Out of Juice?

Now that three weeks have gone by since Student Council passed their resolution regarding the gossip site juicycampus.com, I thought I'd try to see if anything came of it.

Unsurprisingly, Juicy Campus and Facebook have yet to modify their behavior in response to Council's requests. In an email, College Rep. Sam Davies, who sponsored the bill, said:

We sent letters to Juicy Campus and Facebook respectively, including our formal resolution and voicing our opinions on what should be done. Juicy Campus had no interest in speaking with us, but Facebook did reply and let us know that they will be meeting to discuss advertising for Juicy Campus, but are not at liberty to give us any specifics.

Facebook did not respond to my inquiry on Council's request. For the moment, they are still running Juicy Campus's ads, such as those pictured below, and they seem to come up quite frequently.

The actual impact on students is harder to measure. Asked about the resolution's success in this regard, Davies said it was "hard to say" but still thought the bill generated "positive effects." In an interview, Council President Matt Schrimper was also upbeat. Schrimper told me that since the resolution's passage many student organizations, prominently including the IFC and ISC, had made appeals to their members to stop using the site. Rather than directing the effort, he said, Council had acted as an "umbrella overseeing the different responses" and helping groups to "frame the debate in terms of our larger community of honor and trust." While he too conceded he had little idea exactly what kind of effect the actions had produced on student behavior, he said he was all in all "quite pleased with Council's response."

Curious, I decided to produce a snapshot of Juicy Campus usage between now and when Council passed their resolution. On Tuesday, March 25, the day they passed the bill, the UVa portion of juicycampus.com had 24 posts with a combined 8,386 views (that's views of individual posts, not of the whole site itself). Yesterday, Wednesday, April 16, there were 21 posts with a combined 14, 612 views.

It should be noted that this analysis is completely unscientific, as one or either of these days could be outliers. But for what it's worth, the snapshot gives little indication Juicy Campus usage is falling away.

Shameless Plug: VT Memorial Vigil

5:30 PM today in the Amphitheater, to remember the first aniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. Candles and ribbons will be provided, and two a capella groups will perform.

It ain't safe if it ain't there

After calling Safe Ride five times between 1:50 and 2:00 this morning and getting only the answering machine, I decided to say screw it and trudged home through the dark. As evidenced by this post, I was neither mugged nor abducted. Still, the experience left me a tad miffed.

I know I've heard other people tell stories of similar experiences. If you have one, leave a comment below.

Exactly what I'm talking about

Earlier, I argued that the state's public proclamation that public universities must notify the parents of mentally ill students believed to pose a danger to themselves or others could have a chilling effect on students' willingness to seek treatment at student health facilities. While the new law sets the bar for contacting parents fairly high (there must be a "substantial likelihood" of harm in the near future), that latter part of the message won't always get through, and here are some examples why.

A prominent article on the Charlottesville Newsplex web site bears the headline "UVa To Notify Parents of Mentally Ill Students." A headline from The Daily Progress reads, "UVa to warn of mental illness signs," while another from the web site of WHSV 3 (Harrisonburg) says, "UVA Policy to Tell Parents." Statements qualifying these blunt headlines come only later in the article, and they're probably too vague to put concerned students at ease.

The problem with parents

As part of the response to last year's tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, the Virginia General Assembly recently passed a number of bills dealing with how Virginia's public universities handle students with mental health problems. But in attempting to solve one obvious problem, they may have created another more subtle one.

Among the bills was HB 1005, sponsored by Charlottesville's own Delegate Rob Bell (R). In essence, the bill requires that universities establish policies ensuring that if a student receives treatment at the school's student health facilities and is determined to pose a serious threat to him/herself or others, then the school must notify the student's parents. (If you're interested, you can read the whole text of the bill here.) The bill passed unanimously at every stage of the legislative process.

The parents of Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, didn't know that Cho had undergone treatment and been given such a designation. Some believe that knowledge could have somehow prevented the tragedy.

While parental notification probably isn't a bad idea in cases this severe, the presence of the policy could deter some students from seeking the help they need. For many students, the chief advantage of going to Student Health is that they can receive treatment and guidance without their parents knowing about it. For some, it allows them to avoid embarrassment, not an insignificant consideration when deciding to seek help. For others, whose parents strongly disapprove of therapy or any other psychiatric help, Student Health's anonymity makes it the only option they have unless they pay for their own health insurance.

