This quotation clearly highlights the mindset of Thomas Jefferson when discussing Native Americans. This may have also been the same mindset of many other white men during this white period. The notion of white superiority isn ingrained in this statement, making them believe that there separation distinguishes them from the natives.

This sentence in the Rockfish Gap Report highlights Thomas Jefferson's initial intentions when wanting to establish the foundation for the University of Virginia. Specifically, when it states, "it's centrality to the white population of the whole state". The history of the university has been to cater to the white community, dating back to its inception. To say there has been much progression would be highly debatable.

The founders of the University outlined that the young men attending their institution should pay close attention to their physical well being, outside from any classroom physical education requirements. It seems as if they wanted their boys to be resilient, to be the perfect specimen of a man. The pressure to exceed expectations to be a well-rounded, perfect person is palpable in this quote. How does physical fitness relate or attribute to academic excellence? With regard to Mortality and Morality, how might physical fitness appear to make one’s life more complete or well rounded? How big of an impact does a person’s physique have in death?

This is very straightforward as it confronts the idea of manhood and masculinity. In this section, the founders of the University are highlighting physical strength, along with using "tools" in the "manual arts". Though they later mention the visual and dramatic arts, by starting with the emphasis on the more typically "manly" activities concerning physical strength and capacity, it is evident which is valued on a higher scale. It's interesting to see how the ideal man has changed throughout history. Were the founders thinking of what it meant to be a man while creating the University? In terms of the Mortality and Morality Engagement, none of it really matters in the end since we are all the same in death. Does the fear of death push us to strive for greatness and excellence within our lifetime?

It is interesting to hear the original intentions for the lawn rooms. It is shocking to imagine how small our school was originally, small enough that every student lived on the lawn. It is easy to forget that the main purpose of the lawn rooms was to interact with the professors that live in the pavilions. I feel like now students are so focused on how prestigious getting a lawn room is, that the fact that they are living near deans and professors. It seems that if the focus was more on living with professors than having the prestige of a room on the lawn, maybe less people would want a lawn room.

It is interesting to see how Thomas Jefferson has stuck with his views on religious freedom. In 1779, forty years before this report, he drafted the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom highlighting the importance of separation of church and state. He writes, "We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." It was important for them to not only be able to practice their religion but also that people be allowed to maintain their opinions for or against it, as long as it doesn't take away from their rights.

Written 200 years prior, there are already glaring differences between the founding documents of the University of Virginia and the College of William and Mary. Originally, I thought UVA had taken a serious tone representative to their academic values. Now, compared to William and Mary, their language appears more natural and understandable. William and Mary's Royal Charter begins, "WILLIAM AND MARY, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King and Queen, defenders of the faith, &c. To all to whom these our present letters shall come, greeting." The seriousness of this charter is of course explained with it being the 2nd oldest college in America.

Jefferson mentions multiple reasons for his design of the layout of the buildings for the University; "greater security against fire and infection, tranquillity and comfort to the professors, and their family thus insulated; retirement to the students, and the admission of enlargement to any degree to which the institution may extend in future times." The last point is one that shows the expectation for growth and improvement of the university. Although the university upon first arrival was merely what we call the lawn today, it has grown and expanded into multiple halls, dormitories, and dining halls. Not only has the physicality of the University grown, but also the social climate and environment (which may or may not have been included in Jefferson's expectations.) For example, today, sports are more evident and important in the study body. Fraternities were introduced in 1853. African Americans were integrated into the student body in the 1950s and women in the 1970s. It is very interesting to see how much the university has changed in terms of the physicality of its campus; 'grounds', as well as the social aspects of the university.

In this statement I would like to criticize the word "every" which is by definition meant to be inclusive of all things (or people on this case). Despite the dictionary definition of this word, Jefferson alters the definition to be exclusive for white males. Although now we can understand that this definition was very exclusive and actually defied the definition of "every" citizen, in 1818, it was assumed that "every citizen" only meant white males. This idea is truest legitimatized through the acceptance policies of the university until around 1950s when they accepted the first African American student. Even then, it wasn't until the 70s when women were integrated into the university. This is an example of how flexible language is. Throughout time, as a society, we have almost subliminally changed the meaning of the word "every," and it has physically affected the diversity and social climate of the university.

