Slavery was ubiquitous, and therefore markers of its existence and impact should be ubiquitous, too. As we strive to confront this history and best navigate the waters of simultaneously appreciating and condemning the contributions of major historical figures, making our physical spaces reflect that contradiction can only help.
As these colleges strive to raise revenue, they are attempting to do so without it being, literally, at the neediest students’ expense. It is unrealistic to expect a school to be completely or close to free, as wonderful as that would be.
By turning the viewing into an opportunity for dialogue about the state of Muslims in America and globally and how the film contributes to perceptions of Muslims, the MSA made it possible for the film to be contextualized. Students who may not otherwise question the presentation of Muslims and Middle Eastern individuals in the film had the opportunity to do so this weekend. In fact, it was probably better for students to watch “American Sniper” in this setting — a setting that ultimately forced them to think critically — than to see it at a movie theater where they may not view the movie the same way.
It is extremely disappointing that the General Assembly has yet to produce a new, fairer map. What the General Assembly has done so far has actually been contrary to the goal of undermining gerrymandering: this past session, the General Assembly passed numerous bills tweaking existing districts to make them less competitive instead of properly responding to the U.S. District Court’s initial ruling.
The Board has included a non-voting student member for a long time prior to this recent inclusion of a non-voting faculty member; this speaks to the disconnect at our school between the various populations in need of representation. With our commitment to student self-governance, students have the privilege of independence, and therefore fewer interactions with faculty members outside their academics. Compared to other schools, there is likely increased interaction between students and administrators, without interim faculty involvement.
There is a difference here between what public and private schools may regulate, but there is no difference between our University and Columbia in terms of what is right and wrong when it comes to the voicing of student concerns. In this case, Columbia students should not see their protests restricted.
Keeping information in the hands of only a few Board members is problematic for obvious reasons. But if it was so egregious as to lead to the resignation of a prominent Board member, transparency within the Board must be an even worse problem than we anticipated previously.
The intense scrutiny of Sullivan — who has only been at the University since 2010 — begs an important question: where is that same scrutiny of other administrators who have been here much longer and whose impact is, in many ways, much more significant to the lives of students?
This year, the University further shifted toward hiring non-tenure track professors (“non-tenure track” is the University’s term for “adjunct”). Information released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that in the 2012-13 academic year, there were 151 non-tenure track teaching faculty, whereas in the 2014-15 year there have been 270. This compares to the roughly 860 tenure-track professors for both academic years.
The University’s contract with Aramark is a business, and not ethical, contract. And in the world of business transactions, there will often be trade-offs between low-cost solutions and efficiency and the moral character of a company. In Aramark’s case, however, the trade-offs are simply not worth it.
For journalism, proper reporting on sexual assault and for sexual assault survivors themselves, Rolling Stone needs to see consequences beyond a comprehensive review of its mistakes. This brings us back to Phi Psi’s lawsuit. The lawsuit is appropriate for what the fraternity went through as a result of this article — but it also appears to be one of the only ways left to hold this magazine accountable.
But the dramatic nature of these numbers obscures the immense benefit they create for families struggling to afford the cost of our University. In theory, the Affordable Excellence model — the name of this new plan — will reduce the net cost of a University degree for 70 percent of Virginian families. This high tuition, high aid model truly will help — and it will help such a large number of families that this is a model we should be happy about.
It is not up to the authors of this report to account for every wrong Rolling Stone committed, and the job of these researchers was made harder still by the fact that they had to gather their information from Rolling Stone first (though the magazine did provide a 405 page record of everything pertaining to the article). But as we reflect on Erdely’s article, we should not confine our analysis of it just to Jackie’s story and the editorial failures surrounding its presentation. It is a dramatic oversimplification to reduce this article — which shook our University to its core — just to that one narrative.
The managing board of The Cavalier Daily would like to issue a sincere apology for the publication of two pieces — “ABC officers tackle Native American student outside Bodo’s Bagels” and “Zeta Psi hosts ‘Rosa Parks’ party” — in our April Fools edition which was released this morning.
Our University is no stranger to board-driven ousters. In 2012, University President Teresa Sullivan was unexpectedly fired from her position, and, in response to widespread protests, the Board of Visitors ultimately reinstated her. We write today to urge the governing board at Ole Miss to do the same.
A vote on tuition changes requires significant consideration; for all Board members not to feel fully prepared for such a vote is troubling. Even Meg Gould, the non-voting student representative to the Board, pointed to the lack of transparency in the Board’s decision as a reason “students feel that they weren’t given sufficient time to understand the policy and [felt] unheard or unrepresented.”
As March comes to an end, the Managing Board recounts some notable numbers.
If the Board truly only has 30 minutes to spare for the topic of diversity and inclusion, those 30 minutes should be much more substantive than they were Tuesday. The concerns we mentioned — among many others — are not new. Why is it that such concerns are not being addressed by the very committee that exists to address them?
Yesterday, we wrote about the standardization of elements of Title IX — in particular, standardizing who should oversee investigations and standardizing whether parties should have a right to have counsel or advisers present. In our opinion, the national standardization of these two practices could improve the adjudication of sexual misconduct at colleges and universities, as well as make it easier to compare schools’ respective adjudicative practices.
A key issue with Title IX requirements is that they leave many decisions up to schools that should, in fact, be standardized. The need for standardization does not apply to all regulations within Title IX — but it definitely applies to regulations regarding due process. This need seems especially important given the existence of so many misunderstandings regarding sexual assault: according to FiveThirtyEight, despite acknowledging the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses nationwide, only 6 percent of U.S. college presidents believe sexual assault is a problem on their own campuses.
