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.