In either case, students are much less likely to come forward if they think there's a possibility Student Health will dial up mom & dad. In reality, such notification will occur only rarely, as the bill sets the bar for parental notification fairly high. But a perception problem remains, since students will more likely catch the words "parental notification" than the details that go with them. Student Health centers here and around the state should do all they can to let students know they will respect their privacy so they can prevent students from avoiding the help they need.

Much ado about muzzles

The Cavalier Daily this week received a dubious honor: a 2008 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, based here in Charlottesville. The Center gives these "awards" to those they deem to have committed "especially egregious or ridiculous" censoring of free speech, which this year includes 14 "winners" ranging from a principal and superintendent in Connecticut to the Federal Communications Commission.

The Cav Daily (more specifically, the paper's 118th Managing Board, which ran it from Jan. 2007 - Jan. 2008) received its muzzle for "firing a cartoonist because of public criticism the paper received for publishing one of his cartoons despite the fact that the editorial staff signed off on the cartoon before its publication," according to the Center's web site.

The cartoonist in question was Grant Woolard, who at the time also served as one of the paper's Graphics editors. His "Ethiopian Food Fight" cartoon (pictured below) drew vocal protests from the University's black community, a sit-in right outside the office, anonymous threats of violence directed towards the staff and, I later learned, thinly-veiled threats from the UVa administration concerning the status of the paper's lease. I was then still serving as one of the paper's Opinion editors. I actually saw the cartoon before it was printed (Grant wanted to know if I thought the MB would print it), but I had no role in approving it.

While I believe the MB serving at the time erred in forcing Woolard to resign, I have a much harder time considering the act a serious violation of "free speech" in any meaningful sense. As I've argued here before, there's a difference between censorship and simply maintaining a paper's standards of taste, especially with regards to cartoons. Woolard wasn't trying to make any sort of editorial point with his cartoon; he was trying to be funny (you can read his explanation to the contrary, but I find it rather contrived and unconvincing).

Newspaper's have a responsibility to their readers to ensure they don't print material that has no other purpose except to shock or offend. When they fail to do that, it hurts both their bottom line and, more importantly, their reputation for journalistic integrity. Scott Adams, creator of the popular comic strip Dilbert, made a similar point in a recent interview: "It’s not censorship when a public company makes a business decision about what product to provide to its customers. I respect that."

The Center's web site states,

A central value of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press is to insure that the press need not fear reporting or commenting on the controversial issues of the day. ... When adverse public reaction is the primary factor in determining press content, one must question how “free” the press truly is.

And in an interview, the Center's director, Robert O'Neil, intimated the paper might win another muzzle next year due to its handling of last month's cartoon controversy.

Were the Cav Daily's comics page an integral part of the paper's "reporting or commenting," I think the Center might have a valid argument. But the vast majority of their comics, like Woolard's and those at issue last month, make no editorial point. Regulating that content to match readers' tastes doesn't constitute any meaningful form of censorship.

In short, one can safely say the events leading up to Woolard's resignation included an awful lot of mistakes. But an egregious violation of free speech? I don't buy it.

That'll teach him...or not

There's a lot you can say about first year Alex Cortes, but you certainly can't charge he lacks tenacity. According to friends of mine at the Cav Daily Opinion section, Cortes had submitted a piece several times arguing Hillary Clinton couldn't constitutionally run for president because the U.S. Constitution describes the president's powers using the pronoun "he" (you can read a version of it on his blog). The paper rarely prints letters unrelated to the University community and felt no particular compunction to make an exception in this case. He was so insistent that it became something of a running joke at the paper, and a heavily modified version of it wound up in their April Fools' issue.

Undeterred, Cortes decided to broach the issue in another forum: a lecture given at the Law School today by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the Q & A afterwards, Cortes asked Scalia what he thought of the idea. Scalia responded, "Give me a break." He then took a few minutes to explain why the idea held no water whatsoever.

Considering that Scalia's the strictest constructionist of the bunch and even he gave the idea the Supreme Court version of an eye roll, perhaps Cortes will finally lay it to rest. Then again, knowing him, probably not.

Shameless Plug: Run in the Name of Love 5k

This Sunday at 9 am is the annual Run in the Name of Love 5k race, dedicated in honor of University student Michael Love, who died in a snowboarding accident in 2005. Proceeds benefit Arc of the Piedmont, a charity helping people with disabilities take an active role in their communities. For more information and registration, click here.

