I also have much to learn about the honor process. I think a big issue is where to draw the line between something “trivial” and a serious honor offense. The term itself is pretty ambiguous, and the question is even greater considering that juries are comprised of randomly chosen students. Cheating on a test would be considered an offense worthy of expulsion under most circumstances. What about a quiz? Is asking a classmate about an independent assignment classified as cheating? How is this different from attending office hours? In other words, is there a measure of consistency to compensate for the differing student opinions that will inevitably come with the current jury selection procedure? (For all I know, there could be an explanation of all of this somewhere, which brings up another question: where is the best place for uneducated students like myself to find information about honor policies and debates?)
Ross brings up a good point in his discussion of the single sanction. I think the single sanction is a great disincentive for students to commit major honor offenses; in fact, the system may not be as reliable without it. However, is there a significant punishment – other than the embarrassment associated with being brought up on an honor charge – for trivial crimes? If not, students have no real reason to avoid committing minor offenses. Most students will not break the honor code, even in trivial ways, out of the goodness of their hearts; they care about the University and its traditions. But people at the University are still people, and people act in their own self-interest. One thing is for sure: if students become accustomed to “trivially” violating the honor code, it will degrade into a merely superficial aspect of the University. Clearly, this is not the case now, and I am proud to attend a school where professors have no qualms about giving take-home exams. But I would like to know what safeguards are built into the honor system to ensure its longevity.
A little something about honor
As just another second-year student at the University, I feel bit in over my head commenting about the honor system. After all, the topic's been bantered about for generations. But for the sake of keeping tradition, I'll give it a shot.
Since this week is more about questions than answers, here a few to mull over. Are undergraduate students really qualified to judge their peers on issues of integrity? Does the (legally necessary) closed trial process create too little accountability? How does the Honor Committee handle conflict-of-interest when it arises? How should an appeals process be structured? Is there any allowance for outside input (legal, especially), or is the entire process to be genuinely student-run and supported?
This list goes on. The most central debate is of course over the nature of a single sanction. While I think there is a good deal of intrinsic value in this idea, it is my belief some sort of mechanism should be in place to handle the nature of triviality more clearly. In other words, while the idea of a single sanction should exist for clear, severe cases of misconduct, lesser offenses should be treated in a somewhat different manner. It is my belief that this won't undermine the community of trust ideal towards which we aspire. Most cases should be treated as they are currently; blatant plagiarism on a term paper, stealing from another student, or a clear instance of cheating on an exam should be punishable by dismissal from the University. So the merit of the single sanction remains intact. The only clarification would be that those cases deemed too “trivial” to result in immediate dismissal would be deferred to a separate sanctioning process. This would ensure that all crimes receive due process, and that students would feel less inclined to let smaller injustices occur out of fear for the extreme level of repercussions.
As for the smaller questions of honor, clearly people better qualified than myself will have to weigh in. One major challenge for understanding how to amend honor is that many students, myself included, know too little of the current process itself. The burden is always on us to educate ourselves, but certainly it would be in honor's best interests to try to elucidate students as to the true nature of honor at the University.
Since this week is more about questions than answers, here a few to mull over. Are undergraduate students really qualified to judge their peers on issues of integrity? Does the (legally necessary) closed trial process create too little accountability? How does the Honor Committee handle conflict-of-interest when it arises? How should an appeals process be structured? Is there any allowance for outside input (legal, especially), or is the entire process to be genuinely student-run and supported?
This list goes on. The most central debate is of course over the nature of a single sanction. While I think there is a good deal of intrinsic value in this idea, it is my belief some sort of mechanism should be in place to handle the nature of triviality more clearly. In other words, while the idea of a single sanction should exist for clear, severe cases of misconduct, lesser offenses should be treated in a somewhat different manner. It is my belief that this won't undermine the community of trust ideal towards which we aspire. Most cases should be treated as they are currently; blatant plagiarism on a term paper, stealing from another student, or a clear instance of cheating on an exam should be punishable by dismissal from the University. So the merit of the single sanction remains intact. The only clarification would be that those cases deemed too “trivial” to result in immediate dismissal would be deferred to a separate sanctioning process. This would ensure that all crimes receive due process, and that students would feel less inclined to let smaller injustices occur out of fear for the extreme level of repercussions.
As for the smaller questions of honor, clearly people better qualified than myself will have to weigh in. One major challenge for understanding how to amend honor is that many students, myself included, know too little of the current process itself. The burden is always on us to educate ourselves, but certainly it would be in honor's best interests to try to elucidate students as to the true nature of honor at the University.
Guest Post: David Truetzel, Honor Committee Chair-elect, on what you should know about honor
Seeing as it is Honor Awareness Week, Executive Editor Annette Robertson has asked me to write a blog post about a couple of things I think students should know about honor. I am more than happy to oblige. I’d like to focus on two aspects of the honor system specifically: the role of the Committee and the single sanction.
If it’s been a while since you’ve heard about Honor the organization, here’s a brief refresher about its structure. The Honor Committee is made up of elected representatives from each school. There are 27 representatives in total – 2 from each school (now including the Batten School) and 5 from the College. This body is responsible for the administration of the system and enacting legislation. By administration, I mean things like keeping paperwork straight and serving as Investigative Panelists and Trial Chairs. Since educating, investigating reports and going to trial require a lot of work, the Committee recruits a group of about 150 Support Officers (Counsel, Advisors, or Educators) from the student body to help it out.
With the structure in mind, I’ll now address one common misperception. Many students believe that Committee members decide the outcome of trials. However, this is true only when an accused student chooses to have a jury with Committee members on it. The majority of accused students select a jury panel made up entirely of randomly selected students who are not involved in Honor. So, for the majority of trials, the decision of guilty or not guilty is in the hands of students just like you. Students must understand this aspect of the system because it is an important area where students not involved in Honor can have a big impact. It also speaks to the fairness that we in Honor seek to provide every student. So the next time you get a jury summons, make sure you respond to it and play your role in the aystem!
I’d also like to write about an alternative interpretation of the single sanction. If you can, think back to when you applied to the University. On the application, each student signed his or her name saying that they had read and acknowledged the honor code. Think of this process as entering into a contract. The terms of this contract essentially state that a student’s admission and continued enrollment in the University of Virginia are contingent on his or her behaving honorably – that is, not lying, cheating, or stealing. If you think about the honor system in this way, the single sanction is not so much a punishment as it is the natural outcome of the contract when its terms are violated. This isn’t to say that students must agree with the single sanction to come here or that the single sanction is the best possible option. It is to say, however, that like any contract students should be aware of the terms they have signed onto.
I hope that this post has been edifying and thought provoking. If you have more questions please visit our website at www.virginia.edu/honor or feel free to contact me or anyone else you might know in honor. Finally, please consider attending the Honor Diversity Forum tonight (Wednesday) in Minor 125 at 7:00 PM to talk about Honor and diversity issues and the Honor Benefits Benefit tomorrow from 5:00-8:00 PM in Garden IX.
-David Truetzel, Chair-elect
Topic of the Week: Honor awareness
The open honor trial held Sunday was tried by a random student jury. Photo by Bennett Sorbo.This week is Honor Awareness Week. What that means, I'm not sure. So we're going to do something a little different this week. Obviously all University students are aware that we have a student-run honor system, which asked one student to leave this weekend after he was found guilty of lying. Fortunately for The Cavalier Daily, that was also the only open honor trial this weekend, and you can get the full scoop here. A student can request to have an open or closed honor trial, and in three closed honor trials this weekend, four students (two involved in the same case) were found not guilty. But the University community knows next to nothing about these closed honor trials. An open trial earlier in the semester that found the accused not guilty led students to question the honor trial process. Maybe it's in the best interest of everyone to have an open honor trial, although that's unlikely to happen because of FERPA. But why is it four non-guilty students chose to have closed honor trials? If they were truly innocent, it would seem they feared some failure in the honor system that might find them guilty. Or maybe it was just an embarrassing situation to be involved in, and those students didn't want to be tainted by association with an honor charge.
