52 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/17/09 6:28am)
A student opinion referendum on the spring 2009 ballot questions the athletic department’s allocation of finances, proposing that the athletic department reallocate its finances to provide students with free water at home football games. The proposal states that “the department should discontinue expenses associated with promoting ‘The Power of Orange’ and similar branding initiatives to students and redirect those resources toward the water program.”Second-year College student Neal Fox, who sponsored the original petition for the referendum, said the point of the ballot item is to demonstrate that students’ priorities are different from the athletic department’s priorities. The referendum is not meant as an attack on the athletic department, but rather is an attempt to show that “the student body is more concerned with heath and safety and wellness, rather than getting free stuff,” Fox said.Athletic Director Craig Littlepage, however, declined to comment.Cliff Peterson, head of the Athletic Affairs Committee of Student Council, said his committee was working on a similar program but had difficulty trying to create a program that both the athletic department and Student Council were comfortable with.“I heard it being talked about from members of various organizations and people interested in that,” Fox said. “I decided it was something Student Council should work on.”The athletic department has encouraged Council to promote the water fountains on the upper and lower concourses within Scott Stadium rather than create a free water program, Peterson said, adding that there are no water fountains in the actual student section of the stadium.Second-year College student Sharon Casola agreed that the water fountains in the stadium are not enough and said she believes that the program is a good idea “because you get so dehydrated and you can’t bring your own water bottles” into the games.Despite the fact that the referendum is only on the ballot to represent the student body’s opinion about the topic, many students believe it is still important to vote on the proposal.“Everyone has the right to vote on it,” and students should exercise those rights, first-year College student Molly Beauchemin said.If the referendum proves popular in the election, Fox said he is not yet sure what the actual steps to carrying out the proposal would specifically look like. Some students feel the opinion referendum is not enough; third-year College student Nicole Gates said that while she agrees having a free water program at games is a great idea, more needs to be done to actually transform student opinion into reality.“Who doesn’t want free water at the football games? Of course, we all do,” Gates said. “But asking the student body for their opinion when we all know the answer is going to be yes, is not enough. There should be some action by the athletic department, or at least something more than an opinion referendum.”
(02/16/09 7:11am)
The Honor Committee recently started taking steps to better educate University students about honor and improve the University’s community of trust. This semester, the Committee changed the structure of the educator system from a few large groups to a conglomeration of 17 small groups that can focus on different outreach projects, Vice Chair for Education Ryan Burke said.“We really want to try and engage in more of a dialogue with students,” Burke said, explaining that it has always been a goal of the Honor Committee to make sure students are educated and comfortable with the honor system. Now that the Committee has introduced a new system for Honor Educators, Burke says this goal should be easier to attain.In addition to the smaller project groups, educators are now in charge of planning and carrying out their own projects, thus expanding what the Committee might be able to accomplish.“We just have a lot of ideas bubbling around because there are so many more students involved [with the new educator system],” Burke said.Some of these ideas include cosponsoring with other student groups, Burke said. For instance, the Honor Committee will have its own table at Dance Marathon and will have information and honor representatives present during the event, so that interested students can learn more about how the system works. The educators also will announce a new Honor fact every hour.Another approach Honor is taking is to create forums where professors and students can discuss honor “on a broad and philosophical level,” Burke said. During these proposed forums, professors can discuss how honor and ethics have functioned within their own careers, as well as the role of honor in business, politics and education.Students can also look for Honor Awareness Week in April, when the committee will host several events, including an Honor Benefit April 2.“The event will be informal with people stopping and asking questions” said Tyler Alexander, vice chair for community relations. “We have found that the best way to get students, especially graduate students, educated on honor is to go out and talk with them.”Burke noted that other programs — including handing out brochures about honor in different languages for international students, conducting a survey to make clear how much students know about the system and placing informative posters around Grounds — also may soon be implemented.At least one student agreed that it is important for the Committee to better educate the University community about the honor system. Fourth-year College student Matthew Hanlon noted that he believes the Honor Committee should improve its relationship with students, and should also do a better job communicating with them about how the system works.“I don’t really hear a lot from the Honor Committee,” Hanlon said. “And it wasn’t until this recent referendum that I had heard [much about honor].”Members of the Committee said they hope the new educational programs will alleviate some of these issues. The recent single sanction referendum also has started an ongoing conversation about honor, Burke said. He added, though, that he still feels more can be done to better serve members of the University community.“Honor is only going to be alive if students feel like it’s a part of their everyday life,” he said.