UDems/CR Debate Recap - Asses were kicked...

Tonight's presidential debate between the University Democrats and College Republicans gave students exposure to the general positions of both parties on a wide range of issues likely to play prominent roles in the 2008 election. The CRs attempted to portray the positions of presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain while the UDems offered positions held by the two Democrats still vying for their party's nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

While both sides gave passable answers to most questions, the CR debaters, third year Gary Lawkowski and fourth year Brian Kemmerer, were clearly better prepared. They gave sharper answers and delivered stinging rebuttals that often left the UDems debaters, second year (& Hoo's for Obama president) Sam Shirazi and third year (& UDems president) Sarah Buckley, looking flustered.

Here's an overview of the issues covered, as well as a few highlights:

Iraq: Shirazi made the case for a Democratic-backed troop withdrawal, lamenting an ongoing "civil war" and saying that the Iraqi government wouldn't take the difficult actions necessary to achieve control while they think they can lean on the American troop presence. As an example, he cited last week's offensive by the Iraqi Army against Shiite militias in Basra, which he characterized as a "complete failure." Lawkowski disputed that portrayal and argued that Al Qaeda in Iraq (a group to some degree distinct from Al Qaeda) posed a continuing threat to American security meriting further U.S. action. He also tried to turn Shirazi's example back on him, saying that if Basra proved how poor Iraqi troops are then it makes no sense to entrust the country's security into their hands.

Education: Buckley said both Democratic candidates support either scrapping or seriously reforming No Child Left Behind, as well as creating incentives (read: $) to draw better teachers to failing schools and tax cuts and credits and credits to make higher education more affordable. She tried to hit McCain for his support of private school vouchers, but Lawkowski shot back by accusing Dems of simply throwing money at failing public school systems, citing the District of Columbia as an example. He framed vouchers in the language of giving parents choice and also argued the resulting competition would make education more effective and efficient.

Health care: Asked whether mandated universal health care coverage as prescribed in various forms by Clinton and Obama might penalize citizens for coverage they don't want, Buckley said mandates don't create problems when they're backed by federal subsidies, as Medicare and Medicaid are. Referencing the oft-cited figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance, she lambasted the "bogus free-market strategy" of the Republicans and appealed to the country's "moral responsibility" to ensure coverage. Lawkowski disputed Buckley's figure and other statistics she cited, in essence arguing the system isn't all that bad.

Immigration: Kemmerer defended McCain's shift to the right on immigration from support of "amnesty" (which, I should note, in politics now means anything short of rounding up illegal aliens and shipping them off) to a "secure the borders first" policy that focuses on punishing those who employ illegal immigrants in addition to boosting border security. Shirazi agreed on the importance of border security but said any plan that leaves the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants without a "gradual path towards citizenship," which both Clinton and Obama plan to provide, would inevitably fail. He also criticized McCain for "flip-flopping" on the issue, a charge Kemmerer called "a little silly."

While they at times had trouble matching the CRs' poise and confident tone in the first half of the debate, the UDems still usually managed to get their point across. They fared less well in the debate's second half, which featured questions from the audience submitted to the moderators. Facing a confusing question on Obama's Illinois state senate record on abortion, Shirazi fumbled about for several minutes about trying to "move forward" on the issue, finally settling back into the standard Democratic position of making abortion less common.

Another question asked the UDems to name one legislative achievement from Clinton and Obama each. Shirazi claimed that Obama had helped clean up corruption in Washington [I believe he was referring to an ethics reform bill Obama co-wrote with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) but he didn't specify], while both he and Buckley blanked on Clinton's accomplishments. (This is of course ironic considering that Hardball host Chris Matthews made a fool out of a Texas state senator supporting Obama on national television by asking him this same question.)

By providing the student audience with a clear look at the issues looming in the 2008 election, the debaters from both sides offered a valuable public service. But in terms of just the debate itself, the day clearly went to the CRs.

Correction: It's "Lawkowski," not "Lakowski." My apologies.

Cav Daily Alters Comics Policy

In the lead editorial today, The Cavalier Daily sets out changes made to the paper's comics policy. In short, the policy now calls for comics to meet the paper's standards of taste and states that the "sole purpose of the cartoon must not be merely to offend or provoke."

