Elections campaign expenditure violations by failing to report his campaign spending within the required 24-hour period.Comparing these two candidates side-by-side, there is no obvious choice for who should become the next VPO. Students need to consider carefully what they want from the next Council VPO.Isaac Wood is an associate editor for the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.woot@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/09/09 7:54am)
“SUNLIGHT is said to be the best of disinfectants.” These words were spoken by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis almost one hundred years ago, yet they ring equally true today. The American system of government has long relied on transparency to cure the evils of corruption and to uncover wrongdoings so they can be corrected. This transparency applies to almost all aspects of governance, from the White House to the county courthouse. Students at the University quickly realize, however, that there are still some places where this sunlight does not shine. While the honor system is understandably bound by the limits of confidentiality, it has the power to implement greater transparency. Only then will students truly believe that the Honor Committee has nothing to hide.The current debate raging about the Committee centers on the balance between transparency and confidentiality. Critics of the system blame the Committee for refusing to comment on any cases and keeping the trials closed to all observers and media. Supporters counter that the Committee is bound by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prevents schools from releasing the educational records of its students. As Honor Chair Jessica Huang said in an interview, “the policies of confidentiality are not in place in the interests of the Committee, but rather in the interests of the rights of the student.”FERPA itself exists for obvious reasons. Even frequent Committee critic Sam Leven agrees that the Committee’s confidentiality is a plus in certain situations, since it “helps limit that damage that that guilty verdict does to your life.” For innocent students it is also clearly a positive trait of the honor trial process, since it prevents innocent names from being dragged in the mud.Still, confidentiality has its price. Since most honor trials are closed to the public and even the press, which is quite rare in a democratic society like ours, members of the community are unable to monitor the system and the representatives they elect. All of this comes to a head when there are allegations of misconduct, like those contained in the Jan. 13 Cavalier Daily article, “Honor case highlights procedures.” In that article, a former student charges that jurors fell asleep during her case, the trial chair was unaware of the basic rules, and that the opposing counsel was inappropriately accusatory and had to be reprimanded by the trial chair. Without any impartial, third-party observers to report on the trial, it is the accused student’s word against the blanket denials of the Committee, which refuses to address specific cases. There are several ways to remedy this untenable situation. First, the Committee should stop hiding behind the FERPA requirements and instead merely abide by them. FERPA specifically allows the release of information which is not personally identifiable. Although there is an understandable desire to avoid costly litigation by interpreting FERMA as broadly as possible, the Committee’s duty is to its constituents, the students. Therefore, the Committee should comply with FERPA in every way, but ensure that whenever possible, available information is disclosed. The community could benefit greatly from this new information, even with the caveat that it be non-identifying. The current practice of issuing “no comment” on all specific cases is one example of an unnecessarily restrictive policy. How does responding to allegations of whether or not jurors slept through a trial personally identify the accused student? Clearly it does not, yet Huang refused to respond to those exact allegations, pointing to the blanket policy of not commenting on specific cases. There is a second potential reform which would create greater transparency while staying within the legal guidelines. Under this reform, students wishing to talk to media like The Cavalier Daily would be asked by the Committee to voluntarily sign a waiver of their FERPA rights. This type of waiver already exists, and the Committee’s bylaws state, “An investigated, accused, or dismissed student may waive his or her right to confidentiality at any time... by signing a written waiver for that purpose...” One of the main bones of contention regarding confidentiality has been the perceived unfairness of the accused student taking their case public, while the Committee is unable to defend itself. If all students are asked to signed this waiver, their acceptance would cause this inequity to disappear, while if the student refused to sign the waiver, it would then be quite reasonable for The Cavalier Daily and other news sources to refuse to publish allegations by those students.Then there is a third idea, advocated by Leven, whereby The Cavalier Daily would be allowed to attend and report on trials as long as they did not release personally identifying information. There is even some precedent, as former Special Assistant to the Honor Committee Nicole Eramo explained, of “allowing any student to petition to the Vice Chair for Trials to attend” trials, although in the past they were bound to complete confidentiality and therefore could not report on the proceedings. This third solution is clearly the most radical, but also posses the most potential.Although this final proposal should be adopted only after careful consideration by the Committee’s legal counsel, the first two suggestions are practically no-brainers. The Committee and its constituent students should take a break from divisive debates about the single sanction and try to implement some common-sense reforms that will improve the system. What is true during these bleak winter months is just as true with honor: a little bit more sunlight would be a welcome change.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/02/09 10:34am)
“IF IT AIN’T broke, don’t fix it.” This piece of folksy wisdom is too often employed by proponents of the status quo. Perhaps the only benefit of the current economic crisis is that it has shown us certain things that were broken, from the subprime mortgage system to finance regulation. It’s not just Wall Street that has experienced this, though, as even our own Student Council is now experiencing tough times. As we deal with the unfortunate realities of a tighter budget, student leaders should press for permanent reforms so that Student Council never returns to its previous bloated state.On January 20, as Barack Obama was giving his inaugural address, members of Student Council’s Environmental Sustainability Committee received some worrying news. “We have just received word from StudCo Exec that there is a significant shortage of funding for the Spring semester,” the e-mail read. “Any budget item that involves non-SAF funding (which includes, most notably, food) must find funding from outside Council, or be cut. We are simply out of non-SAF funds for the year.” These funds are used for all expenses not allowed under the Board of Visitors’ rules for the use of the Student Activity Fund (SAF), such as food and awards.According to Student Council President Matt Schrimper, the “primary source” of these non-SAF funds is the