(02/10/09 6:28am)
African-American Affairs Dean Maurice Apprey discussed black history and the progress in terms of increasing diversity and acceptance that the University and its community has made since last year during the annual State of the Office of African-American Affairs address last night.Apprey began his speech by discussing the importance of the election of President Barack Obama. Apprey described the “celebration, ecstasy and tears of joy” felt by some around the world as they watched the inauguration of the first black president of the United States. Apprey then noted the legacies and dreams of other historical black leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X and Ben Carson, and said those within and outside the University community should look to those leaders as examples.“We must borrow strength from all of these people,” Apprey said, “but at some point it’s in your hands.”The OAAA, which was established in 1976, “is charged with the responsibility of assisting academic and non-academic units in meeting the challenges of service delivery to African-American students,” Apprey said, and has worked hard since then to place the strength these leaders espoused into the hands of black students at the University. That mission remained the same during the past year, and Apprey added that some progress has been made toward achieving that goal — even if there is still much work to be done.One of the most critical elements Apprey addressed during his speech was the significant increase seen in the average grade point averages among black University students since 2005.“2006 was better than 2005, 2007 was better than 2005 and 2008 was much better than 2005,” Apprey said, noting that he hopes such growth continues this year and beyond.Apprey said he believes the increasing average GPA is because the OAAA is “working better as a team” to address relevant issues in the University community. In the past, Apprey said he felt that many students were trying to tackle too difficult schedules and that “the advice that went with these difficult subjects was problematic.”To help students and improve grades across the board, Apprey and the other deans within OAAA “started aggressively working on all of their students” by contacting both parents and students.“We are fundamentally a service center for students,” Apprey said, “and we strive to be more like student advocates than gatekeepers.” One of the main goals of the OAAA, Apprey said, is to make University students more competitive for professional and graduate schools, and to improve their GPAs “so everything else improves.” Third-year College student Ashley Lewis described the OAAA as a friendly and supportive place.“I think the OAAA has been successful because of its programs and the support the deans have offered students,” Lewis said, citing black students’ increasing grade point averages as proof of the office’s success.Through a combination of mentoring programs, enhanced collaboration between faculty and students and better advising, “the state of the OAAA is on solid ground” moving forward, Apprey said.
(02/09/09 7:29am)
A referendum on the spring ballot to amend the Honor Committee’s single sanction system was deemed valid by Honor Committee Chair Jess Huang last night. Several Committee members questioned the referendum’s validity because of ambiguity in the deadlines to submit referenda to the University Board of Elections to be placed on the spring ballot.According to Article VII of the Honor Committee’s Constitution, an amendment “may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the entire Honor Committee or by a petition signed by ten percent of the entire student body.” The referendum must also be “held from two to six weeks of regular session classes after receipt of the proposal.” Because the proposal was submitted to the UBE before that organization’s Feb. 8 deadline, it will be part of the Spring 2009 ballot.The proposal involves changing the current single sanction policy into one of multiple sanctions. The controversy is not, however, in the content of the amendment, but in its timing. The Committee debated whether the two to six week time frame provided by Article VII should occur before the start of elections or include the election period.The proposal in question was received by the Committee from Sam Leven, President of Hoos Against Single Sanction, with the appropriate amount of signatures Saturday night, Leven said.“There’s a lot hanging on this because of what this referendum is,” Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples said. “But this debate would happen regardless of what the amendment was.”UBE, Huang said, does not deem whether the referendum is valid; rather, that decision is left to the Honor Committee. The decision on the validity of the proposal, though widely discussed by the entire Committee, was left to Huang to decide. If Huang, on behalf of the Honor Committee, decided that the proposal was invalid, then the referendum would have remained on the ballot but would have simply been treated as student opinion. Had a majority of the student body voted in favor of it, then it would have been up to the Committee to decide what action to pursue, Huang said, adding that the Committee may have held a special election or discussed the amendment with its legal counsel. The proposal had been circulating and evolving since last fall, when Leven presented a similar proposal. According to the previous proposal, if a student were found guilty of act, intent and triviality, then they would be expelled. If, however, a student were to be found guilty of act and intent but acquitted of non-triviality, then they could be punished by a lower sanction, decided upon during a sanctioning trial.At the time, Committee members had certain concerns about the amendment. As a result, Leven and Hoos Against Single Sanction edited the proposal and re-presented it before the Committee after receiving the necessary signatures.The two to six week period required by Article VII is to allow time for the referendum to circulate throughout the University and to offer students the chance to debate their views on the amendment.The language of the article is left ambiguous, which gives the Committee chair the opportunity to interpret the constitution as he or she sees fit. The vague nature of the provision, however, led to heated debate about how to interpret the article.