I think this is a great change that will help the paper avoid the kinds of comic controversies that have distracted (and even imperiled) it several times over the past few semesters. It's also quite similar to the alterations I suggested after the most recent dust-up over comics.

Shameless Plug: UDems vs. CRs Presidential Debate

Tonight the University Democrats and College Republicans will face off in a debate, with each side representing their party's presidential candidate(s). The debate will be held in Minor 125 from 8:30-10 pm, and you can get free pizza if you show up at 8. It's sponsored by the University Programs Council and moderated by the ArgHOOers, who also ran the UDems/CRs debate held right before the 2006 midterm elections.

Since I'll be covering the event, a quick note on my biases: I identify as and generally vote Democrat, and I've also worked on a number of Democratic campaigns and as an intern for a Democratic congressman. During my second and third year, I also served on the executive board of the UDems. On the other hand, my girlfriend is the Chair of the College Republicans. If you figure out how that all works out, please, let me know.

Taking back the night (but not the front page)

Despite both the gravity of the event and the impressive turnout, somehow Thursday's Take Back the Night vigil didn't make the cut for Friday's news page in The Cavalier Daily. In fact, it only appeared on page A2 as a photo and caption (which doesn't go on their web site) and in the Opinion section as a jumping-off point for a column about something else.

I understand both the event's timing (late at night) and its sensitive topic made this difficult to cover. But that doesn't make the event any less meaningful, relevant and newsworthy for the community, marks on which I think it scored very high. In addition, the organizers advertised it for weeks, giving the paper plenty of time to decide whether they would cover it. Considering some of the other news stories that ran in Friday's paper ("Maintenance repairs continue on Grounds" ?), they didn't exactly make the gutsy call.

It'll be interesting to see whether they include it in Monday's paper or just let it pass.

Late Update: Nope, no mention in Monday's news, but an interesting column on TBTN and sexual assault more generally from CD columnist Erald Kolasi.

There's a 7 there that wasn't there before

A new graffiti tag from the 7 Society appeared earlier this week right outside of Brown College. Why? Good question - I'll work on it.



Late Update: A similar tag also appeared right outside of Clark Hall.

Here's the word on tag policy from University spokesperson Carol Wood:

Societies do need to get permission for painting their symbols. . .in most cases they get in touch with the dean of the school in which it will appear or the "owner" of the building.

"Owner" seems to refer to whoever administers the building. It certainly doesn't refer to students. Andre Grimes, the Shama Lama Ding Dong (aka vice-president) of Brown College confirmed that no one had spoken to him or anyone else on Brown's GovBoard about the tag.

If you're interested in the topic, Cav Daily opinion columnist Andrew Winerman wrote a critical piece on the subject last fall.

Correction: The original update incorrectly listed Andre Grimes' position in Brown College.

Shameless Plug: Take Back the Night

Tonight is the annual Take Back the Night rally and vigil against sexual violence and in support of sexual assault survivors. I've always found it to be a very moving experience (especially the vigil) and highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't been. More information on tonight's events here.

If you do go, bring an umbrella. The forecast currently calls for light rain.

Late Update: Due to weather, the vigil has been moved to the Newcomb Ballroom.

UVa nixes 1st-year housing choice

The Cavalier Daily reports today that the UVa administration has decided to no longer allow incoming first-year students to choose between the McCormick and Alderman Road dorms. Instead, they must either choose one of the Residential Colleges (Brown/IRC/Hereford) or allow themselves to be randomly placed somewhere in the New/Old Dorms complex. The change will take effect with this year's incoming class.

For years, Old Dorms have been stereotyped as nearly all-white breeding grounds for fraternities and sororities while New Dorms are widely considered more heterogeneous. Officials usually blame self-selection due to opinions incoming students hear from upperclassman about what kind of housing they should opt for. Presumably, this works both ways, with some minority students seeking a greater concentration of non-white students in New Dorms and some white students looking for students like themselves in Old Dorms, although officials rarely mention this latter possibility. The administration plainly designed the move to end this practice and diversify the entire first-year housing area.

One has to wonder whether reality or perception played a greater role here. While the perceptions of housing self-segregation are widespread, actually finding numbers supporting them takes some doing. A 1999 Cav Daily article listed the McCormick dorms as 82% white compared to 67% for Alderman (today, whites make up 63% of all students, though I'd venture the number was higher 9 years ago). I'm still looking for more recent numbers.