I find it interesting that the founders would choose to conform to "the principles of our constitution" on the issue of religion, and what solely seems to be religion. While religious freedom is a very integral component of American society, there is so much more they could have to conformed to as well. What about the idea of rights, personal freedoms, and social equality?

These objects relate to my current engagement, which considers what engaged citizenship entails. Through reading various perspectives on matters such as non-violent versus violent solutions to bring about change in societal issues, our morals are improved as we are brought beyond our own experience to learn the ways in which we can care about others and how all of our fates are ultimately bound together. Another important aspect of engaged citizenship is fulfilling duties such as voting or being an informed and active contributor to the public good. Once an individual recognizes an issue which they feel needs to be addressed, it is their responsibility to enact change for the benefit of those who are being placed at a disadvantage, whether or not this includes the individual them self and regardless of the risks they may face. Essentially, go on strike and get arrested.

This metaphor really intrigued me; I think it is an interesting comparison that the founders made. It is quite poetic. I think that it is interesting to see that the founders assume it is impossible for a person without education to bear sweet and ripe fruit and only by tying them up to something "new" -- education in this case-- can they be estimable. While I do agree that education provides individuals with more knowledge therefore the ability to bear more fruits in their lives, I think that making such a sure statement does kind of bother me in a way. While the wild and uncultivated tree would most likely produce more sour and bitter fruits compared to the other trees, it does not mean that they only produce such vile fruits; in my perspective, they can also produce fruits estimable in kind and degree.

Looking at the curriculum the University first created, it shows the degree of white supremacy and white centrality that was first created. All of the courses were tailed specifically towards whites and not towards any other race. There are no African American courses or Asian studies classes. To a degree, it shows the progress of the University from what it originally was.

Looking at these places, I wonder how they were specifically selected. If these places were not good for the "healthiness and fertility" of the University. These proposed places were not accepted for their centrality in regards for the white population. It solidifies the idea that this college was in fact not meant for the extremes of other populations.

It’s interesting to see the phrases “habits of reflection” and “correct action” in this report, because I wonder if the board members reflected on the debates they had over the four short days of creating the report, and if they thought the final decisions they made were “correct” (by their values at the time). By analyzing the ethics of the Rockfish Gap Report from the perspective of a present-day UVA student, we are utilizing “habits of reflection” and evaluating “correct action” too. Regarding the talk of education producing “examples of virtue to others” (virtue being defined as “behavior showing high moral standards”), I can’t help but think that this idea of only extending education to a small group of people is not in line with our current values of inclusivity and diversity, and would seriously impede the productivity of a learning environment.

Notice that this passage comes directly after the authors say future generations should accumulate “the knowledge acquired by all those who preceded” and try to “advance the knowledge & well-being of mankind”. Even though there they talk about bettering all of society, they immediately contradict themselves! The Board follows by saying that this one group of people -- their “indigenous neighbours” -- are held back and “chained” by their uneducated status and their “barbarism & wretchedness”. This means they saw the problem, but decided that the status quo was okay and that education should still not be available to them, even though they literally just said that education would better all of mankind. It’s crazy to me how in some ways the Board was very innovative and forward-thinking, like in their acknowledgement that progress is important, but in other aspects so backward-thinking, like their refusal to treat all people as ones deserving of an education.

I think it is important to note the correlation placed between morality and education. Academic education does not define a person's morality as there are examples of educated individuals who have shown questionable senses of morality and vice versa. This skewed ideology though allowed for the sense superiority over cultures whose education was not based on the European standards of learning. Due to the lack of literature in native North American or African cultures, Western forms of thought looked down upon individuals as they correlated the lack "education" with lack or morality and "civilization."

