I was confused to learn that the Honor Committee is discussing how to prevent students from talking about exams after they have taken them ("Honor reviews exam discussion policies," Feb.
This letter is in response to Dan Stalcup's "Best of the Decade: Athletes," Feb. 24). While I appreciate the difficultly in compiling a list that spans 23 sports and 10 years and have enjoyed reading Stalcup's articles over the past few weeks, I do believe that there was one oversight in terms of athletes included.
Balancing act While Delegate Dave Albo understandably shows concern for his constituents' educations and opportunities to attend the University of Virginia, he fails to consider the multifaceted admissions process and overall good of the University.
Megan Stiles' column "Packing Heat" is symptomatic of one of the fundamental problems plaguing American society today
Having read the news article concerning the case summaries, I am concerned of how this could negatively impact students in the Honor System.
This year will mark the 170th year since the murder of a University of Virginia professor that would ultimately give rise to the inception of an Honor System, which, in its present manifestation, relies upon students "simply behaving with the integrity that has come to be expected of a Virginia student" as the self-affirming justification for encouraging the administration of unproctored exams that facilitate the advancement of the dishonest at the expense of the honest. To place the burden of the administration of fair exams on the students taking such exams is an infringement upon their pursuit of an education unmolested by distracting parallel duties as classroom monitors and honor offense reporters. When students graduate, they will compete in a world that will not assume that they are uniquely honorable on account of having "worn the honors of Honor." A temporary suspension of such realities may be of benefit to the merchandising efforts of University Guides in promoting a place unbounded by the realities of human nature to the parents of prospective students, but it is a disservice to such students during their tenure at the university. Of the four in-class examinations I took in the second semester of my first year at the University of Virginia, I witnessed 'dishonorable' activity in half.
I was happy to read the column "Packing heat" (Feb. 17) that there's someone out there who shares my views.
In "Love is Propaganda" (Feb. 15), Ginny Robinson argues that anyone considering the Love is Love campaign with "more than a precursory glance" would find it a "dextrous use of propaganda to advance a social agenda." The word she was looking for was, I believe, "cursory," but that is beside the point - Ginny's glance was blinded by ideology and her column was more propagandistic than last Friday's campaign. Ginny veiled her argument as a call for "critical thought," but this purported lack of bias was misleading.
Re "Love is propaganda?," Feb. 15: The basic argument of the column reads only slightly more mature than a kindergarten student missing out on the latest primary school fad. There are several inaccuracies in Ginny Robinson's argument.
The editors of The Cavalier Daily have done a disservice to their readers, as well as their writers, by publishing such poor journalism as "June Bug" (Feb.
Though I am shocked at the unapologetic pretentiousness of "The Ten Society" featured in The Cavalier Daily's article ("New secret society, The Ten, seeks to reclaim elitism," Feb.
After reading Ginny Robinson's column ("Love is Propaganda," Feb. 15), I was left feeling quite frustrated - and just as a heads up, this is coming from a straight female. You brought up a variety of contradictory points within your piece. First of all, you wrote "To deny the complexity of love by ignoring the variation in human relationships erodes the campaigns validity," while in fact, that is exactly the opposite of what the campaign is promoting.
I was absolutely appalled by Ginny Robinson's column ("Love is Propaganda?," Feb. 15). How disheartening it is to see a piece that does nothing but speak in generalizations and offer the most absurd arguments for her alleged "argument." I am not involved in the LGBT, nor did I get a chance to even pick up the shirt (I still have mine from last year), but I was outraged to read her ill-informed and quite frankly, prejudicial piece.
While I rarely take anything printed in The Cavalier Daily to heart, Ginny Robinson's opinion on the Love is Love t-shirts is pretty disturbing and hopefully not representative of the University community.
Ginny Robinson's column yesterday lacked the same "validity of assertion" she said the Love is Love campaign missed.
Re "Honor passes tentative public summaries amendment," Feb. 11: Though I am a firm believer in confidentiality and respecting students' privacy, I truly believe this amendment will help the Honor Committee break down the separation between the student body and its elected representatives.
I'm embarrassed that Julia Sharpe's "June bug" was published, and that the ignorant and racist attitudes in the article were condoned by the editors of The Cavalier Daily.
Debate has recently sprung up concerning Julia Sharpe's "June Bug" article in The Cavalier Daily about her study abroad experiences in South Africa.
I am appalled at Julia Sharpe's article ("June bug," Feb. 9). The writer's blatant inability to critically assess her surroundings is evident in her patronizing and stereotype-ridden description of what she saw in Cape Town, South Africa. "Hence the paradox of tourism and Cape Town.
Elizabeth Ford's "Glamorous Mistakes" (Feb. 9) is horribly mistaken about how MTV has portrayed teen pregnancy.