Since it's Honor Awareness Week, what should we know about the honor system that we don't already? What does the University community need to be made aware of? I would say we need to be aware of how the honor system works more than anything else. I hope no University students need to be made aware of what constitutes lying, cheating or stealing. So this week will be more about posing questions than taking a position. What do you want to know about the honor system? I'll do my best to find the answer to questions throughout the week.
Realizing the promise of our unity at last
Monday night, outgoing Student Council President Matt Schrimper chose to honor and reestablish one of this University’s finest traditions: the recognition of a University dog. Any student who takes the time to venture up to the University Cemetery next to Old Dorms can see the headstones remembering canine “mascots” of yesteryear: Beta and Seal. During a time when the University’s most sacred institutions are being attacked and torn down for “elitism” (see formal football attire, student self-governance, and the entire Greek system), it warms the heart to see this one piece of history get the respect it so sincerely deserves.
Sure, the nay-sayers can condemn Student Council for wasting its time on “frivolous” legislation. They can argue that formally instating a University Dog is “pointless” or “a waste of time”. But they know not the true spirit of camaraderie that exists here. The aptly named Noble Lampkin will serve as a symbol of the character and fortitude of our students: their honor, trust, wisdom, and cordiality. Why not pay homage to this spiritus vitae and name Noble our official canine creature?
A lot of time is spent arguing here at the University. Student Council debates its many proposals. The Cavalier Daily provides a forum for disputing various policies. UJC and Honor Committee sport contested trials on a regular basis. Finally our community of trust will be privileged with the presence of a member who offers companionship over criticism, love over hostilit, and joy over suffering. Noble Lampkin exemplifies what we should all endeavor to be. He is the model Lawn resident. He represents all that can be right about the future of this University. I, for one, will let no detractor take that hope and unbridled optimism away from us! Every University deserves a dog.
Sure, the nay-sayers can condemn Student Council for wasting its time on “frivolous” legislation. They can argue that formally instating a University Dog is “pointless” or “a waste of time”. But they know not the true spirit of camaraderie that exists here. The aptly named Noble Lampkin will serve as a symbol of the character and fortitude of our students: their honor, trust, wisdom, and cordiality. Why not pay homage to this spiritus vitae and name Noble our official canine creature?
A lot of time is spent arguing here at the University. Student Council debates its many proposals. The Cavalier Daily provides a forum for disputing various policies. UJC and Honor Committee sport contested trials on a regular basis. Finally our community of trust will be privileged with the presence of a member who offers companionship over criticism, love over hostilit, and joy over suffering. Noble Lampkin exemplifies what we should all endeavor to be. He is the model Lawn resident. He represents all that can be right about the future of this University. I, for one, will let no detractor take that hope and unbridled optimism away from us! Every University deserves a dog.
Topic of the Week: A University dog
Bill to Recognize Official University Dog
Sponsored by President Matt Schrimper
Whereas, the University has a proud history of recognizing and revering official University dogs,
Whereas, the University Dog serves as a dog-away-from home to countless students,
Whereas, Noble Cozart Lampkin has served as a convivial canine in his time in Pavilions III and V,
Whereas, Noble is full breed Collie that has been with the University since a mere eight weeks of age,
Whereas, Noble is often seen traipsing about the Academicals Village with students and respected administrators chasing after,
Whereas, “noble” is a synonym for “honorable,”
Whereas, Noble’s heartwarming and
Be it therefore enacted that Noble be formally recognized as the official University Dog.
Last night at the transition ceremony in the Rotunda, out-going Student Council President Matt Schrimper introduced legislation to establish a University dog. The dog in question was Noble, the dog of Pat Lampkin, Vice President and Chief Student Affairs Officer. This legislation was passed and Noble has been declared the official dog of the University by Council. Was this a waste of time? Council had to prepare the language and go through all the legislative produces to establish the University dog. How many students have really had contact with Noble and how does this benefit even those who have? Is this really what we want Council doing with their time, even if it was the last official act of Schrimper's administration?Alternatively, a University dog can be a unifying figure and provide some light-hearted relief in these times of economic stress. Noble is still Lampkin's dog; this doesn't cost the University any money and could provide a lot of fun for students. Even if the establishment of a University dog doesn't affect all that many people, if certainly couldn't hurt anyone. Maybe there should be a place for lighthearted legislation in Council's agenda.
Missing the point
A lot of negative attention – including a student petition 336 signatures strong calling for “a better, more transparent and more accountable commencement speaker selection committee to better reflect and respect the diverse opinions of the student body,” according to the article in today’s Cavalier Daily – has been focused on the political views of this year’s graduation commencement speaker: University alumnus and Charlottesville resident Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. Many students look forward to fond memories of their graduation ceremony’s main event, but “selection” may not be the best word to describe the process of determining who the annual commencement speaker will be. Unfortunately, the speaker selection committee does not enjoy the same luxuries that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions does this time of year; a barrage of qualified, well-known candidates is not clamoring for the chance to serve the University community for no charge. Not that it isn’t a great honor to speak at the University’s graduation, but the elite speakers have other great options too. Finding a prestigious, worthy commencement speaker is no easy task for a college administration, and considering that the University does not pay its speakers it is hard to expect that they could have done much better in this respect. Whatever his political ideology may be, Wilkinson is an accomplished scholar that has a lot of noteworthy advice to offer graduating fourth-years. There are no guarantees, but one can easily be forgiven for assuming that Wilkinson’s speech will be tailored toward graduating college students rather than an account of his views on the war in Iraq. It is impossible to satisfy the “diverse opinions” of the three thousand plus members of the graduating class with merely one person. Can’t we set politics aside just once?
A long week
It's been a busy and somewhat controversial week for the University's administration. The selection of Judge Harvey Wilkinson as Commencement speaker drew the ire of more than a few students. Then came the termination (or “resignation”) of men's basketball coach Dave Leitao after four stunning seasons on the job. Surely these two things are enough to keep President Casteen's and Craig Littlepage's inboxes overflowing this St. Patrick's Day.
On the point of Commencement speaker, I personally have no qualms over the choice. While Judge Wilkinson and I don't necessarily see eye to eye on every issue, there's no question that he's an influential and accomplished person. He also happens to be strongly affiliated with our University—a Law School alumnus and Charlottesville resident, for starters. While some may argue that his occasionally radical political leanings will detract from the ceremony in May, I believe that this response is inconsistent. After all, unless we solely choose apolitical figures as Commencement speakers—a viable option, to be sure, but also a severely limiting one—there will always be those disappointed with the selection. I dare say that if a liberal orator were selected instead of Wilkinson, the left-wing critics would be decidedly less vocal (and, likewise, conservative students and faculty would be more annoyed). Opponents of the selection have tried to paint Wilkinson as an extremist for his views against affirmative action and gay marriage, among other things. His positions on these matters aren't particularly radical; they're just staunchly conservative. Who knows, maybe next year our speaker will be Al Gore or some other lefty. I would welcome that choice as well.
Oddly enough, I'm much more reluctant to come down on a side in the Dave Leitao issue. When I look at the numbers from his four seasons in Hooville, it's easy to write him off: a barely over .500 overall record (the worst of any Virginia coach since before Terry Holland, in fact), and a dismal 1-4 ACC tournament record. It's certainly nothing to write home about, especially when given a brand new, first-in-its-class arena to use as a recruiting tool. Still, four seasons is a short time to work your magic on any program. The end of the Gillen years were painful, and nobody could reasonably expect a miracle turnaround.
Just this once, I'll trust in an administration that has given me little reason to do so. Maybe they've finally gotten things right this time. I hope to see a topnotch coach perusing the sidelines next year, one that inspires confidence in the program and rekindles hope for the future. That's the kind of victory Littlepage and company could use sorely use right about now.