University Bookstore. Over the summer, the Executive Director of the Bookstore Jon Kates indicated that the Bookstore intended to make $30,000 in gifts to the Student Council, which is in accordance with recent practice and tradition, according to Schrimper. The gift was to come in installments, but in November, Student Council received word that the February installment would be $5,000, instead of the $10,000 on which they had planned.In January, the news went from bad to worse. “We got word this January that all $10,000 that we have remaining in non-SAF funds will not be forthcoming from the Bookstore,” Schrimper said. While Student Council currently has $10,000 in non-SAF funds in its account, it has already approved more than that amount in projects. Schrimper stresses that Student Council is not yet “cutting any programs” but the message to committees like Environmental Sustainability has been to find alternative funding, since the Student Council money will no longer be available.What will be the end result of this shortfall? According to Schrimper, the two biggest areas of impact will be student-initiated courses, which face a 50 percent deficit that would have been put towards professor stipends, and Unity grants, which give “unrestricted grants” to CIOs who work towards strengthening ties with the surrounding community. In both cases, Student Council is searching for alternative funding sources. While those are the largest projects that are currently endangered, there are others as well. Safety and Wellness Committee Vice Chair Colin Hood said his group had been planning a “nutritional breakfast” that they are now “postponing, maybe permanently.” Still, he says the impact of the non-SAF drought is not dire because “most of our funds we could get from SAF.” This is true for all of Council, but the one-third cut in non-SAF funds should be seen as a warning, especially given how out-of-control spending has been in Student Council’s history.Perhaps the most egregious example of Council’s past extravagance was the lavish committee chair dinners, including one at downtown hot-spot Bang!, which cost the previous Council $600. This expenditure, funded entirely from non-SAF sources, was rightly eliminated this year, along with the practice of providing food at committee meetings, according to Schrimper. The decision to eliminate these unnecessary and unethical perks looks even better in retrospect, given the current shortfall. Still, there are other steps that must be taken now that Student Council is staring at a $10,000 deficit.One common sense step that some on Council are already advocating is for committees themselves to conduct fundraising to help offset some of the costs of their projects. A version of this has already been successful, as some events this year have benefited from donated food, which offsets a large, non-SAF expense. In general, Student Council should never endeavor to ply small groups of students with free food, using money intended to benefit the student body at large. Seeking donations of food is a vastly preferable system.Still, more could be done, and Hood says, “My advice would be for committees to plan on ways to fund their projects without relying on Student Council.” Schrimper echoed that sentiment, saying, “long-term [fundraising] could be a healthy aspect of what committees do.” As Hood points out, if committees find sources of funding other than student fees and uncertain Bookstore gifts, it “won’t only benefit them it will benefit the entire student body.”In the end, the budgetary struggles should be seen not just as a hardship, which they no doubt are, but also as an opportunity. Maybe Student Council should suggest a new saying. “If you’re broke, fix it.”Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/26/09 5:36am)
NEITHER snow nor sleet nor dark of night keeps this University from its appointed rounds. Certain inaugurations, it seems, are another matter. Last week, for three hours at least, the usually unstoppable force of the University took an uncharacteristic break, canceling classes to allow students, faculty, and some staff to watch the historic inauguration of Barack Obama. This stoppage, although somewhat controversial, was the right course of action and a rare case of the University administration realizing that we all are members of a community that extends far beyond these Grounds.Canceling class from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the Tuesday of the inauguration came as a shock to most. The decision was announced via e-mail a week in advance by University Provost Arthur Garson who cited the desire to “allow our students, as well as other members of our community, to participate in this exercise in democracy.” In addition to the cancellation of class, the University made further accommodations by opening John Paul Jones Arena for all who cared to watch the event on the Jumbotron. The cost of this was over $3,000, according to the University’s Chief Operating Officer, Leonard Sandridge.The reaction from those students who attended the gathering in the arena was wildly positive. First-year Callie Broaddus labeled the atmosphere as “powerfully electric.” Second-year Deloreon Burton called it a moment of “high cultural and historical importance” and said the University “made the right decision.” Fourth-year Susan Fisher welcomed the opportunity, saying such a powerful memory “shouldn’t have to be made within the confines of a lecture hall.” Those who attended were a mixed group of students, faculty, staff, and others not directly affiliated with the University. In total, according to the Charlottesville Daily Progress, the crowd numbered approximately 1,000. The general feeling was one of a celebration with loud cheering, sustained applause, and even dancing as the event was shown on the Jumbotron overhead.While some students welcomed the opportunity to gather together and mark the historic occasion, others saw it as overt partisan favoritism. Savanna Rutherford, chairman of the University College Republicans, said her opinion on the matter was “complicated.” While she recognized that “every inauguration is a historical event,” she explained, “My problem with it is, classes were not canceled in 2001 or 2005 when President Bush was sworn in.” After talking with University President John Casteen, she was told that “the decision was made not based on partisan beliefs, but rather was made because the technology had not been available in 2001 or 2005.” Still, she does not believe that classes would have been cancelled if the occasion had instead been Republican candidate John McCain’s inauguration. The next time a Republican is inaugurated, Rutherford said, she hopes the University will remember to show equal consideration.Garson addressed this concern in a quote to The Cavalier Daily on January 21, tacitly endorsing the idea of a permanent University special schedule to accommodate the inauguration. “The idea of spending 3 hours every four years as community,” said Garson, “listening and speaking and reacting together to the next president of the United States is something that I believe should occur at U.Va.” This is a laudable position and should be made permanent policy of the University. Like it or not, students at the University have more important affiliations than that with their school, and the duty to their country is surely one of them. Still, Garson’s words ring somewhat hollow given the unwillingness of the University to cancel classes on Election Day this past year, despite student appeals to civic duty.Even among those students who