The value that is placed on education by the founders is admirable but unfortunately, the utilization of education is seen as a means of degrading others. This brings to attention the importance of context. Education in the eyes of founders was having an understanding of literature and government but in the context of other societies, education could refer to an understanding of agricultural patterns or weather patterns. Education should not work as a weapon of superiority over other cultures, but rather as a means of creating cultural bridges of understanding.

The Rockfish Gap Report sets forth goals for developing primary education at the University of Virginia. The claim that a main goal of the institution is to develop the knowledge of one's own rights is incredibly ironic in many ways. In general, as much of the annotations show, the Report claims that equality is a fundamental pillar of higher education. But, the perspective student that is called to "know his rights" is only a white man. Ironically, the group of people that had unlimited civil rights compared to other races is called to to learn even more about its rights.

Philip C. Pendleton, born in what is now West Virginia, was a lawyer who graduated from Princeton University and Dickinson College, continuing the string of well-educated co-signers of the Rockfish Gap Report. While Pendleton was on such Board of Commissioners, disagreed with locating the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, instead calling for the University to be established in Lexington. Surprisingly, although Pendleton opposed the decision that was made by Madison, Jefferson, Monroe and the other members of the committee, John Quincy Adams appointed the West Virginian lawyer as a United States federal judge seven years later.

This statement just reminded me of an article that I read in my engagement about the birth of Clark hall. It was said that Clark hall was built from the donations made by William A. Clark Jr., who was a law student and a friend of President Edwin Alderman and Law School Dean William Minor Lile. Clark wanted Clark hall to be a memorial for his deceased wife, Mabel. It was interesting to see how important private donations and outside sources are to the university. It was also interesting to see a private funding being used for a personal reasons in such a public space and in a public university. https://news.virginia.edu/content/clark-hall-named-virginia-landmarks-registry

I chose to annotate this sentence because it goes hand in hand with my other comment from this section. I think this should continue to be one of the primary goals of higher education. Although it should probably be a goal of ALL education, that may not be realistic at this point in time. Just as political efficacy is often tied to voter turnout, and political efficacy is often tied to political understanding and knowledge, our institutions should have an influential hand in educating us as a citizen. The best way for us to impact, develop, change, inspire others is through politics (not meaning we have to run for office, but in participating in some way). I am glad that UVA had this as a core goal. Maybe it is time for our administration (if they aren't already) to look back on this founding document and set a vision/goals for the future that tie in to the positive aspects of this report.

This explicitly says that the primary object of education was teaching men to become citizens. In my Engagement, "Knowledge You Can Trust" we read a piece by Hannah Arendt called "The Crisis in Education" and she differentiates between learning and education. We can learn material, things, subjects without actually engaging. I like how this report initially intended and understood education as a citizenship development section of life. I appreciate that the engagements curriculum is striving to do this--having us interact with people, different ideas, the idea of citizenship, and diverse subjects.

It would be interesting to know how they studied these factors (e.g. fertility, maturity, etc.). As per Doing Fieldwork, when an anthropologist goes to study these areas there are certain key elements of consideration. How did those studying these three areas determine their satisfaction to the factors, and then select the best?

After taking my empirical engagement class I am very skeptical that the authors of this document really made a "full enquiry and impartial and mature consideration". We have learned that no matter how you measure something there will usually be some sort of bias in the resulting data. So, even if the authors think they have done extensive research and considered everything maturely their own biases will still be reflected in their choice of location. To me this idea raises an important question because if research is always going to be biased is there even a point in trying to make it as unbiased as possible. My answer would be yes, and that simply being aware of the fact that bias is prevalent in research can make it less biased.

The document claims to honor the principles of our constitution, which place all sects of religion on equal footing, by having a professor of ethics teach the discipline of religion. However, the university does not honor equality in all areas and does not make any attempt to hide their discriminatory practices as it is clear that the founders anticipate only white male students to be accepted. The result of this is that many of the individuals practicing supposedly "equal" religions are overlooked because they do not fit this profile.