On the point of Commencement speaker, I personally have no qualms over the choice. While Judge Wilkinson and I don't necessarily see eye to eye on every issue, there's no question that he's an influential and accomplished person. He also happens to be strongly affiliated with our University—a Law School alumnus and Charlottesville resident, for starters. While some may argue that his occasionally radical political leanings will detract from the ceremony in May, I believe that this response is inconsistent. After all, unless we solely choose apolitical figures as Commencement speakers—a viable option, to be sure, but also a severely limiting one—there will always be those disappointed with the selection. I dare say that if a liberal orator were selected instead of Wilkinson, the left-wing critics would be decidedly less vocal (and, likewise, conservative students and faculty would be more annoyed). Opponents of the selection have tried to paint Wilkinson as an extremist for his views against affirmative action and gay marriage, among other things. His positions on these matters aren't particularly radical; they're just staunchly conservative. Who knows, maybe next year our speaker will be Al Gore or some other lefty. I would welcome that choice as well.
Oddly enough, I'm much more reluctant to come down on a side in the Dave Leitao issue. When I look at the numbers from his four seasons in Hooville, it's easy to write him off: a barely over .500 overall record (the worst of any Virginia coach since before Terry Holland, in fact), and a dismal 1-4 ACC tournament record. It's certainly nothing to write home about, especially when given a brand new, first-in-its-class arena to use as a recruiting tool. Still, four seasons is a short time to work your magic on any program. The end of the Gillen years were painful, and nobody could reasonably expect a miracle turnaround.
Just this once, I'll trust in an administration that has given me little reason to do so. Maybe they've finally gotten things right this time. I hope to see a topnotch coach perusing the sidelines next year, one that inspires confidence in the program and rekindles hope for the future. That's the kind of victory Littlepage and company could use sorely use right about now.
Topics of the Week: Leitao's sudden resignation & Commencement speaker controversy
photo from WikipediaJust yesterday, head men's basketball coach Dave Leitao announced his resignation shortly after meeting with University Athletics Director Craig Littlepage. Some feel this resignation was forced and amounts to a contract buy-out or firing. Players have come forward to say they did not expected this resignation. Others think this was a mutual decision between Littlepage and Leitao. If this was essentially a firing, was it deserved? Virginia did have the worst basketball season in recent memory. Leitao's overall coaching record at Virginia was 63-60. However, it is obvious he was beloved by his team and Virginia only had two returning seniors. There was plenty of room for the team to grow and get better as the promising new recruits, such as Slyven Landesberg, matured.
President Casteen's selection of Judge Harvie Wilkinson as commencement speaker last week has set off a buzz around Grounds about Wilkinson's judicial and political leanings. Many students are opposed to such a divisive speaker being given such a prominent place in the commencement exercises.
On the one hand, Wilkinson is a very distinguised University alumnus and considering the University's policies against paying for speaker or awarding honorary degrees, it is quite a feat to find a speaker. The University could revise these policies to attract more prominent speakers in the future but that seems unlikely given the current economy. But expecting noteworthy figures to travel to Charlottesville and deliver a major address solely for the honor of doing so is a lot, and it's easy to understand why Wilkinson, a Charlottesville resident, was chosen.
On the other hand, a commencement speaker, one of the last people to officially speak to a graduating class, should always reflect well on the University and should not generate controversy among the graduates. Commencement is about their achievements and not any particular political views. While Wilkinson's address will undoubtedly be designed to please the majority of attendees, will the focus shift from the students to the speaker?
Hard times, tough consequences
I don't envy University officials during this budget crisis. The bottom line is that funding is low and fiscal cuts have to be made. No matter what area this is in, there will be no shortage of people lining up to shout "foul!" Paradoxically, it is often the areas with the least vocal support that are most crucial for our University's continued smooth operation. Where oh were to begin?
Axing the computer labs will undoubtedly create problems - including many, many unhappy students. After all, it is clear to any student visiting Clemons Library on a weekday afternoon that these machines are highly-sought commodities. The same goes for computers in Thorton Hall and certainly other locations around Grounds as well. Since ITC claims a staggering 99% of incoming first- years have a laptop computer, I couldn't tell you exactly why these labs are so well-used. I can say that for me personally, printing problems are often the cause of my visit. Other students might just prefer leaving bulky computers back at their dorm or apartment. Also, my guess is that students with broken laptops are infinitely grateful for fully-functioning computer labs.
I forsee a lot of issues with discontinuing the option of public computers. Professors have the luxury of reducing the number of legitimate technology excuses they enterain from students; after all, the labs are always open and provdie free internet use and (fairly) inexpensive printing . Students like me can also take comfort in knowing they have a backup option for printing or getting work done, albeit a slightly inconvenient one. The vanishing of ITC labs will surely add to the anxiety of plenty of people.
That said, we're in understandably frugral times. My gut reaction to this policy proposal is that there must be sometime more expendable. Removing public computers seems like a permanent move, not a temporary tightening of the belt. While the federal government could use this lesson long-term financial prudencry, I'm not convcined ITC must do the same. Aren't there other student services that could be scaled down or even eliminated in the short run? Perhaps not - ITC's already made a number of structural changes in recent times. If ITC and the University truly believe that public computing is the most dispensable option available to them, I feel compelled to support that decision. I'd rather be forced to use my friend's printer than to see someone lose a job.
Axing the computer labs will undoubtedly create problems - including many, many unhappy students. After all, it is clear to any student visiting Clemons Library on a weekday afternoon that these machines are highly-sought commodities. The same goes for computers in Thorton Hall and certainly other locations around Grounds as well. Since ITC claims a staggering 99% of incoming first- years have a laptop computer, I couldn't tell you exactly why these labs are so well-used. I can say that for me personally, printing problems are often the cause of my visit. Other students might just prefer leaving bulky computers back at their dorm or apartment. Also, my guess is that students with broken laptops are infinitely grateful for fully-functioning computer labs.
I forsee a lot of issues with discontinuing the option of public computers. Professors have the luxury of reducing the number of legitimate technology excuses they enterain from students; after all, the labs are always open and provdie free internet use and (fairly) inexpensive printing . Students like me can also take comfort in knowing they have a backup option for printing or getting work done, albeit a slightly inconvenient one. The vanishing of ITC labs will surely add to the anxiety of plenty of people.
That said, we're in understandably frugral times. My gut reaction to this policy proposal is that there must be sometime more expendable. Removing public computers seems like a permanent move, not a temporary tightening of the belt. While the federal government could use this lesson long-term financial prudencry, I'm not convcined ITC must do the same. Aren't there other student services that could be scaled down or even eliminated in the short run? Perhaps not - ITC's already made a number of structural changes in recent times. If ITC and the University truly believe that public computing is the most dispensable option available to them, I feel compelled to support that decision. I'd rather be forced to use my friend's printer than to see someone lose a job.
System error
ITC's recent announcement that it plans to phase out computer labs is a grave mistake. Although this move is justified on a short-term financial basis, it seems highly unlikely that significant cost savings will be achieved in the long-run. The desktops currently used in labs are sunk costs as they were paid for upon purchase. The expenses associated with their upkeep, which likely include maintenance and software licensing, are inconsequential compared to the initial outlays on the machines themselves. Eliminating computer labs to save a relatively small amount of maintenance costs is a poor decision.
Many students will suffer as a result of the elimination of computer labs around Grounds. Although many of us have laptops, not all students are able to purchase their own computers, and consequently they are dependent on public computer labs and laptops available for check-out at libraries. They will face significant hurdles when completing writing and online assignments if unable to regularly access desktop computers connected to printers. Likewise, students that own laptops will be inconvenienced by the absence of computer labs. Students will now be forced to carry their computers to class and, if planning a long day, take their charging units along as well. Although this inconvenience is not the most consequential repercussion of ITC's decision, it could negatively influence a majority of undergraduate students.