approved of the University’s decision to cancel classes and open up John Paul Jones Arena, there was still some resentment that similar courtesy had not been extended on Election Day. Meredyth Gilmore, a third-year Obama supporter, said, “I was very impressed that U.Va. recognized the importance of the [inauguration]; I only wish they had showed the election similar treatment.” Broaddus agreed, saying she found it “interesting that they cancelled classes on Inauguration Day and not on Election Day.” An Election Day class cancellation may even have been less controversial, as the administration would have been extending equal consideration to supporters of all candidates, instead of just the supporters of the candidate who won. If, as Garson suggests, the University cares about the civic responsibilities of its members, the break in classes on Inauguration Day should be matched by a similar break on Election Day. Instead of viewing Obama’s inauguration as a once-in-a-lifetime event, it should be seen as a reminder of the privileges and responsibilities of living in a democracy. Last Tuesday should be treated as a nascent tradition, inaugurated alongside our 44th president.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(01/20/09 5:20am)
IN 1983, the University athletic department debuted the ‘Hoo. Picture a bright orange version of the Phillie Phanatic mascot, or as The Cavalier Daily described it at the time, “a video game reject who tried out for Ms. Pac-Man and didn’t make the cut.” It was, in the words of its athletic department creator, intended as an “entertainment device.” A letter to the editor of The Cavalier Daily offered a harsher assessment, calling it “a bastard child born out of the incestuous relationship between the athletic department and the cash register.” Unfortunately, this relationship is still going strong to this day. The athletic department must listen to students more and concern itself less with the black and red of the balance sheet and more with the orange and blue of the University.Athletics at the University, like most aspects of student life, is rife with tradition. Or, at least, it had been in the past. Football games 10 years ago were quite similar to those of 20 years. Ten years ago, students dressed up for the game and at halftime either got a “pass-out” to go tailgate and come back later or stayed in the stadium and watched the Pep Band. Now, students are told to participate in the “Sea of Orange,” “pass-outs” are no longer offered, and the Pep Band is banned from all varsity athletic events.In each of those instances, the athletic department made an unpopular decision without consulting students, unilaterally instituting questionable policies. Fast forward to 2008. The athletic department instituted a sign ban without even notifying any student groups or leaders in advance. Ultimately, students prevailed by threatening a protest that highlighted not only the sign ban, but the “Sea of Orange” as well. Following the sign ban repeal, students gained a little respect, but the athletic department must do more than pay lip service to student concerns.To hear Athletics Director Craig Littlepage tell it, the student voice already resounds loudly inside his department. In an e-mail interview, Littlepage said the athletic department has “established communication lines,” built “a relationship,” and sought “feedback” from various “student groups.” These groups include Student Council’s Athletic Affairs Committee, Hoo Crew, and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, according to Littlepage.To hear Pete Peterson, chair of Student Council’s Athletic Affairs Committee, tell it, the student voice is more like a whisper to the athletic department. “It would be nice if the athletic department could prioritize student concerns more,” Peterson said in an interview. He pointed out that much of the dissatisfaction with the athletic department stems from the fact that it is run in a way that is in “conflict with our own principles of self-governance.” While he admits that the aftermath of the sign ban allowed student leaders to get their “foot in the door with Littlepage and get some of our ideas across,” he added that no tangible progress has been made.There are several possible solutions to the deafness of the athletic department, some radical and some more reasonable. In the radical category is Vanderbilt University. In 2003, its president issued a stunning announcement abolishing the entire athletic department. No, Vanderbilt did not disband their sports teams. Instead, they placed athletics under the banner of student life. The goal was to integrate athletics into the rest of the university, so athletes would be more like other students and the rest of the university would feel more ownership of athletics. The results speak for themselves. Vanderbilt’s athletics have improved, even while competing in the cutthroat Southeastern Conference. Even more important, the university, its students, and its athlete all report greater satisfaction with the new system.Obviously, the Vanderbilt solution is unlikely to occur here. As former James Madison University president Ronald Carrier noted in The Hook, University President John Casteen has “always understood the role of athletics for alumni giving.” With that in mind, he is unlikely to institute any major changes unless absolutely necessary.That leaves it up to the athletic department, as it currently exists. Before new policies are instituted, Littlepage should sit down with Hoo Crew, Student Council’s Athletics Affairs Committee, and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Students should be consulted so the athletic department understands student concerns and priorities. The current system of hearing student ideas, ignoring them, and then instituting new policies without consultation is not acceptable.Of course, there is another option. Remember the hideous ‘Hoo? Students got rid of that mascot after just two games. How? As a Sports Illustrated article stated at the time, the mascot “1) was showered with ice cubes from detractors in the stands and 2) suffered the forced removal of its tongue by pie-eyed fraternity boys.” Certainly, another way to get the athletic department’s attention.Isaac Wood’s column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/24/08 5:25am)
MANY STUDENTS joke about the Fourth Year 5K. After all, what college student would rather run three miles than drink some liquor? As emergency room visits and at least one fatality have proven, however, the tradition where some fourth years drink a fifth of liquor before their final home football game is no laughing matter. The Peer Health Educators should be commended for organizing the Fourth Year 5K, which seeks to displace the “fourth-year fifth.” At the same time, the event is just one small step towards encouraging healthy habits, and it must be rethought and revamped if it is to fully accomplish its goal.The Fourth Year 5K began 17 years ago and has been held as an annual event since its founding. Its goal is to combat the fourth-year fifth by replacing an unhealthy tradition with a much healthier one. In 1997, that goal became even more urgent as fourth year Leslie Baltz died after falling down stairs on the day of the last football game. Her blood alcohol content was .27. While it was never confirmed that she was participating in the fourth-year fifth, binge drinking was the clear cause of her death.Since then, University students have been urged by many to abstain from such perilous behavior. Students and student groups like the Peer Health