“The provision is a little unclear,” Leven said in regards to the language of Article VII. “Honor should clarify it for the future but shouldn’t apply it retroactively to this year’s election,” he added.During the Honor Committee meeting, many members argued that allowing the two to six week period to include elections would not provide students with enough time to educate themselves about the referendum before they had to vote on it. Other University community members, however, disagreed. Fourth-year College student Bonnie Carlson said, “after two weeks the election will still be going on and I think that’s ample time for students to vote and be aware of the issues.”Graduate Rep. Adam Trusner agreed. “The actual referendum may not have been out there but it has been in discussion and reported on,” Trusner said. Many of those in favor of allowing the two to six week time period to include elections argued that the precedent set by previous cases left the Committee no choice but to validate the referendum. In fact, each of the past two most recent amendments to the Constitution have involved similar situations. The Committee placed a referendum on a ballot last year to change the representation in the College from three to five members. The Committee voted to place that amendment on the ballot less than two weeks before the start of the elections and more than two weeks before the end of elections, and the precedent set by that referendum was one Leven and others focused on.Still, other Committee members, including Staples, disagreed with the precedent argument. “I don’t think we should be too strongly considering precedent,” she said. Staples argued that while the other two amendments were in fact decided upon only one week prior to the election, they were brought up and discussed widely by sources such as The Cavalier Daily before that week. “I feel strongly that the student body has not had enough time to debate this,” Staples said. In addition, Huang said, though the Committee decided to validate the proposed amendments in 2006 and 2007, she said last year’s Committee Chair Ben Cooper in 2008 “clearly interpreted” the two to six week time frame “to be the start of elections.” “What I took out of the meeting was there are merits to both sides of the argument,” Huang said later. “Obviously this is something that the Honor Committee will be working on in terms of revision and clarification, but unfortunately there is a decision that needs to be made now.” Since there was a great deal of debate during Honor’s meeting about the lack of clarity of the language within Article VII, Huang said she has decided to maintain the validity of the referendum. Students can look at and vote upon the referendum during the upcoming Spring 2009 election, which will take place from Feb. 16 through Feb. 22.
(02/04/09 6:31am)
University Judiciary Committee members decided Sunday by a vote of 11 to 7 against placing a referendum on the spring ballot that would increase the number of UJC College representatives from three to five.Since discussion about such a proposed increase began last fall, some UJC members have noted that because the College is by far the largest school within the University, three College students in UJC do not properly represent the school. Members also took into account that University students voted to increase the number of College representatives in the Honor Committee from three to five during the spring 2007 elections.“I believe the college is the largest school and needs to be more represented,” said Grayson Lambert, UJC Vice Chair for Trials and a fourth-year College student.Lambert, who voted in favor of the amendment, said he thought it failed because of concerns raised about how to keep UJC representatives proportional to their schools but also equal within UJC.Eric Schneiter, UJC Vice Chair for Sanctions and third-year Engineering student, said, “I voted nay because I don’t think increasing the number from three to five would be an improvement.” Schneiter added that increasing the number to five would not proportionally represent the College. For each school to be properly represented, the Education School “would have to have like one [representative], and the College would have to have like 19,” Schneiter said.In addition, Lambert felt that many UJC representatives voted against the amendment because they represent smaller schools, and they did not want to risk giving up their votes and increasing those of the College. Schneiter also noted that increasing the number of College representatives could lead to an Executive Committee in which all voting members could be from the College. The chair, vice chair for trials, vice chair for sanctions and vice chair for first years make up UJC’s Executive Committee. Currently, two of the four voting members on the Executive Committee are College representatives. Schneiter stressed that increasing the number of College representatives would increase the chances of having three or even all four members serve as the Executive Committee’s voting members, which would “cause problems of how we adjudicated cases.”Lambert disagreed, however, arguing that an increase in representatives would help lessen UJC’s case load by increasing the number of judges. UJC will soon add two more representatives to its committee from the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy that will add to the pool of potential judges, Lambert said. He noted, however, that two more from the College would be of even greater help. “From the perspective of vice chair of trials, four more judges with four or five trials a week would be wonderful for us [and would make it] immensely easier to schedule trials,” Lambert said. UJC Chair Merriam Mikhail, a fourth-year College student, withheld her own vote. This action is typical of the chair. “I have no idea how I would have voted,” Mikhail said, noting that many students who have gone through the UJC system have expressed concern that their trial panels were composed primarily of graduate students who were “out of touch” with undergraduate life.“Were this amendment to pass, it would help alleviate that situation by having more representatives” for trial panels and would increase the number of undergraduate students involved in the process, Mikhail said.Still, Mikhail acknowledged concerns with the amendment.“I feel that five is an arbitrary number,” Mikhail said, noting that although the amendment would help make College representation in UJC more proportional to the number of constituents in the College, it would not be perfect.There are no “mathematical equations that would make it more exactly proportional,” Mikhail said, and it still “wouldn’t by any means be equal or fair.”If UJC had voted in favor of placing the referendum on the spring ballot, the entire University, not just the College, would have voted on the amendment, Mikhail said.Third-year Engineering student Tim Hayes said he agreed that the College should have more representatives, because of the school’s size.“As an E-school student, I would vote for a referendum increasing College representatives because in the current situation, it seems that College students are underrepresented in the UJC,” Hayes said.Fourth-year College student Kai Chang, however, said he was not concerned about College representation in UJC and “probably wouldn’t vote” for the amendment had it made it to the ballot.Increasing the number of College representatives from three to five has been a recurring concern for UJC. “The issue came up several years ago,” Lambert said. “I expect it to come up several years down the road.” Mikhail noted that there seemed to be more initial support for the increase after the Issues Subcommittee first proposed the referenda to the entire committee in the fall.“We urged representatives to return to their schools and figure out what each school would want with their vote,” Mikhail said, noting that this urging may have caused the change in votes this semester. In the end, “all of us agreed that the amendment was problematic” but no solution was found, Mikhail said, adding that she looks “toward a future committee to find that answer.”