My problem with this excerpt falls under the same problem I had with the previous one. The commissioners claim to be creating the university in order to "enlarge minds" and to "form... habits of... correct action," however, with them pushing the importance of the "white population," their attempts are useless.

This sentence rubs me the wrong way. Earlier in the article, it is written multiple times that the location for the university was determined by the "centrality of the white population," and here, it is written that the purpose of the university is to "cultivate [the students'] morals" and to "instil into them... virtue and order." If one of the primary objects the commissioners want to cater to is the white population, this will alter the university, the professors, and the students.

An obliquity is anything that deviates from moral rectitude, according to Merriam-Webster. In this sense, it implies the importance of being educated in correspondence to moral standards or truths in order to reject immoral ideals. When moral and social standards are that white people are superior to minorities or black people, it associates education with these ideals, and thus leads to the spread of this ideology. I find the statement to be ironic because of the immorality of unequal rights and slavery, although they were treated as common and unquestionable practices. I think that this claim of education is still very true because education does lead to habits of application. The things we are taught usually impact our implicit bias and social understanding, which is why it is important ensure we are teaching racial equality.

My first thought is about what “equal rights” means. It is implied in this passage (in 1818) that equal rights are guaranteed not for everyone, but white men. Although the passage itself does not explicitly write that certain groups are excluded from this statement, historical context in 1818 has actually shaped the definition of the word “us” in this passage. At the same time, the word “another” ambiguously implies a person who is ‘the same’. Automatically, this excludes people (minorities/ blacks/ women) who are not a part of the “us” that is used earlier in the statement. Language is interesting in this sense because it reveals what a great impact historical context and social norms have on the way a sentence can be read and interpreted. Over time, maybe the meaning of this sentence has changed in the viewpoint of the person who is reading it, but the words are in fact the same. What has changed are social truths and historical context.

This line of thought follows the belief in some sort of hierarchy of culture, as if one can truly be more "advanced." We have been led to believe this is a natural line of thinking, when in reality, it is society perpetuating this ideology. Culture does not follow a hierarchy from barbaric to advanced but rather is a dynamic process constantly being influenced. Education has not 'advanced' them but has been used to disenfranchise their "indigenous neighbors."

This section embodies the idea of freedom of religion that our country was built on by separating religion and education through the absence of a professor of Divinity. However, I was slightly confused because it mentioned that, instead, the professor of ethics will be there for "the proof of the being of a god, the creator, preserver & supreme ruler of the universe..." in order to help with the moral obligations of the students. Would this not considered teaching of religion because there is still the acknowledgement of a god and makes me wonder if the references made in ethics classes were about just a acknowledgement of a supreme being or if it referenced to the Christian God, which was the main religion in the past. It was also interesting for me to see that the founders believed some kind of religion was necessary for one to have developments in moral obligations, but at the same time thought that religion should be separated from the state in the Constitution. This section illustrated how much UVA has changed over the years, as we have religious studies courses. However, it does still withhold the intentions of the founders because each religion is represented equally, giving it the "equal footing" that they desired.

While reading the Rockfish Gap Report, the purpose of education that they had in mind was very alarming. Yes, education is very important and it makes our lives better. However, better than who? Also, better for who? In this case, it seems like education was valued because knowledge helped the founders be differentiated from the Native Americans. The attitude in this excerpt s that of a superior being expressing their privileges over the inferior people. The language here really degrades the quality of life of the Native Americans, which is perhaps why there was such racism against them in the beginning-- because their lives and culture were significantly different. The founders seem to value looking to improve themselves and the future, as stated. "...that they are to look backward for better things and not forward, longing, as it should seem, to return to the days of eating acorns and roots rather than indulge in the degeneracies of civilization." While I do strongly agree that looking into the future and making progress is very important, looking into the past and learning from it is just as important. I am afraid that this attitude is very prevalent in our modern day lives, as many people tend to look down upon the less educated and tries to differentiate themselves from them. This attitude is a big part of why there are social gaps. The US does not have as significant of a socioeconomic gap as other countries, nevertheless, there should be attempts to lessen this gap.