Educators have been critical to these efforts. Last year, 143 fourth years ran in their Fourth Year 5K, and students who have participated in the 5K in past years are effusive in their praise for the event. Megan Machich, a fourth year who will be participating this year for the third time, says, “The energy and support are unmatched by any 5K I’ve ever participated in.” Much of this energy comes not just from fourth years, but from spectators and others who run in the race, demonstrating their support for its message. While the 5K is a clear success from the perspective of those who participate in it, its goal remains somewhat unrealized. Last year, 17 years after the first running of the Fourth Year 5K, according to the University’s Office of Health Promotion, over 300 fourth years attempted the fourth-year fifth. There are two reasons for the limited success of the 4th Year 5k. First, not all fourth years are interested in running, or even walking, three miles at 8 a.m. on a Saturday. This is clearly the greatest limiting factor in event participation. Many people have never run a 5K, and while many students choose the Fourth Year 5K as their first one, a much larger number simply are not interested.To put together a true alternative to the fourth-year fifth, an event with more widespread appeal is necessary. This is not to say that the Fourth Year 5K should be scrapped, but instead it should be expanded into a more comprehensive festival-type morning. The 5K should remain a component, perhaps even the centerpiece, but live music, free food, and a festive game-day scene would appeal to many more fourth-years than an 8 a.m. run. The opportunities are limitless, so why stop at a 5K?The second problem with the Fourth Year 5K is the first two-thirds of its name. By targeting fourth years, organizers limit their ability to encourage healthy habits from day one of the University experience. Ideally, one would imagine, students would abstain from binge drinking starting in their first year. If the Peer Health Educators want to encourage a pattern of healthy choices, instead of trying to fight three years of accumulated habits, they should take a few simple steps.The first step is to actually reward students who demonstrate healthy behavior by participating. Under the current system, students pay up to $15 and run three miles and in return, as the saying goes, all they get is a lousy T-shirt. A better idea would be to give a free race T-shirt to all finishers and not require any entry fee. While those who consider themselves “runners” would gladly pony up $15 for a 5K, first-time participants and those who are less enthusiastic about the event are likely further discouraged by the fee.Second, the event should have prize categories for each class, instead of the two current categories of fourth year and all other years. This would show that all students are equally encouraged to participate and would start a healthy, annual tradition where students try to improve their result within their class and each class tries to increase its participation in the race.All things considered, the 4th Year 5k is off to a good start and by the time you read this, I’ll have run the race myself. Just like any good runner, though, Peer Health Educators should constantly look for ways to improve and not rest on their laurels for too long.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/17/08 8:00am)
THE AVERAGE course packet at Brillig Books costs $34.61. The cost of the same materials posted to Toolkit or Collab? $0. Required course packets generate unnecessary costs to students' wallets, time and the environment. With this in mind, more professors should post their class materials online.
(11/10/08 5:37am)
LET THIS be a newsflash to University students: Your vote does count. Never has this been clearer than on Tuesday night, when we went to bed not knowing who would be our Congressman-elect when we awoke the next morning. In fact, several mornings later, we still don’t know. In a race that is so close it won’t be settled for weeks, students know that their votes will be the decisive ones.At this point it is still impossible to say what the final result will be. Will Republican incumbent Virgil Goode be reelected and serve a seventh term in Congress? Or will Democratic newcomer Tom Perriello prevail and become the first Democratic congressman from this district since, well, Virgil Goode.Yes, that’s right. Virgil Goode was first elected, way back in 1996, as a conservative Democrat. Over time he went from Democrat, to Independent, and now is firmly ensconced in the Republican camp. And that’s just some of the trivia that is bound to become common knowledge with Virginia’s Fifth District making headlines as the recount is drawn out over the next month.Yes, that’s right. A month. According to state election law, Virginia election results will not be finalized until the State Board of Elections meets on November 24 to certify the final tallies. Then, any losing candidate can file for a recount within 10 days, making the final deadline for all recount declarations December 4. While there are no automatic recounts in Virginia, most observers believe that whoever loses is likely to call for a recount. This choice is made even easier because the state pays for the recount costs in all races that are decided by half a percent or less. This race will certainly fall into that category.How close is it? At the time of this writing, Perriello leads by just 832 votes out of the more than 300,000 cast. That is nearly a quarter of a percent. The lead keeps see-sawing back and forth between the two candidates as provisional ballots are accepted or disallowed and as voting errors are corrected. On election night, The Associated Press actually began by calling the race for Goode. Later, Perriello was leading and The AP was eventually forced to withdraw that projection. As night gave way to dawn, Perriello held a slender lead. Then, at 8 the next morning, the State Board of Elections Web site began showing first Goode and then Perriello leading by miniscule margins.Confusing, isn’t it? That is the price we pay for our democracy where we demand each vote be counted. All things considered, this confusion is less a symptom of a convoluted electoral system than a sign of a closely contested congressional race, something we should be grateful for. From Charlottesville and Albemarle County in the north to Danville and Martinsville, Fifth District voters were treated to a true race. There were two competent, mainstream candidates who waged a spirited and competitive campaign, not always a given in some of the 434 House districts across the country.Additionaly, there were 316,429 voters. This is where the plaudits are due. Students should be commended heartily for taking a real interest in this race and ensuring that they were properly registered, that they voted, and that they encouraged other students to join them at the polls on Election Day. In the four precincts where most students vote (East Ivy, U-Hall, Alumni Hall, and Venable) turnout increased noticeably between 2004 and 2008. In East Ivy, turnout rose from 859 in 2004 to 1,169 in 2008. In U-Hall, turnout rose from 772 to 1,300, nearly doubling. In Alumni Hall, there were 1,097 in 2004, which rose to 1,469 this year. Venable saw an increase of almost 1,000 voters, going from 1,962 in 2004 to 2,904 in 2008. These are incredible increases that can be chalked up to more student voters and more student volunteers encouraging their neighbors to vote.Marta Cook, chair of the Voter Registration Coalition here at the University and a former Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist, said voter registration on Grounds was overwhelming. “I ran out of [forms] as soon as I could get a hold of them.” The credit goes to a variety of organizations, from partisan student groups like the College Republicans and University Democrats, to non-partisan entities like Student Council and the U.Va. Center for Politics. As for student votes in the Fifth District race, Cook said, “It will be the difference.”When elections are as close as this year’s Fifth District race, every vote counts. Students should be commended for turning out in record numbers. This year, our reward is something more than the “I voted” sticker you were handed on the way out of the polling place. This year, we can stand up and say we made the difference in this election. And that will be true no matter which way it turns out.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/27/08 5:12am)