(02/02/09 10:48am)
Though he did not testify, second-year College student Ronald Johnson was acquitted of charges of cheating in an open Honor trial Saturday afternoon. The charges had been filed about a quiz Johnson took in an Introduction to Environmental Science class last semester.The class required a series of weekly, multiple choice quizzes, with each question shown once on PowerPoint slides, said Assoc. Prof. Linda Blum, the professor for the course and only witness who testified Saturday.Johnson arrived late to class Oct. 24 while a quiz was being administered, taking a seat in the very back of the room, Blum said. Blum claimed Johnson walked in during the fourth question of the quiz, but Johnson claimed he entered during the third question but was hidden by a large closet in front of the classroom’s doorway. Even though Blum allowed two quiz grades to be dropped by each student, Johnson said he chose to complete the quiz by guessing the answers to the questions he missed.“I was watching [Johnson] closely, very closely, from the time he entered class,” Blum said in her testimony Saturday. While she did not notice “any overt gestures of cheating,” she said she found it odd that Johnson would attempt to take the quiz, because it was such a small part of his grade. Additionally, Johnson turned in his quiz to Blum herself at the front of the class a few moments after the rest of the class had passed their quizzes to her, she said. Despite Blum’s allowing students more time if needed to finish their quizzes and sign their names, she found it odd that Johnson turned in his quiz directly to her.Blum said because Johnson walked across the room to turn in his quiz, he had ample opportunity to look at another student’s work to find the answers to the questions he had missed.“I know how easy it is to observe [in that particular room],” Blum said.Given Johnson’s tardiness, Blum said he had a 1.56 percent chance of correctly guessing all of the missed questions, noting that it would be “possible but not probable” for him to guess correctly the two or three questions he missed. The counsel for the accused, however, said a 98 percent chance of getting the questions incorrect is not the same as a 98 percent chance of cheating, adding that the “probability of cheating and the probability of guessing are not the same.”Blum nevertheless determined that Johnson cheated while taking the quiz.“The fact that someone came into the room and guessed on questions that he had not seen, but had written answers down for, is in my mind an honor offense,” Blum said during her testimony.Johnson’s counsel, however, questioned Blum’s assessment of the situation and questioned whether Honor charges should have been filed.“Maybe he did guess,” Third-year Law student Ben Sachs — who served as Johnson’s counsel — said during his closing remarks. “But guessing isn’t against the honor code.”When asked by the counsel for the community if she believed that Johnson cheated by looking at other’s quizzes, Blum replied, “I believe he cheated.” In the end, though, after a brief trial in which Prof. Blum was the only witness because Johnson chose not to testify on his behalf or bring in any other witnesses, Trial Chair Sophie Staples announced that the jury had found Johnson not guilty of committing an honor offense. The jury, comprised of twelve University students from both undergraduate and graduate schools, had to consider three issues in order to reach a conclusion: act, intent, and triviality. After the trial, a jury member, who spoke with The Cavalier Daily on condition of anonymity, said the trial’s jurors were “surprised how much was based on the professor’s gut feeling.” The jurors were even more surprised, the jury member said, because no one actually saw Johnson cheat. “Someone needs to see [the act] happen,” the jury member said. Blum’s statement that guessing may be akin to cheating, the juror said, “didn’t have any impact on my judgment, but it had a negative impact on jurors.” She added that Blum — who was unavailable as of press time — “has a really extreme view that does not match” our Honor system’s policy.”Though Johnson was acquitted, at least one University student later expressed some concern about the fact that Johnson’s case was brought to trial and not closed during previous investigation. Fourth-year College student Lauren McGlory, who also serves as a University Judiciary Committee counselor, observed the open trial and spoke during the Honor Committee’s meeting last night.“I believe in the system and everything, but I felt like the system kind of lost its integrity putting the student through this,” McGlory said. In response, Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples said while she agrees the system can be very arduous and difficult if one is an accused student, the ultimate verdict of not guilty is a sign that the system works in its current form. The perceived problem may have arisen as a result of varying definitions of what constitutes an honor offense between the investigative panel and the actual jury, Staples added.Second-year Law student Andy Garrett, who served as part of the counsel for the community during Saturday’s trial, also noted that “our job is to present the story” and said it is each counsel’s responsibility to “present the facts” without judgment against or in favor of either side.Several community members in attendance were surprised Johnson chose to make the trial open to the public.“I just felt like I didn’t have anything to hide,” Johnson said after the verdict was reached. “I wanted the community as a whole to see how the honor system was working.”—Vihar Parikh contributed to this article.