Computer labs are a basic expectation at most universities and help library systems achieve their mission of making information readily accessible to the general public. Eliminating these learning tools is a poor decision by ITC and will have significant negative repercussions for the student body.
Many students will suffer as a result of the elimination of computer labs around Grounds. Although many of us have laptops, not all students are able to purchase their own computers, and consequently they are dependent on public computer labs and laptops available for check-out at libraries. They will face significant hurdles when completing writing and online assignments if unable to regularly access desktop computers connected to printers. Likewise, students that own laptops will be inconvenienced by the absence of computer labs. Students will now be forced to carry their computers to class and, if planning a long day, take their charging units along as well. Although this inconvenience is not the most consequential repercussion of ITC's decision, it could negatively influence a majority of undergraduate students.
Computer labs are a basic expectation at most universities and help library systems achieve their mission of making information readily accessible to the general public. Eliminating these learning tools is a poor decision by ITC and will have significant negative repercussions for the student body.
Saving the budget through the private sector
When the news of an economic crisis first emerged, it was easy to feel concern for the financial state of our country but difficult to see how our personal lives would be affected. Then the reports that state funding for the University had been drastically cut surfaced and students became more worried, but there were still no concrete effects on college life in Charlottesville. When ITC announced its plan to remove most of its public computing labs, however, many students became angered over the issue. They claimed that public computers were required for a smoothly functioning college environment and pointed to the fact that some do regularly rely on the machines in the libraries. Others argued that phasing out computers was necessary due to budget constraints. ITC ought to follow through with the gradual closing down of public computing labs because this allows the University to avoid cutting other, more important programs, but the school still has a responsibility to students to ensure they are not disadvantaged by the move.
Given the current financial situation, something has to go. The phasing out of public computer labs may come under fire because it is a highly visible issue, but it is an ideal target for budget cuts because of the flexibility associated with technology. Developments in technology provide many opportunities to modernize and increase efficiency. If ITC can come up with a more cost-effective way to give students access to educational software, so be it. Many – if not most – students would prefer to have the software on their private laptops than only on library computers in special locations. Of course, a certain number of computers should be kept in public places to serve as a backup for students who have the misfortune of a malfunctioning laptop or for those who simply prefer to use public desktops. ITC could do research in the form of surveys and observation of current student behavior to determine exactly what this number should be. Although if the number of students I see on their laptops right now in Alderman Library is any indication, I would guess that number is not too large.
However, financial necessity by itself does not provide a valid excuse. The University would improve its image by issuing a statement identifying exactly where the money being saved by ITC’s new policy is going. What programs were allowed to stay afloat due to the sinking of most of the public computing labs? In addition, ITC needs to stay informed on student opinion, keep the University community updated on any changes, and ensure that the new delivery system for software works for everyone and does not provide an inconvenience for any students. Otherwise, the new policy could favor students who can afford to buy higher quality, more up-to-date personal computer systems. The phasing out of public computing labs is a more desirable alternative than tuition hikes or the termination of more academic programs, but the University has an obligation to all to ensure that the process is carried out in a fair and informative manner.
Given the current financial situation, something has to go. The phasing out of public computer labs may come under fire because it is a highly visible issue, but it is an ideal target for budget cuts because of the flexibility associated with technology. Developments in technology provide many opportunities to modernize and increase efficiency. If ITC can come up with a more cost-effective way to give students access to educational software, so be it. Many – if not most – students would prefer to have the software on their private laptops than only on library computers in special locations. Of course, a certain number of computers should be kept in public places to serve as a backup for students who have the misfortune of a malfunctioning laptop or for those who simply prefer to use public desktops. ITC could do research in the form of surveys and observation of current student behavior to determine exactly what this number should be. Although if the number of students I see on their laptops right now in Alderman Library is any indication, I would guess that number is not too large.
However, financial necessity by itself does not provide a valid excuse. The University would improve its image by issuing a statement identifying exactly where the money being saved by ITC’s new policy is going. What programs were allowed to stay afloat due to the sinking of most of the public computing labs? In addition, ITC needs to stay informed on student opinion, keep the University community updated on any changes, and ensure that the new delivery system for software works for everyone and does not provide an inconvenience for any students. Otherwise, the new policy could favor students who can afford to buy higher quality, more up-to-date personal computer systems. The phasing out of public computing labs is a more desirable alternative than tuition hikes or the termination of more academic programs, but the University has an obligation to all to ensure that the process is carried out in a fair and informative manner.
Topic of the Week: Removal of public computing labs from Grounds
ITC's poll on public computing use.Over Spring Break, ITC developed a poll which it posted on computers in the libraries and computing labs around Grounds. When you log in to a University computer, a prompt asks if you will take a short poll about public computing use. After announcing its plans to remove most of the University's public computing labs by 2011, it appears ITC is finally asking students' opinion on the subject.
This issue has received a lot of coverage in The Cavalier Daily, both in the news and opinion sections, and with good reason. Removal of public computing labs would be a major change for University students and previously ITC had not bothered to consult students at all. Since it is now asking student opinion, this week, we'll discuss the same. Should public computer labs be removed from Grounds? If it will save the University money, maybe it is worthwhile to preserve other programs. On the other hand, is it worth the hardship to professors, who will surely be constantly barraged with excuses about how a student's laptop crashed and they had no way to type their paper? As for students, removing almost all the public computers from Grounds would surely be an inconvenience, but would it really be such a bad thing? Since nearly every student has a laptop, it would not be hard to borrow a friend's or roomate's in a crunch. But that may not always be a reliable solution if said friend or roommate also has a paper due. Which is more important: saving money or making all the possible resources available to students?
Breaking down the trends
Running a student election at a university as big as ours is no small feat, and the University Board of Elections deserves a great deal of praise for a job (mostly) quite well done.
That said, this year’s encouraging voter turnout was solely a product of the honor referendum’s presence on the ballot. As Geoff Skelley points out, turnout trends over the past five or so years directly vary according to whether or not a controversial referendum is included in the election that year. The record for overall turnout still belongs to 2005 (with 40 percent), a year in which students were asked both to vote on an amendment changing the honor code and on an opinion poll querying if they were interested in honor finding alternatives to the single sanction. This year’s numbers compare quite favorably to non-referenda years, and similarly to years with referenda on the ballot.This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be encouraged by this year’s 38% turnout. Any such year of high student participation is cause for celebration. It just means we need to be realistic about the context of voting. Certain proposals will always garner more attention than others, and amendments that immediately impact student self-governance (like the honor code) are far more important to students than actually deciding which students get to fill the chairs of Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, etc. Since amendments are very clear-cut in terms of their effects while candidates can only effect so much unilateral change without voter approval, this trend is both understandable and to some extent desirable. Ideally turnout would be near 100 percent for each election; this never happens even on a national level in the U.S., so we temper our expectations accordingly. All things considered, honor amendments are among the more important of electoral decisions students will have to make regarding self-governance during their time here.
Another trend that would be interesting to dissect is the turnout breakdown by year. First-years and second-years trumped the upperclassmen with 59% and 52% turnout, respectively. Third-years had 49% while fourth-years had 37%. The overall undergraduate rate was 49% and the overall graduate student rate was 16%. The undergraduate breakdown by year is curious yet predictable. Younger students are probably both more likely to have free time to vote and to see that these decisions will affect them the most (as they have the most time left at the University). Older students are probably more likely to be busier, to have become disenchanted with what they see as inaction on the part of student leaders, and to realize that electoral decisions will impact them for only a short time before they graduate. Master’s and doctoral students appear to just feel far more apathetic to student self-governance than undergrads. Again, this is fairly predictable, although even more effort to drive up the graduate school turnout rate would be a great thing. In short, we should all take pride in the fact that, by and large, student self-governance is prioritized by enough people to have meaningful elections. This is nothing to take for granted. We just also must understand the nature of any student election and search for ways of improvement that account for these inherent limitations.