STUDENT Council doesn’t get paid, but that’s not to say they work for free. An examination of the past few Student Council budgets shows the true cost of the perks Student Council members grant themselves. In free food for Council members alone, students are footing a bill of over $4,500 this year. It’s high time the student body found out and spoke out about this wasteful, unethical behavior.In the 2008-2009 Student Council budget, five of the 10 standing committees — Student Life, Legislative Affairs, Environmental Sustainability, Community Affairs, and Academic Affairs — receive allocations for “food” or “snacks” at committee meetings. The amount budgeted per committee ranges from $112 all the way to $450. This means that a few dozen committee members will personally eat through $1,252 of student money this year.Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. The Appropriations Committee, a semi-autonomous group consisting of elected Student Council representatives plus additional student volunteers, plans to spend an astonishing $1,700 on food during its meetings this year. To put that number into perspective, that is the equivalent of 340 medium pizzas.Many of you may have noted that $1,700 plus $1,252 does not sum to $4,500. Yes, you are right. There’s more. Student Council has budgeted $500 for “Lawn Gatherings,” $600 for a “Rotunda Reception,” and the University Unity Project will receive its own $500 food budget. The final tally is $4,552.In fact, this figure is a conservative one. There are additional amounts sprinkled throughout the budget for “food,” but hopefully the additional $14,000 budgeted for food will actually go to the students that Council was elected to represent. In this case, yes, it is appropriate for Student Council to pay for food. Somewhere, though, the line must be drawn, so it is clear that we students don’t intend for our money to pay for each Council member’s dinner. While food is not paid for from the Student Activity Fund, meaning student tuition dollars are never directly spent on it, that technically is meaningless. Whatever the funding source, all money spent by Student Council is intended for student use and any money Student Council spends on itself could have been spent elsewhere.John Nelson, Student Council Vice President for Administration, defended Council’s actions, saying, “This year, we have worked to reduce the cost of our internal operations.” In a way, Nelson is right. Outrageous internal expenditures have been the norm for several years, and these type of expenditures are somewhat reduced this year. Comparing last year’s and this year’s budgets, though, shows only two real changes, though they are commendable nonetheless. Last year, Student Council held several “cabinet dinners” open to committee chairs and executive members only, costing over $600, according to the budget. In addition, this year’s retreat was cut from two nights to one, yet the price tag is still a lofty $4,500, or over $100 per attendee. While Council took two admirable steps to reduce wastefulness, why did they stop there?Nelson also notes that, “some internal spending is necessary for a productive year.” While this is true, expenses can clearly be cut. There are plenty of CIOs on Grounds that do great work with much smaller budgets. A retreat need not be overnight and off-Grounds. If Student Council wants to hold a “Lawn gathering” why not ask all attendees to chip in, instead of charging the student body? Student Council consists of our fellow students, whom we ask to spend our money on our behalf. To instead spend that money frivolously on themselves is a violation of that trust.In truth, Student Council perks extend past free food and the annual retreat. Student Council members get free T-shirts and other items, with the rest of us students footing the bill. Unfortunately, that is where Student Council’s transparency ends. There is no line item on the annual budget that says “free T-shirts.” Instead, they are lumped into the $5,000 “promotional” expenses category. In the past, Council has been even shadier. Last year, they approved free sweatshirts, in addition to the t-shirts, on the Chief Financial Officer’s prerogative without any formal vote, even though the expense was not included in the budget.Although we may not know the full cost of Student Council perks, we do know that it is too high. Students must stand up to the culture of Student Council where members believe they are entitled to something just because they were elected or because they signed up. This means saying “no” to free dinners and free T-shirts and limiting other costs to a much lower level. The Student Council budget has ballooned to $135,000 this year from $68,000 in 2005, the year current fourth-years arrived at the University. That is absurd. Student Council must cut expenses, starting at home. If they have money left over and don’t know what to do with it, then give it back to us the students. I’m sure we all can find good uses for it.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/20/08 4:20am)
LAST SPRING, Satellite Ball room’s impending closing produced an outpouring of student grief. The Facebook group, “Coran Capshaw, Save Satellite Ballroom!” still has over 1,000 members almost five months after the concert venue closed. It wasn’t the only musical tragedy, as one student noted in a post to the group, “Losing Satellite would be bad enough anyway, but it’s worse now that Starr Hill closed last summer.” With Satellite’s closing, things looked bleak for the Charlottesville music scene, yet this loss is a potential opportunity for the University Programs Council.With Starr Hill and Satellite’s passing, new venues have popped up and old ones have stepped up to try to fill the void left by Starr Hill and Satellite Ballroom. Starr Hill’s old location is the new home of Si, which promises to host “regional music” along with dance music and DJs, according to the The HooK. Gravity Lounge has started hosting a larger variety and greater number of concerts. Yet, as many student music lovers will attest, there is still ample room for more.One of the biggest problems for music venues is balancing capacity and atmosphere. Gravity Lounge is a great space, but it fits a very limited audience. The Charlottesville Pavilion on the Downtown Mall has the capacity for big concerts, but it lacks the intimacy of the old venues and is further limited by its seasonal schedule. Starr Hill and Satellite Ballroom were so popular because of their intimate setting that was still large enough to entice well-known artists. Currently, according to Musictoday’s Chris