The numbers, however, may be irrelevant. Regardless of the current figures, the perception of self-segregation, or more specifically the perception that some minority students feel like they need to self-segregate to find a supportive community, makes the school look bad. Getting rid of first-year housing choice may help the University shed part of that reputation. Whether it will actually help expose students to "diversity" remains to be seen.

Not Chuck Norris-Approved

Eminent ass-kicking scholar Chuck Norris on why Thomas Jefferson himself would not have approved the controversial Cav Daily cartoons earlier this month (7th paragraph).

Thanks to Rob Pfister for the tip.

Clinging to tradition

Today's Cavalier Daily reports on the research conducted into the origins and history of the Honor System by Coy Barefoot, which originally appeared in the Spring 2008 issue of the University of Virginia Magazine (link includes original article and video). As such, the CD article isn't exactly breaking news, although it's well worth the read.

Barefoot's research raises some interesting questions about the traditional narrative we usually tell about Honor's inception and development. For example, he argues that the 1840 murder of a professor likely had little or nothing to do with the system's creation, contrary to popular belief. But what really stands out in the CD article is the lengths some students go in defending the story they know.

Outgoing Honor Committee Chair Ben Cooper told the CD, "I think it's debatable. If you look at the timeline and look at what [Barefoot] said, it's not clear whether or not the shooting was an impetus." The article also quoted Carey Mignerey, a former Committee Chair. He took issue with Barefoot's claim that students likely haven't completely run Honor since its exception. According to the CD article,

Former Committee Chair Carey Mignerey said his understanding of honor's history is largely in line with Barefoot's, but also noted that the term "student-run" can have various interpretations. Even when students are not directly involved in the system, it can still be "student-run," Mignerey said.

"It's hard to say that the system is or is not student-run," Mignerey said. "I think the tradition of students taking accountability has reached back 166 years ... from that perception, the students [have been] the fundamental decision makers."

I'm sure that as former chairs both Cooper and Mignerey have some background in Honor history, but what gives them the gravitas to dispute the careful research of a well-respected historian?

Even more interesting, these sorts of claims aren't limited to the Honor Committee. University Guide Services Chair Emily Whalen also disputed Barefoot's findings about the murder:

"If the murder hadn't happened, when faculty presented idea of honor code, students would have been resistant to it," Whalen said, noting there was already a great deal of tension between students and faculty at the time. "The murder set the scene. It didn't inspire the code."

According to Barefoot's research, professors initiated the Honor pledge in 1842 with the express purpose of curtailing cheating, and no historical documents he found linked the two events in any way.

I presume that all three students quoted in this post simply told the CD what they know or have been told of the events Barefoot researched. But what's less clear is why they firmly stick to that traditional narrative when confronted with compelling, if not absolute, proof to the contrary. I'm a cynic, so I'll offer the cynical explanation: In recent years the Honor System has almost always framed arguments against amending its provisions in terms of how those amendments would violate its cherished traditions that have served students well for over 100 years. Any research questioning that set of assertions casts doubt on the whole defense.

I don't accuse these individuals of lying to protect Honor or anything of the sort. But I do believe that their inability to part from their version of the story reflects a tendency very widespread at this University to cling to tradition for tradition's sake.

Shootings on I-64

More information available here. UVa students should also have received an email about the incidents.

Late Update: A few more details from the Washington Post.

StudCo doesn't like it Juicy

At their first meeting tonight, the newly-elected Student Council passed a bill denouncing Juicy Campus, a gossip site that allows anyone to post anything with complete anonymity. The full bill text is at the bottom of the post, but here's the main things the bill does:

• "Formally condemns the University community’s involvement with and participation in sustaining" the site
  
• Council will ask Facebook to stop displaying ads for Juicy Campus
  
• Council will ask Juicy Campus to stop using the University's name (like Facebook, it organizes by college)
• Urges students to boycott the site

The bill passed with only two abstentions, but the debate over it lasted quite a while. Most Council members supported the resolution, which was sponsored by College Rep. Sam Davies. They offered a variety of rationales, most of which touched on the damage the site does both to the community's sense of "honor" and to the individuals who get written about on the site. Davies spoke extensively on his resolution, lamenting at one point that if possible he would have included a provision banning the site from the UVa network, an option he said UVa administrators quickly ruled out.