(01/27/09 6:30am)
An ongoing collaboration involving the University’s Nursing, Medicine and Engineering schools has resulted in the creation of a simulator designed to help fight prostate cancer. The simulator, known as the Virginia Prostate Exam Simulator, is a human patient simulator created by professors, undergraduate students and graduate students that is designed to help teach students how to effectively detect prostate cancer.Medical students have had limited opportunities to perform prostate examinations in the past, Emergency Medicine Prof. Marcus Martin noted, adding that the University created the Medical Simulation Center in 2004 to research and create better simulation techniques, such as the VPES. Since that time, the program has been improved and University community members have continued to benefit from the opportunities for learning offered by VPES and other simulators.“One of the tasks for the simulation center was to develop a life-saving techniques workshop for Medical students,” Martin said, which could teach “them procedures without the use of live animals,” a technique previously used by other schools. Other forms of earlier prostate examination included non-interactive simulators that were unrealistic, unable to provide feedback and easily memorized by students, said Gregory Gerling, assistant systems and information engineering professor. Matrin and Gerling, along with Asst. Nursing Prof. Reba Childress, collaborated on the VPES project to provide students with a more realistic learning opportunity.The VPES combines two major concepts, Gerling said. First, the simulator, which is a model consisting of four prostates filled with small water balloons, can be changed on demand by inflating or deflating the balloons inside the model.“There are over 100 possible abnormalities you can turn on and off in different combinations,” Gerling said, noting this is different from older models that could not be changed and only represented “three to five tumors.” Secondly, the simulator can monitor a student’s finger pressure on the prostate. “What we’re trying to do is correlate patterns students may use” while training with the simulator and relate that to their performance, Gerling said. “We’re trying to figure out what good performers are doing” in order to then teach those patterns and techniques to others, he added. The VPES is able to “provide feedback instantly for the student or at a debriefing later,” Martin said. “The instructor can look at a monitor and provide feedback right away and also provide graphic evidence of whether the student palpated the tumor or not.”This feedback includes the location of the simulated tumors, whether the student found the tumor, how many tumors there were and the student’s technique during the examination.Martin said physicians and nurse practitioners frequently conduct examinations on a regular basis, so teaching tools like the VPES could significantly improve training and palpation techniques. He also noted that early detection and proper training in prostate examinations will greatly increase the survival rate of the many men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer.“Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer for men in the US,” with “200,000 new cases diagnosed and 30,000 deaths each year in the US,” Martin said. “One in five men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime.”The University is the only school that has a simulator like the VPES with which to train students, Martin said, noting that he would “like to see this simulator utilized at other schools around the country and even around the world.” The simulator will continue to be worked on and improved upon, Gerling noted. Currently, students are analyzing actual samples of tumors to ensure the tumors used in the simulation are realistic in their size and stiffness, he said, adding that there is currently interest in commercializing the project.