Warnecke, there are no local venues that hold 400-1,000 concertgoers. In addition, during the Pavilion off-season there is no place for bands that could draw 1,000 or more fans but wouldn’t fit with the more formal atmosphere of the Paramount. Hosting acts from Of Montreal to They Might Be Giants to Girl Talk, Satellite Ballroom drew artists that simply have no place to play if they come back to Charlottesville.Well, not exactly no place. This is where UPC comes in. Clay Reese, Director of UPC’s PKG Concerts Committee, takes the responsibility quite seriously, saying in an interview that his committee is “committed to filling the Satellite void.” UPC has access to a number of on-Grounds venues, which would otherwise be unavailable to artists. In addition, Reese says, a “UPC survey conducted last semester showed that students greatly prefer on-Grounds venues.” Reese cites the Amphitheater and Old Cabell Hall as two venues that are especially valuable in this effort. Reese promises “several shows for late fall and early spring” that will showcase this commitment to medium-size artists.This is an effort worthy of the student funds from which UPC draws, yet it is still too low on their list of priorities. Instead, UPC also subsidizes student tickets for shows that are already coming to Charlottesville. For the upcoming Jay-Z and T.I. concert at John Paul Jones Arena, student tickets are $20 cheaper than the normal ticket price. That subsidy, plus “additional service charges,” is made up by UPC, according to Reese. In total, UPC is fronting over $20,000 to subsidize 1,000 student tickets. In other words, each one of you, every student at the University, is paying $1 for your fellow students’ Jay-Z tickets, even if you aren’t attending. (In the interest of full disclosure, I will be attending that concert. Thanks for the discount.)How could your dollar be better spent? Though there is certainly value in making concerts more affordable, just making all students pay for concerts that only some will attend doesn’t seem like the wisest system. Some may argue that bringing new artists to Grounds has the same effect, but shelling out to attract new artists to Charlottesville is vastly different than simply making some tickets cheaper for an act that is already coming.On the whole, UPC has a tough task: to find its niche in a very competitive entertainment environment. Students already have seemingly limitless entertainment to choose from at home. We can go to Clemons Library and check out, for free, almost any movie known to man. Or take a trip to the movie theaters on the Downtown Mall or down Highway 29. If we want to attend a concert, Gravity Lounge, Si, John Paul Jones Arena, Outback Lodge, the Charlottesville Pavilion and the Paramount Theater are all options. Yet this vast spectrum is still missing the type of entertainment that Starr Hill and Satellite Ballroom had to offer.Medium-sized music venues are perhaps the most glaring omission from Charlottesville’s entertainment menu, but certainly there are others. This is the great potential of UPC. By filling in the entertainment gaps and providing more options for students, UPC can improve the University experience for Wahoos of all tastes and passions.Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/17/08 8:51am)
OCTOBER 10, University President John T. Casteen, III sent an alarming e-mail. He announced that the University budget would be cut by over $10 million, a full 7 percent reduction in state funding. Most students probably read only until the sixth paragraph, which says, “Your deans and vice presidents have been looking for ways to adjust spending — without affecting services to the students.” While students breathed a sigh of relief and went about their daily lives, there were others in our community who did not get off the hook that easily. We, the students, should demand a share of the sacrifice.The current plan leaves staff and faculty members to bear the largest burden of the budget cuts. As these University members read the e-mail, they no doubt noticed the deferral of their scheduled 2 percent salary increase. This increase, which had been slated for November, has been postponed for all faculty and staff until next July with a further option for review at that time. With gas prices at a higher level than ever before and the Consumer Price Index a full 5 percent higher than last year’s level, this deferred raise is hardly a luxury. Yet while those around us scrimp and make sacrifices, most students will go about their days without any noticeable changes. Governor Tim Kaine and President Casteen should be applauded for spreading the burden of the budget shortfall by forgoing layoffs in favor of an across-the-board deferment of salary increases. Still, the burden was not extended far enough. Our status as students does not excuse us from our responsibilities as community members.It is a strange breed of paternalism that shelters students when everyone who makes our University experience possible is asked to pitch in. Clearly, students are members of the University community, and we should ask to be treated as such, in good times and bad. By sharing in the shortfall that we all face, students can help lessen the load borne by others.While it is far too late to reinstate the pay increase, we should demand that we receive no special treatment. There is still the matter of $10 million in funding that will be cut and students should reject the caveat, “without affecting services to students,” and suggest in its place, “with the smallest possible impact on the community as a whole.” In the long run, according to the C-Ville Weekly, student tuition will increase, but there needs to be short-term sacrifice on the part of students to match that of staff.Where could student sacrifice play a role? Anywhere from decreased bus service to shorter gym hours. Perhaps Clemons stops ordering movies for non-academic purposes or the library in Clark closes an hour earlier. Of course, those suggestions are all small potatoes compared to a $10 million deficit. There are bigger ticket items that can be deferred as well, from the $8 million all-sport bubble practice field the Board of Visitors approved last week to the restoration of the 100 Lawn and Range rooms which cost, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, an average of $11,000 per room.Yes, these changes would certainly impact students, but they would also more equitably distribute the burden of the economic downturn. In addition to this moral imperative, there is a practical concern to recognize. Even under the current plan, it is quite dubious to say students will be entirely unaffected. By showing that faculty and staff salary is the first thing to go in times of economic hardship, the University harms its recruitment potential. While students may be getting off easy this year, the future for students will be worse when the University cannot recruit or retain the world-class faculty and staff we have become accustomed to. Although some may believe that the effect of a 2 percent salary increase deferment is minimal, that is not necessary so. Imagine if you were choosing between two jobs, one of which paid 2 percent more than the other. Or more realistically, imagine choosing between one job where an annual salary increase was guaranteed and another where the increase would be a matter of chance. In truth, the effect on both potential and current faculty and staff is even worse, since you don’t get a salary increase any time the economy falters, which is exactly when you need it.Ultimately, students must be included in the budget management plan for both moral and practical reasons. As students, we must ask to be treated as equals in the community, even when the going is tough, and we must stand side by side with the staff and faculty with whom we share the University experience.Isaac Wood’s column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/09/08 7:36am)