But Transfer Rep. Jason Goldstein objected that simply condemning a site where people say objectionable things marked "a very dangerous precedent to set" in terms of infringing on free speech. He added, "This is a deeper problem than just a web site," arguing that as long as people want to log on and say these things, Council can't do much about it. Trevor Dobson, a fourth year who spoke at the beginning of the meeting, took a similar view, asking members to carefully consider freedom of speech issues and whether anonymous comments on a non-searchable web site are legitimate harms to be worried about.

Many members agreed with the characterizations of VPA John Nelson and now-Rep Body Chair Katie Lee (she was elected later in the meeting), who said that Council had to do something because the Cav Daily ran a story in Tuesday's paper talking about how Council would spearhead the issue.

But does the bill really do anything at all? It seems clear at the outset that the 2nd and 3rd clauses making polite requests of Facebook and Juicy Campus will go nowhere. Supporters in that Tuesday article noted that Google had stopped using Juicy Campus ads, but somehow I doubt Council has Google's clout. And the first clause, which received surprisingly little attention, seems to condemn students for just going to the site even if they don't post anything, as multiple supporters made the case that "going to the site is promoting the site." That seems quite a bit too strong for doing nothing but satisfying curiosity, as many students will undoubtedly do when they see news of this bill.

That leaves only the boycott, which of course is completely voluntary. People may decide they consider the web site trashy and juvenile, but I doubt that Council's prodding will move them to make that judgment any faster than they would on their own.

It seems to me that Council found something they felt strongly about but then got themselves stuck out on a limb before realizing they couldn't do much about it (they sent a press release to the Cav Daily on Monday). I think it's worth keeping an eye on this issue since I seem to hear more about it every day, but I have a hard time seeing much coming from this resolution.


Here's the full text of the resolution passed by Council:

Whereas the website www.juicycampus.com promotes anonymous verbal slandering of individual students and student groups at the University of Virginia,

Whereas many of the comments made on www.juicycampus.com are insensitive and maliciously targeted at University students and student groups,

Whereas all messages posted on www.juicycampus.com are made public information, and are accessible to any person with access to the Internet,

Whereas many messages posted on www.juicycampus.com are in no way conducive to the principles of honor and dignity upon which the University of Virginia was founded,

Be it therefore resolved that the University of Virginia Student Council formally condemns the University community’s involvement with and participation in sustaining the website www.juicycampus.com,

Be it further resolved that the University of Virginia Student Council will formally urge the website www.facebook.com to discontinue advertising for www.juicycampus.com at the nearest possible juncture,

Be it further resolved that the University of Virginia Student Council will formally urge the website juicycampus.com to immediately disassociate the University’s name with its website,

Be it further resolved that the University of Virginia Student Council encourages the Student Body at large to boycott usage of the website www.juicycampus.com.

Cartoon Controversy Update

The paper has published their first batch of letters to the editor on the subject. But no mention of it in the lead editorial (which serves as the paper's official mouthpiece for policy) and the statement on their web site remains unchanged.

Something I also forgot to mention in my earlier post: The Cavalier Daily is one of the only college newspapers on the East Coast to have an in-house comics section. Given that these controversies usually pop up at least once a school year, it's not too difficult to figure out why. (I've heard before that it's the only one, but that figure might be outdated; I'll check)

Cav Daily Cartoon Controversy (Again)

The last time cartoons in The Cavalier Daily poked fun at the Virgin Mary, Bill O'Reilly lambasted them for it in front of a national audience. Two cartoons published in the paper last week seem to indicate that they're feeling starved for conservative vitriol.

The editors have removed the cartoons in question from their web site, but I managed to find copies of them.

The cartoons are from a comic strip called TCB, and they were published on Thursday and Friday of last week.

I didn't even see the cartoons when they published, but over the weekend they kept coming up in conversation, so I decided to look into it. At least a few students have already complained to the Cav Daily about it, with the famously not gay Alex Cortes taking the lead.

The paper released a statement on its web site regarding the cartoons, expressing regret for any offense taken by readers and noting that cartoons published in the paper represent only the opinions of their authors. It also adds that while the cartoons met the paper's criteria for publication, they're considering revising that policy. They have not apologized.

The most important element of the current policy is that cartoons can poke fun at people for their ideas or beliefs but not for traits they can't change about themselves. For example, these cartoons joking about Christianity satisfy the policy, but last fall's infamous Ethiopian Food Fight cartoon, which essentially made fun of starving Africans, didn't fly and thus drew an actual apology.