That said, this year’s encouraging voter turnout was solely a product of the honor referendum’s presence on the ballot. As Geoff Skelley points out, turnout trends over the past five or so years directly vary according to whether or not a controversial referendum is included in the election that year. The record for overall turnout still belongs to 2005 (with 40 percent), a year in which students were asked both to vote on an amendment changing the honor code and on an opinion poll querying if they were interested in honor finding alternatives to the single sanction. This year’s numbers compare quite favorably to non-referenda years, and similarly to years with referenda on the ballot.This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be encouraged by this year’s 38% turnout. Any such year of high student participation is cause for celebration. It just means we need to be realistic about the context of voting. Certain proposals will always garner more attention than others, and amendments that immediately impact student self-governance (like the honor code) are far more important to students than actually deciding which students get to fill the chairs of Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, etc. Since amendments are very clear-cut in terms of their effects while candidates can only effect so much unilateral change without voter approval, this trend is both understandable and to some extent desirable. Ideally turnout would be near 100 percent for each election; this never happens even on a national level in the U.S., so we temper our expectations accordingly. All things considered, honor amendments are among the more important of electoral decisions students will have to make regarding self-governance during their time here.
Another trend that would be interesting to dissect is the turnout breakdown by year. First-years and second-years trumped the upperclassmen with 59% and 52% turnout, respectively. Third-years had 49% while fourth-years had 37%. The overall undergraduate rate was 49% and the overall graduate student rate was 16%. The undergraduate breakdown by year is curious yet predictable. Younger students are probably both more likely to have free time to vote and to see that these decisions will affect them the most (as they have the most time left at the University). Older students are probably more likely to be busier, to have become disenchanted with what they see as inaction on the part of student leaders, and to realize that electoral decisions will impact them for only a short time before they graduate. Master’s and doctoral students appear to just feel far more apathetic to student self-governance than undergrads. Again, this is fairly predictable, although even more effort to drive up the graduate school turnout rate would be a great thing. In short, we should all take pride in the fact that, by and large, student self-governance is prioritized by enough people to have meaningful elections. This is nothing to take for granted. We just also must understand the nature of any student election and search for ways of improvement that account for these inherent limitations.
False positives
Save for the numerous fliers littered around Grounds and the colorful invasion of our sidewalks, student election week was no different than any other at the University for the average student. According to the University Board of Elections, overall voter turnout this year was 38%, the second-highest rate since the recordkeeping began in 2004. This may be an encouraging sign for those who champion student self-governance and civic involvement at the University, but unfortunately for them, honor is another highly esteemed tradition at Virginia’s flagship university; this year’s spike in voter turnout was due to a controversial honor referendum instead of an increased enthusiasm for student government.
If the voter turnout data were placed on a graph, this year’s value would be considered an outlier. The highest rate was in 2004, when the UBE began tracking voting behavior. Turnout dropped all the way to 22% last year, only to increase more than 50% this year. A boost of that magnitude can only be attributed to a major influence on a student’s desire to vote. Obviously, voting has been encouraged, but no major campaigns were implemented within the last year with the goal of improving voter turnout. In fact, the only significant difference that I know of between this year and last was the touchy honor proposal to eliminate the single sanction. Since such a large percentage of students (70%) voted against this referendum, it is possible that many students decided to vote this year with the sole intention of knocking down the new honor proposal. Some point to the improvement among first-years, but this jump in turnout is not unique to our University’s youngest members. UBE statistics show that the turnout rates among first-, second-, and third-year students were all within ten percent of each other. The number of fourth-years that vote will always be lower since very few of their classmates are on the ballot. Those about to graduate are probably more concerned with finding a job than who the next Student Council representative from their college will be.
However, the traditionally low turnout rate is not a reflection of student self-governance at the University. Student leadership councils are important, and all efforts should be made to encourage people to get involved with these organizations, even if that involvement is something as little as volunteering to campaign. But the hundreds of other student organizations at the school, many of which support themselves financially, are the purest form of self-governance. The campaign volunteers in November are the ones that are truly civically involved. The volunteers who bother students all day for the sake of charity are the real public servants. Students at the University can contribute to self-governance with much more than just a vote.
If the voter turnout data were placed on a graph, this year’s value would be considered an outlier. The highest rate was in 2004, when the UBE began tracking voting behavior. Turnout dropped all the way to 22% last year, only to increase more than 50% this year. A boost of that magnitude can only be attributed to a major influence on a student’s desire to vote. Obviously, voting has been encouraged, but no major campaigns were implemented within the last year with the goal of improving voter turnout. In fact, the only significant difference that I know of between this year and last was the touchy honor proposal to eliminate the single sanction. Since such a large percentage of students (70%) voted against this referendum, it is possible that many students decided to vote this year with the sole intention of knocking down the new honor proposal. Some point to the improvement among first-years, but this jump in turnout is not unique to our University’s youngest members. UBE statistics show that the turnout rates among first-, second-, and third-year students were all within ten percent of each other. The number of fourth-years that vote will always be lower since very few of their classmates are on the ballot. Those about to graduate are probably more concerned with finding a job than who the next Student Council representative from their college will be.
However, the traditionally low turnout rate is not a reflection of student self-governance at the University. Student leadership councils are important, and all efforts should be made to encourage people to get involved with these organizations, even if that involvement is something as little as volunteering to campaign. But the hundreds of other student organizations at the school, many of which support themselves financially, are the purest form of self-governance. The campaign volunteers in November are the ones that are truly civically involved. The volunteers who bother students all day for the sake of charity are the real public servants. Students at the University can contribute to self-governance with much more than just a vote.
Giving credit where it's due
While this year’s voter turnout was higher than in past years, the credit for this should go to the candidates and those supporting and opposing the referenda, instead of any special status organization. The countless man-hours spent chalking and talking, plus the dollars expended for fliers, advertisements, and other paraphernalia likely had much more of an effect than anything Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, or the Honor Committee did this year. And while it almost goes without saying, it is worth adding the University Board of Elections to the group of organization that did little to nothing to raise turnout this year.
How, then, were students motivated to vote? The most likely explanation for voter turnout is a combination of identification with and excitement for a candidate or referendum. Looking at the turnout statistics by school, it is clear that the schools which field the most candidates in the election have the highest voter turnout. This is also an obvious explanation for why the fourth-year voting rate is always lower than that of other years. With no, or very few, fourth-year candidates on the ballot, graduating students likely know fewer candidates than those students in other classes. This theory of identification and social connection driving voter turnout breaks down when we see that first-year students vote at a higher percentage than second-year students, even though the second-year class likely contains more candidates than the first-year class.
There is a secondary theory, though, that can add to this understanding and redeem the model. As students get more excited about a candidate or referendum, they are more likely to vote. Since first-year students are highly concentrated on Grounds and therefore exposed to many more campaign messages, it makes sense that they would vote more. This goes practically without saying, but it is an important point that is frequently overlooked. A student is more likely to vote if he sees a flier for a candidate which mentions some issue he cares about. Reading an ad in The Cavalier Daily which mentions some positive or negative effect of a proposed referendum serves the same function, exciting students to vote either for or against that measure. Unfortunately, the same groups (the Cavalier Daily Opinion page included) which criticize students for failing to vote also ridicule candidates and groups which “annoy” students with their campaigning. We too often forget that chalking, handbills, and fliers are merely media used to energize supporters and apathetic students, thereby increasing voter turnout, which we all recognize as a noble goal.
If we want to see a continuation of the turnout increase, we should take two lessons from these theories, as rudimentary as they may seem. First, more candidates should be encouraged to run, for every position, from every school and year. Second, students should be encouraged and lauded for campaigning. Being asked to fulfill your civic duty should not be seen as a distraction, but instead as a reminder of the blessings of our system of democratic self-governance.
Topic of the Week: Voter turnout in spring elections
Alisa Abbott announces the results of the honor single sanction reform amendment. Photo by Julia Slater.