THE RUMORS swirled Thursday night. By Friday morning, it was front-page news: The athletic department’s sign ban had been repealed. Even now, nearly a week later, the true story of how students won this battle for student self-governance is little-known. An in-depth review of the timeline shows the power of protest and perseverance, and provides an example for future student action.Last Wednesday at noon, a group of student leaders walked into the office of University Athletics Director Craig Littlepage. A short time later, they left, confident they had made a strong case, yet disheartened by the result. In an interview, Student Council President Matt Schrimper said the student group was “explicitly told” that the sign ban was strongly supported by both the athletic department and the University. In fact, they were told that the sign policy would most likely stay in place until the end of football season, at which point they would “reassess” the ban.Although Littlepage seemed content for the meeting to end with the status quo unchanged, the students were anything but satisfied. Through an e-mail exchange and face-to-face discussion, they hammered out an idea for a response. Two hours later, Student Council issued a press release. They announced a protest, supported by Council, the ‘Hoo Crew, and the Student Athlete Advisory Committee. The protest, with the tongue-in-cheek name of the “Sea of Blue,” called for students to wear blue, rather than orange, shirts to Saturday’s game. By the following evening, the ban was lifted.In this case of student self-governance triumph, a post-mortem is in order. Why were students successful now when so many other student-administrator showdowns have ended in defeat? Given the timeline of events and attitudes, the protest and its specific nature was clearly the proximate cause of the ban’s end. The groundwork, though, had already been laid by the previous protest at the University of Richmond game. In that protest, thousands of students held up blank, white signs to demonstrate unified opposition to the new “no sign” policy. The threat of a second protest was therefore much more effective, as the Athletics Department had reason to believe that participation would be widespread enough to be a major embarrassment.This embarrassment was heightened by the press coverage of the ban’s initial implementation and follow-up stories following the first protest. ESPN sports columnist Rick Reilly was perhaps the most notable voice speaking out about the ban, but he had plenty of company. Articles ran in national publications from The Washington Post to the Baltimore Sun. It was covered in college newspapers across the country, from Mississippi State’s Reflector to Virginia Tech’s Collegiate Times. Reports also ran in local newspapers and on television across the state of Virginia, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch to Charlottesville’s Daily Progress. The visuals of the first protest were a clear asset, as pictures of hundreds of blank, white signs were included in many of these articles. Using a press release to announce the second protest showed that students were ready to harness the power of the media again. With the attention of the state and nation, and especially the higher education community, focused on the University’s ban, students had a powerful pulpit from which to speak.It was not just the pulpit, but the target of the sermon, that brought the athletic department to its knees. By highlighting the chasm between students and administrators, the “Sea of Blue” protest would have raised difficult questions about the nature and legitimacy of professionally marketed, profit-maximizing collegiate athletics. The point of the planned protest, according to Schrimper, was to send a message that, “We’re not going to buy into the entire system that [the athletic department] put in place.” It also had a more practical effect, in that the television visuals would contradict the “Power of Orange” brand that the athletic department has spent heavily to build through merchandise and television ads. At the same time, the support of student athletes, through the Student Athlete Advisory Committee was crucial. Wearing our school’s other official color showed that students still support our varsity-level peers, while having student athletes’ voices represented showed that they support us as fans. It was the specific means of the protest, and its broad message, that Schrimper credits with the sign ban’s repeal. When the meeting with Littlepage was over, nobody who was there felt the sign ban was on the way out. Less than a day later, after the protest was announced, the circumstances had changed and Littlepage gave in. By taking advantage of national attention and refusing to give up, even when told “no” by the highest levels of the administration, students lived up to the ideal of student self-governance. By ending the sign ban, we, the students, won the biggest victory in Virginia sports this year.Isaac Wood is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
(10/02/08 5:37am)
THIS YEAR Student Council will spend or allocate over $665,000. How do I know? Not from The Cavalier Daily. In fact, the News page has yet to use the word “budget” in an article about Student Council this entire year, even though Student Council recently approved a $90,000 operating budget. The Cavalier Daily has done a poor job of covering Student Council this year and two faults are especially glaring. First, the topics covered are seldom the most important issues facing Council. Second, critics of Student Council are seldom included in the news articles. These are fatal flaws when it comes to covering a democratic institution that controls well over half a million dollars of student money. And because The Cavalier Daily is the only news organization covering Council, these faults must be remedied, and soon.The omission of the gargantuan budget from any coverage is just one of the many issues missed in the weekly news coverage of Council’s doings. In an interview, Cavalier Daily News Editor Tom Madrecki said he was not aware that the budget had been passed, in part because, although Student Council uses occasional press releases, he has yet to receive one this year. What else did we miss because of this breakdown in communication? Student Council’s Free Rita’s Day is near the top of the list of noteworthy omissions. This day-long give-away cost students roughly $1,800, but apparently didn’t warrant a word of coverage in students’ primary news source. The same is true of the appropriations process, through which Student Council allocated $65,000 of student funds in one day, without even a sentence of mention in the newspaper.Sometimes, to be fair, the News page does pick the right story. On August 27, Student Council’s announcement of its signature initiative for the year, the University Unity Project, was front page news. It was also covered in the Editorial Board’s lead editorial and in a guest viewpoint piece. However, this coverage was also problematic. Student Council President Matt Schrimper and Project Committee Chair Rob Atkinson, the lead architechts of the project were the authors of the guest viewpoint article on the Opinion page that