(11/21/08 6:12am)
The University’s Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities recently teamed with Google Earth to bring the institute’s three-dimensional recreation of ancient Rome to the masses in a more innovative and involved way.Rome Mayor Gianni Alemanno hosted an event Nov. 12 at which the initiative was announced. To celebrate the collaboration, Google Chief Technology Advocate Michael T. Jones and Italian dignitaries were in attendance, a University press release stated. According to the press release, the Google project is an expansion of an earlier project called Rome Reborn, based out of the IATH and the University of California at Los Angeles, that aspired to create a 3D model of ancient Rome during its peak in A.D. 320.Rome Reborn Project Director Bernard Frischer, who is also the director of IATH, was the inspiration behind the original project. Frischer first arrived in Rome as the Rome Prize Fellow in Classical Studies at the American Academy in 1974 and was introduced soon thereafter to the Plastico di Roma Antica, “an enormous physical model of Rome in the year A.D. 320,” Frischer stated in an e-mail. A.D. 320, Frischer added, was the “peak” of Ancient Rome’s development in terms of population and the city’s physical condition.“I thought that there ought to be some technology that could make the model [of the plastico] more available to students, scholars and the general public. That’s what started me on my way,” Frischer stated about Rome Reborn.Frischer and his team then collected the information necessary to create their 3D model by studying well-preserved ancient Roman buildings and monuments, 3D data from the Plastico di Roma Antica and ancient literary sources, Frischer explained. The team then used tools such as laser scanners and virtual reality software “to create a model that was very detailed and as accurately reconstructed,” he stated.The entire process took 34 years from the time Frischer first saw the Plastico di Roma Antica in Rome and included both a Rome Reborn 1.0 as well as a more highly developed Rome Reborn 2.0.“I guess this proves, yet again, Winston Churchill’s advice ‘never, ever to give up!’” Frischer added.The day after Rome Reborn 1.0 was presented to the public at a press conference in Rome in June 2007, Frischer said, he received a call from a Google executive. He then visited Google headquarters in August 2007. Bruce Polderman, Google Earth 3D Product Manager, said the Web site was a great start, but transferring it to Google Earth would allow users to actually “experience” the city. “It took a lot of hard work and ingenuity on the part of the Google Earth team to make such a big model work efficiently for potentially millions of users logged into the model at the same time and all exploring it with complete freedom of movement,” Frischer stated.Polderman said he and his team just fine-tuned the work Fischer and his colleagues did. Google Earth’s Ancient Rome in 3D will allow users to explore more than 6,700 historic sites and learn about ancient Rome through more than 250 “info bubbles,” a Google press release stated. These info bubbles, which were added by IATH, “open up as the user explores the Google model and [give] you quick, basic information about what you’re seeing,” Frischer stated.The entire project is not yet complete, “and since it’s a digital product, it probably never will be,” Frischer noted, adding that “its strength is that it’s a work in progress.” Frischer stated that he hopes this 3D model will help educated students understand significant and complex places like Rome. To help promote the project, the Google press release stated that the company is holding a contest encouraging teachers of kindergarten through 12th grade to create innovative lesson plans using the 3D model. Making models available in Google Earth is “another step in the creation of a virtual time machine which our children and grandchildren will use to study the history of Rome and many other great cities around the world,” Frischer stated. With the positive response toward Google’s Ancient Rome in 3D seen thus far, Frischer added, “it’s logical to expect that Google will want to build on this success by adding more historical layers to Google Earth.”
(11/07/08 5:48am)
President-elect Barack Obama faces high hopes and expectations as the newly elected President of the United States, and with both a Democratic president in the White House for the first time since former President Clinton in 2001, as well as a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, there is also a great deal of speculation about the future of the United States government and Obama’s party.Both Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole experienced widespread support throughout the campaign and now face high expectations as the party enters the White House and the walls of Congress.“Obama has been portrayed as this transformational figure” throughout the campaign, said Dan Keyserling, Center for Politics deputy director of communications and former Cavalier Daily executive editor. Obama faces a “very, very tough standard to meet,” Keyserling said, and one of Obama’s “first jobs is to manage these expectations.” The hopes are “both a great opportunity and a tough situation to live up to,” University Democrats President Sarah Buckley said. Democrats in both the House and the Senate also face high expectations after increasing the margins of their majorities Tuesday.“I think people will be surprised about how gradual and moderate” changes made by the Democratic Party will be, Keyserling said. The Democrats are “aware that they have a moment of power,” Keyserling added, but also realize that to initiate “every left wing proposal out there would be unwise politically.”In addition to managing expectations and balancing agendas with moderation, Obama is expected to pursue several initiatives once he enters the White House in January, including the “three major initiatives” — health care with a focus on child health care, a “revisited strategy for the war in Iraq” that might include timetables and a comprehensive alternative energy policy, Keyserling said. In addition, “the first thing that the president will be thinking about even before he takes the oath of office will be the economic crisis,” Buckley said.Many believe that with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Congress, new legislation proposed by the president will pass through Congress more efficiently. Gerry Scimeca, Republican Party of Virginia communications director, said he hopes both the Republicans and the Democrats will remain cooperative, as both parties’ goal is to see the president and the country as a whole succeed. “We will see significant progress because of the support he will have in the House and Senate,” Buckley said, and Obama will “have a unified front and idea of what we need to do to get America on track.”In addition to the expectations of the general public being met, it is also important to recognize the influence of America’s youth in this election, Buckley noted. With the large number of youth voters that helped lead Obama and the Democrats to success, “we are hoping to see that our priorities become the nation’s priorities and we are respected as a voting block,” she added.