While the modern interpretation of this statement is one of racist connotations, the Board of Commissioners were very much being practical. In 1818, the year this report was written, only white males were fortunate enough to receive an education. So, keeping centrality to the white population was a practical decision.

This is an interesting quote as it made me question how education generates habits of application? Is this implying that students of the University of Virginia will provide structure for future generations? “Habits of application” connotes that students will become ambitious, rather than waiting around for change, they will implement it themself. This task can often seem impossibly challenging in today’s times, however it is interesting to see how UVA’s mission was to generate powerful students since it’s creation. The “order and love of virtue” mentioned in this quote shows that education must be driven by passion. Jefferson’s entire perspective of his University was for it to be a center for lifelong learners as education should not have a limit. To lack passion is to be ignorant as there is no point to be informed without any desire or intent supporting it. Another question I had was whether the “moral organization” of society is pointing to the idea/conclusion that everyone should think in the same way? It is important to have a wide range of varying opinions; changes within societal culture and norms do not change without this element. How can there be “habits of application” if everyone is under one “moral organization”? This statement seems to contradict itself as they are developing students who will potentially change and challenge the moral organization of our society. Perhaps this was the point all along. My Doing Fieldwork engagement has taught me to look at each person as their own system, so it is interesting to see how each of our individual systems are supposed to conform to a single ideal and organization within our American society (not even considering all of the standards from the rest of the world).

This passage clearly exhibits the desire of human growth and expansion generated by the University. Again, there is this ambition to continue to be better than before; adding to the prestige of the University of Virginia. This quote discusses “qualities of virtue and social worth,” however, they do not outline their virtues and social worths - it is to be implied by the times of it’s creation. From my Doing Fieldwork Engagement, I have learned that social virtues and worths are extremely varied depending on the perspective. It is not fair to assume that everyone follows and conforms to one’s own expectations and values; in fact, this makes one ignorant and biased when collecting viable and strong data.

In this quote, there is this all or nothing mentality; many of the founders seem to take different stances. The question: is the teaching and education of "learned sciences" beneficial? Universities in the 21st century seem to promote goals aimed at developing deeper thinkers, people with a desire and curiosity to continue learning, even after college. The fact that there was such a debate over whether "learned sciences" were an important factor of the UVA curriculum is shocking to me since the University seems to be so centered around creating "informed citizens" nowadays. I have a hard time understanding how learned sciences are useless since I believe they do "better the conditions of men." Learned sciences promote engagement throughout all disciplines and create better students and sharper thinkers as they have stronger abilities to collaborate with others. I think they included this statement to avoid criticism; they decided to ultimately leave the decision of whether or not to include learned sciences to the “private and individual effort,” exhibiting that this decision would be less contested if left to the specific individuals (i.e. professors and students). This surprised me to read because it’s easy to see how much values have changed to bring us to today’s version of the University of Virginia. From my “Doing Fieldwork” engagement, it is easy to see how much other people influence our own perceptions and ideas, so I think that Learned Sciences are an essential part of a college education.

What were equal rights? The terms appear losely applied as the primary focus was white males. This is able to portray the relativity of meaning behind words, as equal rights placed in different societal contexts can be free to be expanded or limited in within the societal beliefs and values.

The use of the phrase "every citizen" carries an inclusive connotation that brings about images of unity and progress but the reality of the phrase is that at the time period the denotation of citizen was limited to a small minority of priviledged individuals. This provides insight into the importance of historical context and how the time period can frame the interpretation of certain words and writings.

In the previous sentence, the report reiterates that the United States Constitution "places all sects of religion on equal footing." But, the committee decided to have an ethics teacher take the role of a professor of divinity. In deciding to implant a secular instructor of religion, it is clear that they thought that religion is directly correlated with ethics. By focusing on the ethics of religion, the University could be avoid much of the bias that comes with the mix of the secular and non-secular (church vs. state).