While the cartoon's offensiveness is probably limited to the devout, they clearly push the envelope of taste. And, given the statement on the paper's web site, they're obviously having some publisher's remorse.

In my opinion, the paper should never shy away from publishing controversial viewpoints even when they have the potential to generate a lot of heat. But these cartoons don't convey a viewpoint; they just aim to offend and hope to produce some humor as a by-product (not very successfully, I might add). The paper's editors should really have a mechanism to weed this stuff out. Putting your lack of taste on display only alienates readers, and it happens often enough to give the paper a bad reputation for something that has nothing to do with its news-gathering abilities. They could fix that with by altering their comics policy to allow editors to decide whether what they're about to publish meets their own minimal standards of taste.

It's not censorship if the person you censor isn't actually saying anything.

Shameless Plug: UDems Bachelor(ette) Auction tonight

Tonight, the UDems will be hosting their annual Bachelor & Bachelorette Auction at Orbitz on the Corner from 7-9 PM. According to the organizers there will be drink and appetizer specials. Proceeds will benefit PACEM, a group that helps provide shelter for homeless families and individuals here in Charlottesville. Go buy some hotties for a good cause.

Possible Mumps Cases at UVa

This just in from from Pat Lampkin:

...two U.Va. students are suspected to have mumps, according to the local health department. In both cases, the students were seen by Student Health on March 10. Lab tests are being conducted to determine whether the students do have the virus....

Mumps is a virus that can cause fever, headache, muscle aches, and swelling and tenderness of the glands close to the jaw. Serious complications are rare. The virus is spread through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes or through direct contact with the saliva of an infected person. Symptoms usually appear about 18 days after exposure, but may appear any time within 12 to 25 days. The contagious period includes three days before the onset of swelling of the glands close to the jaw until five days after the onset of swelling.

If you experience symptoms and think you may have mumps, please call Student Health (982-3915) prior to visiting the facility. Student Health will arrange for you to be seen quickly. If you have questions about your immunizations, please call the medical records office in Student Health at 924-1525.

UVa students should receive the whole message in their UVa email accounts. Most students should have received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, but even if you have you can still contract a mild case of mumps. Might be one of the few cases where calling Student Health actually looks like a wise plan.

Correlation doesn't equal...Anyone? Anyone?

Two weeks ago, The Cavalier Daily ran an article announcing that female students who belong to chapters of the Inter-Sorority Council (ISC) had GPAs "well above" the average for all female students at the University: 3.311 compared to 3.226.

As I read, I kept waiting for the reporter to ask some hard questions about why that might be so. Instead, she drank the ISC Kool-Aid. The article quoted Sally Kline, the assistant dean of fraternity and sorority life, as attributing this "huge accomplishment" to the focus placed on the academic excellence within all the ISC sororities. Among these strategies:

For example, Kline said, "I know one [chapter] gave cookie cakes out to members who did well, and other groups do similar things."
Similarly, [ISC President Stuart] Berkeley said her sorority has a program called "Smart Cookies," which rewards chapter members with prizes for such things as not missing class or getting a good grade on an exam or paper.

Baked goods and other incentives programs are all well and good, but is it likely that membership in sororities alone explains the numbers? The academic success could actually come from another factor that simply correlates with sorority membership, but the article fails to even mention this possibility, instead simply recording the explanation offered by the ISC.

For example, take simple economics. Taking part in sorority life isn't cheap. Of the ISC sororities, only Alpha Chi Omega offers information on its membership fees on their web site. Dues come to $785 per semester there, and it's probably not a stretch to guess that the others fall within the same ballpark. With that in mind, note the ample literature documenting the basic finding that students from higher-income backgrounds, for a variety of reasons, tend to do better in college (here's an example). Given the costs of participating in sororities, one could argue that the socioeconomic make-up of the organizations play just as great a role in their higher member GPAs as any encouragement programs they offer do.

I say this not to diminish the achievement of the individual sorority members who have posted impressive, above-average GPAs but to instead repeat a mantra that news outlets so often forget when covering numbers: Correlation doesn't equal causation. The paper made the same mistake last semester with an article covering a study of so-called "helicopter" parents. The ISC probably indeed deserves credit, but by failing to mention likely alternatives, the Cav Daily probably gives them more credit than they deserve.