Today, the University Board of Elections released the results of last week's University-wide elections. Voter turnout was the highest in four years, with a turnout for the College of 48% and a total voter turnout (excluding the School of Continuing and Professional Studies) of 38%. Compared to last year's dismal turnout of 22%, this would seem to herald a renewal of student self-governance.
Yet there was a contentious referendum on the ballot this year: the single sanction reform amendment. Of the nearly 8,000 students that voted, 70% of those students said "no" to that particular referendum. Only 2% of voters did not cast a vote on the single sanction reform amendment. Maybe the only reason voter turnout was so high was this one referendum. What does that say about the state of student self-governance at the Univeristy? Do we show up for the important stuff, or is student self-governance taken seriously all the time? Certainly there have been efforts to improve voter turnout after the poor showing last year. First-year student turnout was 59%, up from 41% last year. Fourth-year student turnout was only 37%, much lower than the other three classes. Maybe incoming students are more engaged in student self-governance than past students have been.
So the question is: Is increased voter turnout due to the controversial referendum or are students taking more ownership of the system of student-self governrnace at the University?
Today, the University Board of Elections released the results of last week's University-wide elections. Voter turnout was the highest in four years, with a turnout for the College of 48% and a total voter turnout (excluding the School of Continuing and Professional Studies) of 38%. Compared to last year's dismal turnout of 22%, this would seem to herald a renewal of student self-governance.Yet there was a contentious referendum on the ballot this year: the single sanction reform amendment. Of the nearly 8,000 students that voted, 70% of those students said "no" to that particular referendum. Only 2% of voters did not cast a vote on the single sanction reform amendment. Maybe the only reason voter turnout was so high was this one referendum. What does that say about the state of student self-governance at the Univeristy? Do we show up for the important stuff, or is student self-governance taken seriously all the time? Certainly there have been efforts to improve voter turnout after the poor showing last year. First-year student turnout was 59%, up from 41% last year. Fourth-year student turnout was only 37%, much lower than the other three classes. Maybe incoming students are more engaged in student self-governance than past students have been.
So the question is: Is increased voter turnout due to the controversial referendum or are students taking more ownership of the system of student-self governrnace at the University?
Dazed and Confused: Kaine's plea for stimulus aid package overused
With the economic current of the times, it's not surprising that Virginia is struggling to present a comprehensible, balanced budget. In some ways it makes sense that they would want to wait for government aid. Yet every state is suffering from the same money maignancy, and every American industry (including the porn industry!) is lining up for government handouts. It is irresponsible and inexcusable of Gov. Kaine to do the same. His complete and total reliance on money that is only imaginary for the moment could prove devastating to an already tenuous budgetary crisis. Even before Kaine spoke of his expectations for a "significant sum" of money from Obama's stimulus package, Virginia's budget was experiencing severe setbacks. State legislators from both parties were concerned with Kaine's proposed budget, remarking that he had failed to graps the dire economic consequences of the financial crisis. They complained that even if they adopted all of his proposed cuts, the budget would still be unbalanced by a 1 billion dollar margin. As a result, the state had no choice but to begin to eliminate thousands of jobs, slash agency spending by 15 percent and to "trim" almost 1 billion dollars from K-12 education and Medicaid. Many were outraged over the cuts from these latter organizations, which need more, not less, monetary support.
Even with these cuts, Kaine is still struggling to find ways to balance the budget, including a proposed and subsequently killed plan to restore the 30 cent cigarette tax. The danger now lies in Kaine's expectation of stimulus money that may or may not arrive. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in the situation. What if the money promised is not enough to cover the budgetary lapses? What is the Virginia stimulus aid package decision is delayed or arrives later than expected? What if there is no Virginia stimulus aid package?
The House Majority Leader, Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, was disgruntled with the Senate's decision to wait until Wednesday before adopting a new version of the budget. In a Richmond Times-Dispatch article, he said that, "They didn't want to do their job." Griffith also commented that it may be May or June when they receive all the details from the stimulus package. The Senate views itself as stalling only or a few days to achieve accurate numbers. However, we can't afford to stall right now - the budget needs to be completed, with or without government aid.
Even with these cuts, Kaine is still struggling to find ways to balance the budget, including a proposed and subsequently killed plan to restore the 30 cent cigarette tax. The danger now lies in Kaine's expectation of stimulus money that may or may not arrive. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in the situation. What if the money promised is not enough to cover the budgetary lapses? What is the Virginia stimulus aid package decision is delayed or arrives later than expected? What if there is no Virginia stimulus aid package?
The House Majority Leader, Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, was disgruntled with the Senate's decision to wait until Wednesday before adopting a new version of the budget. In a Richmond Times-Dispatch article, he said that, "They didn't want to do their job." Griffith also commented that it may be May or June when they receive all the details from the stimulus package. The Senate views itself as stalling only or a few days to achieve accurate numbers. However, we can't afford to stall right now - the budget needs to be completed, with or without government aid.
Kaine't do it
I have to agree with Ross. The fact that a stimulus package from Washington is expected is no excuse to leave a gaping hole in the budget. In fact, the previously mentioned Richmond Times-Dispatch article estimates that the deficit in the state’s two year budget is $3.7 billion, a much larger hole than the revenue from the stimulus can boost us out of. Governor Kaine’s lack of concern is a distraction that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand. Rather than using stimulus money to make up for budget shortfalls, the Virginia state legislature should take advantage of the opportunity to undertake worthwhile investments.
One problem with the state government’s failure to balance the budget is that it makes it difficult to justify the cuts the state has already made. For example, how can the state take millions away from University funds in the name of necessary budget cuts when its lowered revenues have not been offset? Even with the national stimulus package, some government programs will have to be nixed; yet others will persist. Normally, financial obligations would serve as an understandable rationalization, but the Old Dominion’s absence of budget management creates an unfair standard.
According to an article in the Virginian-Pilot on February 17th, the expected stimulus relief “will pay for about $800 million in state Medicaid obligations and provide about $200 million for use as lawmakers see fit.” The cash influx from Washington will do little to help the average Virginian economically. Instead, the majority of the money will just go to expanding entitlement programs that are eating up the state’s funds. Soon after the stimulus cash is gone, the state will have the same old financial obligations, and those who received money before will be expecting their checks.
The majority of the stimulus money given to states comes with restrictions and has many intentions, one of which is to create jobs. The federal government’s cash distribution will fail unless states contribute their discretionary grants to further national objectives. Not that the categorical grants have been designated wisely (the Virginian-Pilot article reports that $38 million of the state’s stimulus money must be used to subsidize day care), but it’s better than nothing. Using this opportunity to pay off budget shortfalls rather than invest in jobs and infrastructure will do next to nothing for Virginians. It will only delay the day when the real cuts have to be made. That money from Washington did not appear out of thin air. The Virginia government just swiped the credit card and sent the bill to future taxpayers like you and me.
One problem with the state government’s failure to balance the budget is that it makes it difficult to justify the cuts the state has already made. For example, how can the state take millions away from University funds in the name of necessary budget cuts when its lowered revenues have not been offset? Even with the national stimulus package, some government programs will have to be nixed; yet others will persist. Normally, financial obligations would serve as an understandable rationalization, but the Old Dominion’s absence of budget management creates an unfair standard.
According to an article in the Virginian-Pilot on February 17th, the expected stimulus relief “will pay for about $800 million in state Medicaid obligations and provide about $200 million for use as lawmakers see fit.” The cash influx from Washington will do little to help the average Virginian economically. Instead, the majority of the money will just go to expanding entitlement programs that are eating up the state’s funds. Soon after the stimulus cash is gone, the state will have the same old financial obligations, and those who received money before will be expecting their checks.