“Many of [students’] policy priorities fall in line” with the rest of the general public, though, Buckley noted, including getting the economy and debt of the United States back under control. “We want to get the economy back on track so when we graduate we have jobs and can afford our student loans,” Buckley said.Alternative energy and the environment also are of great importance to the current student generation and will continue to be so after students graduate, Buckley said.Some students also expect broader policy shifts between the current administration and the upcoming one. Third-year Commerce student Scott Rosen, who said he voted for Obama, said he expects changes to international diplomacy, with the new administration becoming more willing to negotiate with other nations. Though Rosen expressed confidence in the party he voted for, he also admitted that the “economy is going to be tough for a year,” despite changes in policy. Similarly, second-year College student Elizabeth Willis, who also voted Democrat, said the main problem facing the country today is the financial crisis, noting that she hopes Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will be able to help solve the current economic woes of the nation.The new administration should also be able to pass a number of initiatives not agreed to and vetoed by the current administration, said Kimberly Hunter, spokesperson for Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. These initiatives will now be more readily agreed upon and “you’ll see items able to move forward more expeditiously,” she said. With the election of Democrat Mark Warner to the Virginia Senate, Hunter added, “I know that the senator and senator-elect have had conversations about committees to consider and have a strong working relationship,” but “as far as collaborating we’re not there yet.”Scimeca noted that bipartisan efforts will be key to Obama’s and the country’s success during the next four years.“If Obama governs the way he campaigned, as someone who’ll reach across the aisle, it’ll be good for everyone,” Scimeca said.Keyserling added that White House staff will be important as well, noting that the role of the “Chief of Staff cannot be understated.” Rham Emmanuel, who recently accepted the Chief of Staff position and was a part of the Clinton administration as well, will play a important role in the upcoming years, Keyserling said. Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, is also expected to have a crucial role as well in the upcoming administration.“Pelosi will be one of the most powerful figures in the world,” Keyserling said. By the time Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States in January, Pelosi will head “an overwhelming Democratic majority [and] will be in control of the purse-strings of the American government,” Keyserling said.Exactly how the Democrats will use their newfound power remains to be seen, though.“The Democrats have earned the right to lead,” Scimeca said. “It is now up to the Democrats to lead.”
(10/31/08 8:30am)
Possible Class 1 Misdemeanor charges, punishable by as much as a year in jail and a $2,500 fine at the Commonwealth’s attorney’s discretion, await voters who choose to wear their political party affiliations to the polls during Election Day, according to a recent clarification to the Code of Virginia by the Virginia State Board of Elections. Several free expression and civil liberty organizations are now considering possible lawsuits against the Board because of the rule.In a statement released Oct. 14, the board said it is illegal for voters to wear any sort of campaign materials when they go to vote and are within 40 feet of a polling entrance Nov. 4. If voters choose to wear buttons, hats, shirts and other political paraphernalia to the polls, they will be asked to remove or cover the items while they vote. Several civil liberty groups, however, believe the rule is a violation of individuals’ right to free speech. Two Charlottesville-based groups, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Rutherford Institute, have teamed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia to fight against the State Board of Elections policy, representatives of those groups said, and are presently considering taking legal action depending on how the policy is enforced at the polls. Josh Wheeler, Thomas Jefferson Center associate director, said the board’s policy “goes too far” and is a clear violation of the First Amendment.“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Wheeler said.The law itself is actually a reinterpretation of an older law, Wheeler noted, adding that he believes the original policy was fine as is. According to the original law, found in the Code of Virginia section 24.2-604, it is unlawful for someone to “solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote” within 40 feet of any polling entrance as well as inside the polling location. In its Oct. 14 release, the Board stated the regulation prohibiting persons from wearing any attire for or against a candidate is simply a clarified reinterpretation of the law, according to the release.Rick Sincere, Charlottesville Electoral Board secretary, said the recent reinterpretation was a result of “individual localities interpreting and enforcing the law” in an uneven manner. The Virginia State Board of Elections statement is an attempt to have all commonwealth voting precincts enforce the law in a uniform manner, Sincere added. Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, though, said the regulation is part of an emerging anti-free speech trend seen since the 1990s. “People value free speech less than we used to,” Whitehead said, adding that he has seen an overall cultural trend of “tightening free speech.” Whitehead said several Supreme Court decisions have upheld laws similar to the original regulation prohibiting attempts to influence voter decisions but noted that he believes the Virginia State Board of Elections has “taken a law and expanded it” in a clear violation of free speech. The original law, Whitehead said, “was intended to apply to active speech” when people try to impose their own beliefs on others at the polls and not on “silent, private expression.” Passive speech such as the wearing of political apparel involves the individual voter alone, Wheeler said, and in no way impacts anyone else. Moreover, the guidelines might be seen as creating more confusion in regards to how the policy will be enforced and how violators will be punished, he added.According to the State Board of Election statement, if a voter refuses to comply with the policy, the registrar will file the incident and report it to the Electoral Board, which will then review the report and send it to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. Voters will still be given the chance to vote, but violators could face Class 1 Misdemeanor charges.Sincere noted that “no one will be turned away. Any [legal] action will be done after Election Day.” Opponents of the regulation, such as the Thomas Jefferson Center, acknowledge that the State Board of Elections has assured that everyone will still be allowed to vote regardless of whether they cooperate with the policy. “In some way these guidelines offer a little bit of reassurance in that no one will be prevented from voting even if they refuse” to remove their items, Wheeler said. Whitehead noted that he does not anticipate that the regulation will affect voter turnout.“This election is so important,” Whitehead said.Meanwhile, Charlottesville Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Claude Worrell said he anticipates no problems Nov. 4 and does not foresee any charges being filed. Whitehead and Wheeler both said, though, that the ACLU of Virginia, the Thomas Jefferson Center and the Rutherford Institute may still file a lawsuit against the State Board of Elections after the upcoming election.“We’re going to wait and see what happens,” Whitehead said.Sincere, though, said because Virginia’s voting policy laws are already among “the least restrictive in the nation” and “very liberal,” he believes the groups will have little success if they choose to file a lawsuit.
