The last couple of weeks in The Cavalier Daily’s Opinion pages have included a lot of inside baseball. That is to say, there have been several pieces that seem written mostly for those who work for The Cavalier Daily. Ashley Spinks offered columns in the last two weeks that are strongly critical of the Managing Board.
Yes, the Gray-Carrington and Sky Alland scholarships are awarded based on merit, but the award for these scholarships should not pay a full year’s tuition if the recipients already have all of college covered. If both scholarships claim to choose their recipients at least partially based on humility, this conclusion is not difficult to reach.
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.
University athletes are prohibited by NCAA rules from profiting from their own skills, name and likeness. Every other University student, even those on full scholarship, is afforded that fundamental civil right. So long as you have not been named a “student-athlete,” you can get paid by the University and enjoy a free meal without a guilty conscience. You could even sell your autograph or start a crowdfunding page for your personal ambitions. The University may even applaud and commend your initiative if you did so.
As feminist philosophy and women's studies have expanded over the last few years, western society has seen the masculine identity quietly splinter into various different sub-masculinities: gamer, brony, metrosexual and lumbersexual, to name a few. Little emphasis has been put on studying contemporary forms of masculinity and how masculinity has become fragmented by trends in the context of post-industrial consumerist society.
We can work as much or as little as we like, but it is in a field of our choosing — whether you spend your four years playing beer pong in a fraternity house, in the editing room of the student newspaper or diligently studying in the library, you must choose to declare at least a stated interest in one or more subjects. You are in charge of charting a course for your learning, and pressed — through basic requirements — to explore beyond what you believe you know to like or dislike.
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.
The researchers also advocate broadening kids' "definition of the equal sign," meaning they should "be trained to view an equal sign (=) as balancing an equation, not as a command to produce an answer." This poignant idea uncovers probably the most nefarious byproduct of using expressions or "?" equations to teach students math: it commits a subtle semantical error. Asking children to fill in the spot after the equal sign suggests that by doing the arithmetic, one is actually creating the answer to the problem.
I see no problem in the rich paying more of the real cost of a University education, even if some of this payment is used to offset the fees for poor families of qualified students. But, please, show me some numbers and family situations so I can evaluate this new program.
Charlottesville has seen an influx of refugees in recent years, with thousands being relocated to the city suburbs, yet these people remain some of the most marginalized in the city due to lack of citizenship, lack of employment opportunities, lack of adequate housing and lack of access to education and healthcare for children and families. In the current discussions on race at the University and in Charlottesville as a whole, these communities are continually left out of the conversation.
We face undeniable disadvantages in building our brand. The largest disadvantage specifically is trying to keep up with high-caliber private institutions and their often superior funding. This larger funding can go toward hiring esteemed faculty or developing more academic programs. Either way, it is difficult as a public institution to compare ourselves with top private institutions. This, however, is what we must strive to do.
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.
It is unsurprising that many fear allowing ex-convicts into our state employment system, but it is important to remember that not everyone who is arrested or imprisoned has committed crimes of an equal degree. Many people are imprisoned for non-violent crimes. Of course, this is not to say that any crime is excusable. Anyone who commits a crime ought to serve a fitting punishment, but the system in place often fails, handing out punishments that don’t necessarily fit the crime.
It is reprehensible that the Managing Board failed to hold itself to the same standards that it sets for its subordinates. It exercised its own judgement when deciding to run those articles, and the Managing Board needs to stand by its decision. The Cavalier Daily, as an editorially independent institution, had every right both to attempt satire and to publish jokes at others’ expense. The Managing Board actively exercised that right, and to retract the pieces post-hoc suggests that they did so wrongly, which undermines their individual and collective integrity.
We humans are not confined to certain types; in fact, we hold a modest degree of agency over our personalities. This idea is crucial to understanding the generative process of self. If we can learn to take ownership over the different attitudes and behaviors we express, we can begin to consciously latch on to those characteristics that are more conducive to healthy, positive human interaction. Personality need not be a passive. For passivity only leads to complacency, which in turn, wears down the the social fabrics of community.
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.
Despite the difficulty of implementing such a program, I believe the Franklin Project makes a strong case for the benefits of expanding national service. The core issue the Franklin Project brings to attention is the uncomfortable thought that perhaps the expectations for service on the average American citizen are far too low. Perhaps it is right to remind us that the obligations and duties of citizenship extend beyond just paying your taxes.
Though the facts and figures point towards STEM fields, they actually only reflect a subset of what it is to be ‘useful.’ It is, then, not reasonable to generalize that STEM majors are useful and liberal arts majors are not. Here, it’s useful to consider the differences between hard skills and soft skills. Hard skills are easily quantified abilities and skillsets, demonstrated through applicable knowledge and abilities. Soft skills are more qualitative abilities, oftentimes involving personal traits and interpersonal skills.
The major problem when it comes to limiting money in politics is that it is considered speech since the Citizens United ruling. This ruling makes it very hard to pass any laws limiting political spending since free speech is a dearly held right for Americans. Arguments for free speech do have merit. In principle, no one should be able to tell an American citizen how to spend his money. Yet, when this spending encroaches on other freedoms, the government has a right to step in and protect the rights of the people at the expense of a few individuals.
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?
