This week, I’ve witnessed everything from encouraging Post-it notes around my dorm to loving posters hung on lampposts and columns. I’ve seen a podium set up outside of Clark Hall encouraging passers-by to “Say Something Nice,” and the entire Amphitheatre transformed into a petting zoo.
Many colleges, including the University, recently sent their acceptance letters, which means many prospective students who did not get into the University were left devastated with the words “We are sorry to inform you” pounding in their heads.
Cuccinelli has been a thorn in the University’s side as attorney general; as governor, he could do a lot more damage. His action against the sodomy ruling suggests, first, a grave misunderstanding of the proper scope of government in relation to individual freedom — why should the state tell consenting adults what they may or may not do in the bedroom? — and second, a sinister impulse toward homophobia, as sodomy statutes have historically been strategically enforced to persecute gay men.
To curb the effects of partisanship on our representatives, term limits — similar to the two-term limit imposed on the presidency — need to be instituted for all positions in Congress.
Every time I fly, I am reminded of society’s willingness to comply with the status quo when I am forced to pause my music until reaching the magical altitude of 10,000 feet, below which my Kindle would supposedly send aircraft, satellites and the International Space Station spiraling into Armageddon-style oblivion.
In the last decade, MIT, Georgetown, UC-Berkeley, all eight Ivy League schools and many other institutions have committed to paying their employees a living wage. At U.Va., paying employees a living wage would require a reallocation of a fraction of one percent of the annual operating budget. Why has U.Va. refused to join its peers?
The University may be proud of the “How Things Work” Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) I’m teaching, but my workload in producing that MOOC is my own doing.
For these little things — these little joys — the bottom why comes down to someone giving back.
Scrolling Facebook, looking at the many marriage-equality images, I question how many people posted the picture because they were aware of the Supreme Court cases and how many posted it because of peer influence.
Even if you do not use Google, you are probably aware of the search engine’s practice of stylizing its homepage logo into quirky doodles. The doodles normally reference a particular person or event, usually one that coincides with the date on which the doodle appears. Many users consider the doodles one of the site’s endearing characteristics. This past Easter, though, Google’s doodle incited controversy in a ridiculous instance of religious outrage.
Groves makes a point that should be self-evident but is not. For students looking to distinguish themselves and make a lasting contribution to the University, a better approach may be to work with the raw materials of a lesser-known CIO than to occupy a well-established leadership role, however coveted.
Vulgarity in humor is nothing new. One might even call it cliché. Whether in Shakespearean plays, on Vaudeville stages or on Comedy Central, offensive humor is everywhere. While it is nearly impossible to define exactly what makes people laugh, blatant and/or intentional offensiveness is often so different from normal behavior that it comes off as funny. Creating laughter seems harmless enough, but disrespectful jokes, though intended to be humorous, are often vilified when their content involves especially taboo subjects.
We autistics do not need your awareness. We walk these grounds every day. We are your fellow students, professors, friends and so on. We function quite well, and unless we identify ourselves as autistic to you, you will never know that we’re here. What we need is acceptance. Fortunately for me during my time here at the University of Virginia I have been met with open arms and acceptance from all my fellow students and professors.
Among the hundreds of bills Gov. Bob McDonnell signed into law last week, one in particular may have direct negative effects on Virginia’s public college students.
Writing a science article is a bit like coaxing a 5-year-old into eating foie gras. Upon seeing the plate, the kid will become suspicious. He will complain about the color, poke the spongy texture and make a few skeptical faces. He must be spoon-fed the first couple of bites. If he likes it, you’re lucky. More often, you simply realize a 5-year-old won’t eat foie gras and maybe jumping straight from chicken nuggets to duck livers wasn’t the best idea.
The managing board’s occasional survey of notable numerals
Because of tuition increases, financial aid will become more crucial for many students. It is disappointing that Sullivan’s financial plan does not include a more robust defense of AccessUVa. A strong financial-aid program is crucial for the University’s success. Such a program preserves the school’s public obligation to educate all worthy students, and it attracts bright thinkers from a range of communities who might not otherwise be able to afford attending college.
To add to the constant technological developments of our world, Google has recently unveiled its new Google Glass product: a device that seems to bring us even closer to the Orwellian dystopia we were all warned of in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases pertaining to the illegality of same-sex marriage in the United States. On Tuesday and Wednesday, supporters and critics of gay marriage alike gathered together in person and on social media sites to voice their opinions on the issue of gay marriage. Red equal signs proliferated on Facebook as many U.Va. students expressed solidarity with the rights of same-sex couples. However, the expressions of disapproval and support concealed the fact that the very organ of government that should hold and resolve the debate over same-sex marriage is not the Supreme Court. Whether you long for the day when gay couples can marry or you shudder at the thought, the collective resolution of the American people should not come through the institution of the courts.
On a purely legal level, there is not a single compelling reason to uphold either Prop 8 or DOMA. A common argument against same-sex marriage is that it provides a different set of rules for a select population. But any analysis of this claim shows it to be not only misleading but antithetical to the truth.
