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.