I wanted to raise my objections to the ?Got Stalk? Log On to Facebook? ad that appeared in The Cavalier Daily (2/24/2009). The ad is pointless and unnecessary, and tries to make a throwaway joke about a serious topic.
There was an opinion column in the Cavalier Daily yesterday written by Isaac Wood concerning the UBE.
Alex Cortes argues that Congressional Republicans have seen a rise in their approval ratings because of their opposition to President Obama's stimulus bill.
The editorial last Thursday (?Food for Thought,? 2/19/2009) should be commended for supporting the efforts of the new student group Campus Kitchens.
Geoff Skelley (?Partisan games?, 2/19/2009) puts forth three inaccuracies: the ?American people are frustrated? with Congressional Republicans, they want a do-nothing stimulus or one with their same tired policies, and the that New Deal was generally successful.On the first, as of February 15 Rassmussen reports Republicans were within two points of Democrats on the general ballot.
While I appreciate Matt Dickey?s interesting and candid column (?25 Personal Hoos and Boos,? 2/17/2009), his opinion on the selectivity of the University Guide Service is unfounded.
We were really disturbed to see the blatant racism in the comic section (?Classic It?s a Lemon,? 2/12/2009). After the Ethiopian foodfight fiasco, we thought The Cavalier Daily had realized that these ?jokes? aren?t funny.
In his guest viewpoint (?A wolf in sanction reform?s clothing,? 2/10/2009), Justin Starr demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal by Hoos Against Single Sanction.
It is shameful that, after forcing a proposal onto the ballot in violation of the honor constitution, Hoos Against Single Sanction is now trying to undermine debate on their proposal by portraying legitimate criticism as deception (?Sanction reform is the answer,? 2/10/09).Leven?s claim that his proposal permits appeals of lesser sanctions is simply false.
The Cavalier Daily?s lead editorial, ?Self-involved,? (2/9/2009) highlights several serious misunderstandings that the writers must have about the new Civic Engagement Committee.
Monday?s story about the honor referendum (?Honor Committee validates proposal for spring elections,? 2/9/09) put forward by Hoos Against the Single Sanction (HASS) is deeply troubling.
I would like to commend Jess Huang on her decision to validate the single sanction referendum for this upcoming election period.
It is a little unclear from the article on the honor referendum (?Honor Committee validates proposal for spring elections, ?2/9/2009), however, it seems from the article that the main debate the Honor Committee has is that the language is unclear.
Mr. Hess? column (2/4/09, ?More sanctions, more problems?) errs by claiming that ?a multiple sanction system vitiates [the importance of honor] by diluting the clarity of that message.? On the contrary, the present set of punishments imposed under the honor code ? namely, the single sanction of expulsion from the University ? is the one actually ?diluting? the importance of honor within our community.
I know that editorial cartoons are not always meant as a literal interpretation of reality, but Monday?s cartoon by Wesley Andrews missed the mark entirely.
I am writing in response to last Monday?s lead editorial (?Without Representation,? Jan.
Monday?s article reporting a large increase in the ethnic diversity of applicants for the Class of 2013 was certainly good news.
The article about a student seemingly wrongfully expelled for an ?honor offense,? (?Honor case highlights procedures,? Jan.
I write this letter to express my extreme disappointment with the athletics coverage of this newspaper.
