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.

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.

Topics of the Week: Leitao's sudden resignation & Commencement speaker controversy

photo from Wikipedia
Just 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.

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.

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.

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?