Perhaps the most obvious flaw in the gun lobby’s argument is that allowing campus carry would not exclusively put guns in the hands of potential victims — it would also allow assaulters to legally carry guns on campus. Potential rapists would now have a new tool in their arsenal with which to attack.
This is because vigils are an inherently passive event. They attempt to patch up the immediate pain instead of looking to address the habitual source of it. Yet while vigils are passive, they are the most active part a majority of students take in addressing tragedies on Grounds. This gives vigils a strong ability to shape the views of students.
The distinction between the print and digital formats was really highlighted with this issue. The print issue was easily navigated and the graphics showing how various parts of student government function were interesting. The problem I ran into is that I couldn’t locate most of them online.
But what makes this hook-up model the correct model? Is it merely personal opinion? Isn’t it possible your monogamous favoritism is based off societal pressures which have convinced you marital monogamy is the only truly acceptable form of adult relationship? If we look at the world, out of over 1,000 societies 186 are monogamous and 453 have occasional polygyny (with others having more frequent polygyny or polyandry).
We all have an interest in ensuring ambiguous language stays out of the governing documents of our University’s Honor Committee. We would be poor stewards of the system if we left the Committee with crucial questions over the interpretation of its constitution, and it would be irresponsible to vote for an amendment with unclear implications for honor at our University.
Currently, the State Integrity Investigation ranks Virginia 47th among 50 states in its “Corruption Risk Report Card,” with an overall grade of “F.” Last year’s ethics reforms were largely unimpressive, seemingly little more than a gesture.
I find Doyle’s portrayal of Modi as a ruthless, power-hungry fascist dictator — as evidenced by Doyle’s numerous references to fascism and his portentous warning that a “nationalistic man leading the Indian state should be very scary to us all” — decidedly exaggerated and unfounded.
The often-competing ideals of student self-governance and tradition at the University allow for true activism, but at the expense of expediency. This creates a gap in student support of causes which so-called “slacktivism” fills nicely.
Congressional Republicans have been desperately trying to prove they can govern as well as obstruct, though their recent actions have done little to change their perception. Republicans’ rabid opposition to President Barack Obama’s recent executive action on immigration has led to their latest exercise in brinkmanship: failing to fund the Department of Homeland Security while at the same time bemoaning the national security threats of ISIL and terrorist plots in Europe.
Are we all just talking at each other? Social media forums are notoriously bad for interacting with other people. Not only are we alone when we stand on our virtual soapboxes, but Facebook and Twitter let us behave like ideological Whack-a-Moles, launching loaded statements and then retreating from any rebuttal into the depths of the Internet.
We are pleased that more Student Council races are contested this year, and hope this signifies more student interest in what our governing body does. We are confident the combination of Axler, Carré and Winsky will serve our student body well over the next year.
Essentially, the Republican Party identified every student enrolled in a public university as a dependent thinker, and they labeled every university as a factory that exclusively produces liberals. But what if the majority of college students are liberal because they want to be?
There is nothing inherently wrong with using social media. However, when the number of attendees on a Facebook event becomes the primary indicator of who is to win an election, we should be concerned. At a certain point we should question whom social media campaigns are reaching.
I will vote no for the third referendum for the above reasons, and because I think there is much more progress the Committee can make next year without spending the majority of their time considering a multiple sanction system. After nearly a year on the Committee, I believe we can improve the Informed Retraction.
Can honor be preserved at this University without the single sanction? Unequivocally, yes. Some will argue the single sanction is what distinguishes our honor from that of other schools and places. But they are mostly wrong.
While student candidates naturally have a quality of idealism, we sought those whose idealism would not overwhelm their pragmatism. The honor system’s ability to maintain relevancy to our student body can only stem from concrete reforms, and Committee members will only have a year to implement such reforms. We think these candidates have the drive and initiative to take on this challenge.
Although the referenda do not directly propose a multi-sanction model, to join the conversation is to realize that single sanction serves as a disincentive in encouraging students to honor the system. After all, the fates of accused cheaters and liars should not be determined by a moral code that was instituted following the slaughter of a professor back in 1840.
The overall effect of the campaign’s referenda would be to fabricate a mandate for abolition of the single sanction in advance, without having a concrete policy on the table. That would wait until next year, when the proposal would come with both the imprimatur of the Honor Committee and the weight of this year’s referendum behind it.
Not every person needs to be a master coder. Coding is not the only technical skill that develops mental focus, enhances problem-solving capabilities and hones creativity. However, I do agree with Obama that coding is a new literacy that must be acquired so that all people can understand computer science basics and communicate effectively to programmers who have the capacity to make their ideas a reality.
The BBG had a budget of $731 million in fiscal year 2014, which means it has the resources to do a lot of good — or a significant amount of harm. From a solely idealistic standpoint, we can all get behind the mission of the BBG, which involves protecting free speech and providing news that is “accurate, objective, and comprehensive” to countries that often do not have access to a free press.