day. They were also the only two people quoted in the news article about the project’s unveiling. Atkinson and Schrimper already had an opportunity to express their opinion that day. It should be the News page’s duty to seek out other, preferably dissenting, voices. As Student Council Vice President of Administration John Nelson admits, “it is important for the newspaper coverage to critique us.” Critique is impossible when dissident voices are never heard.While not all Student Council coverage is quite this egregious, this is far from the exception. Most articles on Council’s projects and events include no perspectives from those who do not attend their weekly meeting. There have been no quotes from students who are not Student Council members included in any of this year’s weekly Student Council articles. Outside voices, and critical ones, are missing and sorely needed.Comprehensive coverage of Student Council is essential for two reasons. First, this organization controls an incredible amount of money allocated to students and spent on our behalf. We need oversight to ensure that our money is being used wisely. Secondly, Student Council is a democratic organization. In February we will be asked to elect those who will become our new representatives. As a third-year, Schrimper will be able to run for reelection this spring. Without quality reporting about Student Council, how will we be able to evaluate his performance and decide if we should grant him a second term?There are obvious fixes for these problems. First, Student Council should be covered more than just once a week and by more than just the one reporter currently assigned to the task. Second, the main topic of the post-meeting article should be decided and investigated in advance of the actual meeting. Currently, the article is due just hours after Student Council’s weekly meeting ends and the time crunch can prevent reporters from finding an array of differing voices with different opinions. Student Council’s agenda is usually set on Monday, and they should send it to The Cavalier Daily’s News editors, so that relevant topics can be researched and interviews can be conducted in advance. Lastly, reporters should speak with those affected by Council’s actions, not just those who decide those actions. Students who disagree with Council should make their views heard by attending the weekly Council meeting and speaking with the Cavalier Daily reporter. At election time, there is widespread student belief that Council doesn’t do anything. To find and fix Student Council’s flaws, we must first acknowledge those in The Cavalier Daily’s coverage.Isaac Wood is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
(09/25/08 4:00am)
IN THE early 1970s, then-Student Council President Larry Sabato met with University President Edgar Shannon weekly. In 2004, Student Council President Noah Sullivan recalls meeting with University President John T. Casteen, III just twice. And in 2007, Student Council President Lauren Tilton had a grand total of zero sit-down meetings with Casteen.Obviously, there are differences between those days and these. Thirty years ago, the University “had almost no capital campaign and almost no private fundraising,” Sabato said in an interview, making the job of president much more “Grounds-focused.” Now the principal job of the University president is to raise funds, keeping him away from Grounds for long stretches. Clearly, to a certain extent, Casteen’s lack of Student Council interaction is a function of his job description.With today’s president far less involved in everyday student life, administrative ignorance has followed. Within the athletic department, the Board of Visitors, and the upper-echelon of administrators surrounding the president, the student voice is especially silenced. Although certain groups, like the Dean of Students and student-focused departments like Parking and Transportation, Dining and the Bookstore, hear from students on an everyday basis, their attitude is rarely shared by top decision-makers. Where the student voice is heard least, the students must speak loudest, and keep speaking until administrators grant us the respect we deserve.This year’s most publicized student-administration showdown illuminates one area where the student voice is seldom heard. When the athletics sign ban was implemented, it was done without any advance consultation of students, specifically of Student Council. Student Council President Matt Schrimper, in a Washington Post interview, admitted that the e-mail sent to all students announcing the ban was “the first we’ve heard about it.” That lack of consultation with Student Council is unacceptable on any matter that impacts student rights.Even when students do have a chance to weigh in, they are often ignored. The Bob Sweeney pavilion controversy shows exactly that. In the spring of 2007, just over one year ago, President Casteen made it clear that he wished for the University’s chief fundraiser, Senior Vice President for Development and Public Affairs Bob Sweeney, to get a spot on the Lawn. The pavilion residences were originally constructed for the exclusive use of professors and the existing policy prohibited administrators like Sweeney from living there. Students spoke up against such a repudiation of the Jeffersonian “Academical Village,” with Lawn residents taping signs to their doors which read, “For Sale. Inquire with [Board of Visitors]. Cozy, Rustic, Jeffersonian! No interaction with students necessary.”What was the result of this student protest? The Board of Visitors, which handpicks their own so-called “student representative,” changed the policy secretly over the summer in a telephone vote, because the secretary said the public meeting schedule was “swamped.” In the end, Sweeney was installed onto the Lawn and student interest dissipated as a new school year began.Flash back to the 1970s. “This was a time of enormous social change, much of it driven by the young,” Sabato said, “It was an era when students had taken on a large role in governance, in part because of strong opposition to the war in Vietnam and strong support of the civil rights movement.” That time is gone. Although a majority of students, according to almost any survey on the matter, clearly oppose the war in Iraq, very few are up in arms about it. That apathy, or at least the appearance of apathy, extends to the Grounds of the University.Ultimately, the blame for a lack of student power falls to students. There has been plenty to get riled up about, from Bob Sweeney’s Pavilion to the sign policy. Still, we seem unable to comprehend that we will continue to be ignored until we make a concerted and sustained stand for ourselves. Although there are areas where Student Council has been successful, from dining to textbook pricing, former President Tilton said, “In other areas of the University it is a relationship that needs to be built.” It is in those areas, from athletics to the Board of Visitors to the president’s office, where students need to make themselves heard.In this new age, President Casteen spends more time listening to rich alumni than to Student Council. That is a reality. Fortunately, there is another reality as well. Alumni pay attention to news about the University, and we, the current students, can impact that news. Our power is not in dollars, but in numbers. Massive protests like the sign protest at the University of Richmond game are a step in the right direction. For students to wield any power, we must keep it up. Isaac Wood is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.