The majority of the stimulus money given to states comes with restrictions and has many intentions, one of which is to create jobs. The federal government’s cash distribution will fail unless states contribute their discretionary grants to further national objectives. Not that the categorical grants have been designated wisely (the Virginian-Pilot article reports that $38 million of the state’s stimulus money must be used to subsidize day care), but it’s better than nothing. Using this opportunity to pay off budget shortfalls rather than invest in jobs and infrastructure will do next to nothing for Virginians. It will only delay the day when the real cuts have to be made. That money from Washington did not appear out of thin air. The Virginia government just swiped the credit card and sent the bill to future taxpayers like you and me.
Spending wisely
There's no question we're in the midst of a major bust cycle in the economy. With hard times come hard truths: the money supply isn't infinite, and sacrifices must be made across the board. This principle should apply just as much to government as it does to private businesses and citizens. While the Obama stimulus plan will afford Virginia additional revenue, this should be used to help close the already outstanding $3.2 billion hole in the state's two-year budget. Recessions should serve as stark reminders that we need to be frugal, not as opportunities to excuse growing deficits.
Compiling debt is a bigger problem at the federal level than it is at the state, largely due just to the sheer scale of government at that level (and thus proliferating deficits that are largely financed by foreign governments). Nevertheless, balanced budgets are important for anyone, and for good reason. A budget shortfall is nothing more than deferred taxation. This might not sound too daunting, but it has a certain significance. Carrying debt requires the payment of interest, which naturally compounds over time and grows more burdensome with increasing deficits. Interest expense is the Fed's third largest expenditure in the federal budget.
From a legal standpoint, Kaine's decision is also dubious. Currently forty-three states require their governor to submit balanced budgets to the legislature. While federal money will implicitly resolve the present shortfall, it is not a good faith effort by our state to rely solely on this money to cover the difference. This holds especially true in light of the $3 billion-plus still outstanding from the current budget. Revenue is harder to come by these days, but this is only reason to examine our spending habits more closely.
I recognize the excruciating difficulty that goes into making cuts. Salaries are reduced or held steady, people lose jobs, and programs are suspended. All of these are terrible consequences and everyone's heart goes out to those who face a tough road ahead. The problem is this: if we don't impose disciplined spending now, we all will pay for it down the line. More jobs and economic growth will be sacrificed in the long-run, leaving everyone worse off. The market mechanism underscores a reality that our government must accept. Everything has a cost, and deferring payment includes its own price as well. Doing this with the mentality that recessions justify ignoring underlying economic realities will only compound our problems. Who can afford that?
Compiling debt is a bigger problem at the federal level than it is at the state, largely due just to the sheer scale of government at that level (and thus proliferating deficits that are largely financed by foreign governments). Nevertheless, balanced budgets are important for anyone, and for good reason. A budget shortfall is nothing more than deferred taxation. This might not sound too daunting, but it has a certain significance. Carrying debt requires the payment of interest, which naturally compounds over time and grows more burdensome with increasing deficits. Interest expense is the Fed's third largest expenditure in the federal budget.
From a legal standpoint, Kaine's decision is also dubious. Currently forty-three states require their governor to submit balanced budgets to the legislature. While federal money will implicitly resolve the present shortfall, it is not a good faith effort by our state to rely solely on this money to cover the difference. This holds especially true in light of the $3 billion-plus still outstanding from the current budget. Revenue is harder to come by these days, but this is only reason to examine our spending habits more closely.
I recognize the excruciating difficulty that goes into making cuts. Salaries are reduced or held steady, people lose jobs, and programs are suspended. All of these are terrible consequences and everyone's heart goes out to those who face a tough road ahead. The problem is this: if we don't impose disciplined spending now, we all will pay for it down the line. More jobs and economic growth will be sacrificed in the long-run, leaving everyone worse off. The market mechanism underscores a reality that our government must accept. Everything has a cost, and deferring payment includes its own price as well. Doing this with the mentality that recessions justify ignoring underlying economic realities will only compound our problems. Who can afford that?
Topic of the Week: State bailouts
Q.E.D. is starting something new: a topic of the week that our opinion editors post their thoughts on and readers can respond to, both with our new poll and with blog comments.
This week, the topic is the failure of the Virginia General Assembly to produce a balanced budget, which Gov. Tim Kaine (D) has brushed off due to the passage of the economic stimulus package. In an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Kaine is quoted as saying, "What that means near-term is we don’t have to make any more cuts."
States are required by law to balance their budgets. The Richmond Times-Dispatch is reporting that the state budget is at least 3.2 billion dollars short. Is a federal bailout a legitimate way to balance a state budget? The federal budget is obviously allowed to carry a deficit and that is currently not going very well.
Along with all of the other kinds of debt the stimulus package incurs, should it take to carrying state debt as well? Is that a violation of the state constitution since no balanced budget has yet been produced? Or is federal help warranted in hard times to smooth things over for the states? These are some of the questions our opinion department will be tackling this week.
This week, the topic is the failure of the Virginia General Assembly to produce a balanced budget, which Gov. Tim Kaine (D) has brushed off due to the passage of the economic stimulus package. In an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Kaine is quoted as saying, "What that means near-term is we don’t have to make any more cuts."
States are required by law to balance their budgets. The Richmond Times-Dispatch is reporting that the state budget is at least 3.2 billion dollars short. Is a federal bailout a legitimate way to balance a state budget? The federal budget is obviously allowed to carry a deficit and that is currently not going very well.
Along with all of the other kinds of debt the stimulus package incurs, should it take to carrying state debt as well? Is that a violation of the state constitution since no balanced budget has yet been produced? Or is federal help warranted in hard times to smooth things over for the states? These are some of the questions our opinion department will be tackling this week.
An assault on fairness
Public colleges unquestionably serve as symbols of opportunity for many young people. As a student of the University, I have come to greatly appreciate the role that affordable, high-quality education can play in people's lives. I am proud that my school strives to break down barriers to entry and offer this brand of hope to ambitious individuals the world over. By the same token, I am also thankful that the University has made fairness a fundamental priority throughout its existence. That commitment begins with the admissions process.
A recent article in The Cavalier Daily highlights the Guaranteed Admission Agreement, a budding program across Virginia public colleges that aims to give Virginia Community College System students a clear path to graduation at a four-year state institution. Sounds nice, and to some extent it is. In its current form, however, it is also grossly unfair and could represent a dangerous movement away from an evenhanded admissions process. Why? It's not because VCCS students don't deserve every opportunity possible to further their education and pursue a bachelor's degree. It's because at colleges as competitive as this University, or William and Mary, or Virginia Tech (schools that turn away literally thousands of qualified applicants annually), no one should be guaranteed acceptance solely based on a prior institutional affiliation. No one.
The program is not akin to affirmative action or similar proposals. Affirmative action is better structured in the sense that it 1) does not guarantee admission for any individual, and 2) enhances the greater student population's experience through increased diversity. The GAA, on the other hand, does not assure more socioeconomic diversity; in fact, it doesn't even prioritize it. Interested VCCS students simply must meet the minimum criteria of a 3.4 grade point average as well as certain class and enrollment requirements (depending on which major a student is interested in pursuing).
I don't mean to belittle the achievements of community college students who earn a 3.4 in their coursework. That is certainly an accomplishment in and of itself, and I solemnly believe those students would receive admissions offers from many fine schools upon requesting to transfer. That decision should be rendered on the content of their application, just as it is for any other student seeking to transfer in the Commonwealth.
Case in point: is it even remotely justifiable to say that a VCCS student with a 3.4 and no extracurricular involvement should be guaranteed acceptance over an involved student at JMU (or VCU, or William and Mary, or Va. Tech) with a 3.8 or above? (I've seen this happen personally, so please don't write it off as an improbable hypothetical). The answer is no. One can argue that the JMU student has the opportunity to complete his/her education without transferring, while community college kids need a four-year institution to conclude their studies. That answer is unsatisfying though. It should be well within any student's right to seek a transfer, and certainly someone should not be penalized for prior acceptance to and matriculation at a four-year college or university.