(10/17/08 5:24am)
Nearly 500,000 new commonwealth voters registered this year, according to a Virginia State Board of Elections press release. Even after removing the names of all those who have passed away or moved out of the state, Virginia experienced a net gain of 436,000 new voters since January, according to the press release. This increase in vote registration is the largest surge Virginia has ever experienced in an election, the press release stated.Of these newly registered voters, Charlottesville was a major source of new registrants in the commonwealth, totalling a record number of 28,651 newly registered voters, Charlottesville General Registrar Sheri Iachetta said. This number is a 34 percent increase from the 2004 presidential election, she noted, adding that there was also a greater number of absentee ballots requested for the upcoming election.Because Virginia does not register voters by party affiliation, Iachetta said, it is impossible to tell as of yet which candidate Virginia favors in advance of the upcoming election. Though Virginia has tended to vote Republican in the past, the increase of new voters could have an effect on Virginia’s party affiliation and move Virginia into the Blue.“Virginia could very well go for Obama,” said Dan Keyserling, deputy director of communications for the Center for Politics and former Cavalier Daily executive editor.Keyserling said Virginia has not voted for a Democratic candidate in a presidential election since 1964, but 2008 could see a different outcome. Bruce Vlk, deputy director of programs for the Center for Politics, said the commonwealth as a whole will be a highly contested battleground.Charlottesville itself, however, “will definitely go for Obama,” Keyserling said. “Charlottesville is an unique liberal enclave in an otherwise conservative area.”The increase of voters registered in the Charlottesville could also lead to an increase in overall voter turnout. Iachetta said she expects an 85 percent turnout in Charlottesville alone, which would be a significant increase from the 2004 voter turnout of 67 percent in the city.An especially important group of new voters includes University students and other young community members. “Compared to 2004, the youth vote has been steadily climbing,” Vlk stated. “We do anticipate that the youth vote will be critical in this upcoming election ... and will matter much more than in previous elections.”Voter turnout for ages 18-21 increased from 29 percent in the 2000 election to 41 percent in 2004, Vlk noted, saying he believes that the national youth vote will top 50 percent of that age bracket in this year’s presidential election. Overall, almost 40 percent of new voters in Virginia are younger than 25 years old, according to a State Board of Elections press release.To help increase Charlottesville voter turnout, Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris has offered up a friendly wager with long-time Virginia voter turnout leader Falls Church. In the past, Falls Church has led Virginia in voter turnout percentage, with a turnout of 86.2 percent in 2000 and 81 percent in 2004, said Deborah Taylor, Falls Church registrar of voters. Norris, though, said he is determined to best Fall Church. In that regard, he bet that Charlottesville will have a higher voter turnout this year than Falls Church, a contest both cities formally accepted. Charlottesville has wagered a bust of Thomas Jefferson, which Falls Church plans on putting in the court area of their city hall if they win, Taylor said, while Falls Church has wagered a sapling of their 2008 “Tree of the Year,” the sassafras. Taylor said she is confident Falls Church will keep its top ranking. “We bet we got them beat,” she said. City Spokesperson Ric Barrick, however, said he believes that there is “intense interest from all levels of the city,” that will help carry Charlottesville record the commonwealth’s highest voter turnout.Regardless of which city wins, both are expecting large numbers of voters to flood the polls Nov. 4. Because of this, Barrick said, Charlottesville is working to encourage people to carpool or take public transportation to the polling locations. Charlottesville Transit Service buses will run free of charge all day, and every polling location is within a two-block distance of a CTS stop except the Alumni Hall location, Barrick said. He also noted that voters should head to the polls in the mid-morning and mid-afternoon hours, because those are traditionally less busy times.
(03/28/08 4:00am)
In an effort to promote community engagement courses, the office of the executive vice president and provost recently created three types of grants available to members of the University community for the 2008-09 academic year.