Of course, all reasonable people want VCCS students to have the opportunity to further their studies; the only conflict is over how such a program is designed. Ultimately, admission to an institution such as the University is a highly competitive process, and many bright, dedicated students will unfortunately fall short. Therefore, it is irresponsible to draw up arbitrary distinctions among applicants based on institutional affiliations that make no attempt to account for a student's economic situation, intellectual capabilities, work ethic, co-curricular involvement, or even ethnic persuasion or extenuating circumstances. It hurts many students themselves, not to mention the University's commitment to equality on the whole.
This policy simply undermines the ideal that hard work and ambition are the only prerequisites to gain an evenhanded chance of admission to any public school in Virginia. And that, by all means, is a real shame.
Players on the pedestal
Plaxico Burress, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Phelps, Marion Jones, Michael Vick: the list goes on and on. It seems that every time sports news stories start to dry up, another high profile athlete gets him or herself into trouble. Some sports stars can get away with murder – Ray Lewis is one that comes to mind – and others are made examples of. Normally our society does not care if one single person is arrested, but because these wrongdoers are also role models to many of our children every twist and turn in their respective cases is followed by the public. Those athletes who have committed crimes are not to be exonerated of any blame, but the role given to them in our culture is a major cause of their behavior.
Athletes come in all shapes and sizes; it’s just the ones doing stupid things that we hear about on ESPN. Unfortunately, the fact that we are hearing about these stories on the news is a big reason why they happen. From being the high school star quarterback to the big man on campus to the multimillion-dollar crowd pleaser, high profile athletes are idolized the moment their talent is discovered. Colleges offer lax admissions standards and personal tutors to recruited “student-athletes.” (Too bad our men’s football and basketball teams haven’t returned on that investment.) The prima donna attitude we see in many sports starts is a result of them growing up with everything handed to them on a silver platter.
This phenomenon is not surprising in the least. Talented athletes are a hot commodity and contribute significantly to high schools, college environments, and professional sports teams. In an attempt to woo them, or maybe just out of pure admiration of their skills, sports stars bask in the limelight from a very young age. They are given a little slack in other areas as long as they get the job done on the field. If our society engages in this (I am certainly guilty myself) then we should not be horrified when our “role models” think they are invincible and have run-ins with the law.
Instead, we should emphasize other aspirations, especially education, with our youth. Children need to get involved with the arts and sciences at an earlier age; this will stimulate creativity and an academic curiosity as well as improve cultural appreciation and the advancement of our society. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of growing up to be an all star, but athletic talent is not worth shooting yourself in the thigh for.
Athletes come in all shapes and sizes; it’s just the ones doing stupid things that we hear about on ESPN. Unfortunately, the fact that we are hearing about these stories on the news is a big reason why they happen. From being the high school star quarterback to the big man on campus to the multimillion-dollar crowd pleaser, high profile athletes are idolized the moment their talent is discovered. Colleges offer lax admissions standards and personal tutors to recruited “student-athletes.” (Too bad our men’s football and basketball teams haven’t returned on that investment.) The prima donna attitude we see in many sports starts is a result of them growing up with everything handed to them on a silver platter.
This phenomenon is not surprising in the least. Talented athletes are a hot commodity and contribute significantly to high schools, college environments, and professional sports teams. In an attempt to woo them, or maybe just out of pure admiration of their skills, sports stars bask in the limelight from a very young age. They are given a little slack in other areas as long as they get the job done on the field. If our society engages in this (I am certainly guilty myself) then we should not be horrified when our “role models” think they are invincible and have run-ins with the law.
Instead, we should emphasize other aspirations, especially education, with our youth. Children need to get involved with the arts and sciences at an earlier age; this will stimulate creativity and an academic curiosity as well as improve cultural appreciation and the advancement of our society. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of growing up to be an all star, but athletic talent is not worth shooting yourself in the thigh for.
Reproductive rights?
The birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman, a woman who already has six children and lives with her mother, raises serious questions about government oversight of fertility treatments. Suleman has set up a website asking for donations and today CNN reported that she is accepting government assistance. Is it right at this point for the government to step in and say, 'you may not have any more children'? I think it would be right. It would also set a dangerous precedent for government oversight of reproduction. I say dangerous not because I believe any government oversight of reproductive rights is unacceptable, but because it has the potential for abuse.
In this situation, Suleman has shown herself unfit to raise children. Her eight new babies are still in the hospital, hooked up to monitors and machines to sustain their artificially created lives. And in these diffucult economic times, when so many are struggling and ned help, the government now has eight new children to look after. I see this as a compelling argument for the governemnt to begin issuing reproductive liscenses to allow people to have children. Requirements for such liscenses should not be very stringent, just proof of the ability to support offspring. Setting up such a system does establish a new level of oversight for the government, but government services are a collective good all taxpayers buy into. As a taxpayer, I would like there to be some barriers to prevent abuses of the system, such as an unemployed single mother with fourteen mouths for the government to feed.
In this situation, Suleman has shown herself unfit to raise children. Her eight new babies are still in the hospital, hooked up to monitors and machines to sustain their artificially created lives. And in these diffucult economic times, when so many are struggling and ned help, the government now has eight new children to look after. I see this as a compelling argument for the governemnt to begin issuing reproductive liscenses to allow people to have children. Requirements for such liscenses should not be very stringent, just proof of the ability to support offspring. Setting up such a system does establish a new level of oversight for the government, but government services are a collective good all taxpayers buy into. As a taxpayer, I would like there to be some barriers to prevent abuses of the system, such as an unemployed single mother with fourteen mouths for the government to feed.
There is such a thing as too much honor
Go on any admissions tour, and the honor code is sure to be mentioned by your University Guide. Honor is something held in high esteem here, and most if not all would agree that is a good thing. However, there is a line between respect and obsession, and given the upcoming Honor Committee elections and proposal to reform the single sanction policy, that line is starting to blur. The honor code is an important part of our University, but the abundant bickering that has been commonplace over the past week is far from what the code's founders intended to accomplish.
I will spare the details of the most recent honor arguments - if you have not tired of hearing the repetitive pleas for and against the single sanction, just check out some of the recent Cavalier Daily Opinion guest columns. With each new discussion the subject becomes more mundane, and the average student's interest is probably fading fast. The whole point of having an honor code is so there is no need to think about rules; just do the right thing. The vast majority of students will never have to go through an honor trial, and to them the honor code is about being able to abandon their laptops at the library for half an hour and not have it stolen. Any student charged with an offense has a chance to admit his or her guilt and avoid expulsion. Someone – obviously with prior knowledge of the punishment at hand – who has done wrong and fails to come clean should have to deal with any repercussions he has brought on himself. As for the innocent, it is hard to believe they will be convicted on a lack of evidence.
Yes, by writing this post I am contributing to the problem. But I hope after reading this you will not think about the word “honor” again this week unless you are pledging an assignment. The Honor Committee is important, but its debates do not need to dominate University discussions the way they have. Don't we have real papers to write, articles to read, and tests to study for?
I will spare the details of the most recent honor arguments - if you have not tired of hearing the repetitive pleas for and against the single sanction, just check out some of the recent Cavalier Daily Opinion guest columns. With each new discussion the subject becomes more mundane, and the average student's interest is probably fading fast. The whole point of having an honor code is so there is no need to think about rules; just do the right thing. The vast majority of students will never have to go through an honor trial, and to them the honor code is about being able to abandon their laptops at the library for half an hour and not have it stolen. Any student charged with an offense has a chance to admit his or her guilt and avoid expulsion. Someone – obviously with prior knowledge of the punishment at hand – who has done wrong and fails to come clean should have to deal with any repercussions he has brought on himself. As for the innocent, it is hard to believe they will be convicted on a lack of evidence.
Yes, by writing this post I am contributing to the problem. But I hope after reading this you will not think about the word “honor” again this week unless you are pledging an assignment. The Honor Committee is important, but its debates do not need to dominate University discussions the way they have. Don't we have real papers to write, articles to read, and tests to study for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)