When the United States Constitution was signed in effect on September 17, 1787, the founding fathers set the minimum age for U.S. senators at the age of the 30. Such a provision is still in effect today, just as it was on August 4, 1818. Armistead T Mason, a Republican native to Virginia, served as a U.S. senator from January 3, 1816, to March 4, 1817. At the time, Mason was not legally of age to serve in such a position, as he was only 28. Although this two year gap does not seem important, I question why a senator, who was not legally a senator under the constitution, was a member and signee.

It’s important to understand the historical context behind the time of UVA’s founding. What else was happening in 1818 in the United States? Regarding politics, James Monroe, a Democratic Republican from Virginia, was President, and John Marshall (also from Virginia) was Chief Justice. Furthermore, as the Board sought to only allow white people into their education system, the First Seminole War occurred as slaveholders tried to recapture slaves that had run away and were living among the Seminoles. The Era of Good Feelings had also started, which, after the outcome of the War of 1812, lead Americans to feel a sense of nationalism and pride.

Although this report states that the facilitation of education will inspire people to become honorable and ethical, it is clear that the Board of Commissioners means this for a very limited audience -- white men. Despite the fact that they say that each following generation will acquire the knowledge and experience of those who came before and increase the “well-being of mankind”, the fact that they say “not infinitely. . . but indefinitely” points to the fact that they intend to limit their scope of possible education from flourishing to women and people of color. All in all, it’s ironic that the Board understands the idea of progressivity as learning is facilitated, but refuses to accept that in order for infinite advancement of knowledge, education must be provided to all.

One of the main inconsistencies found in this document is the meaning and use of the word equality. This was a famously important ideal to Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence on the basis of securing freedom from the oppressive British regime. However, there is obvious dissonance throughout the Rockfish Gap Report as it states that Charlottesville was chosen specifically for its proximity to a large white population and the university itself was built by enslaved laborers. I find it interesting that Jefferson was so adamant about allowing freedom of religion, still a rather radical notion during this time period, as he was obviously unwilling to extend freedom towards all of the individuals involved in the founding of UVa. The aspects of equality which he choses to enforce demonstrate a somewhat progressive mindset, yet there are inherent contradictions in both this document and the principles of the constitution on which it is based. Additionally, the decision to have a professor of ethics teach the religion courses indicates that the founders hoped to encourage morality among the students of the university and align with the proposed values they believe all young men should have. However, the access to the university was restricted to a specific portion of the population and thus the use of the word equality throughout the text is almost ironic.

This portion of the document highlights the changes in societal opinion regarding the necessity of making an education available to every individual, especially when considering higher education. There is still much debate over the importance of receiving a college degree as it greatly increases one's chances of securing a job but is not required for every profession and comes at a great expense. While we may consider a college education much more accessible and important today, this document demonstrates the difference in opinion on which our university was founded. I find this particularly interesting as the New College curriculum has based an engagement on engaging differences and ensuring that students remain open to considering the opinions and beliefs of others.

To think that 200 years ago, education was used as a method to develop supremacy of one group over another. When I read this portion of the document, I cannot help but think of that as the foundation, the very edifice, for which this university had its beginnings. Later on in this passage, when attempting to describe the importance of this type of education, which is now referred to as a liberal arts education, there is a phrase that is used. I recognized this phrase from the College of Arts & Sciences convocation, in which the Dean of CAS said the purpose of a liberal arts education. It's crazy to think how the importance of this education remains the same, but the recipients have been amended.

The qualifications by which these sites were chosen exhibit an interesting criteria. What is meant by healthiness and fertility? Is it of the ground? Is it of the resources and material? Or is it of the people, as later stated? It seems that 200 years ago, when the cornerstone was placed at this university, only the "healthiness & fertility" of the white population was the chief concern, and thus a central location by which they could further education became important.

TEST

I find this one of the most interesting objectives. Being able to navigate complicated or difficult social situations is one of the most important skills anyone can learn at college. It is applicable in every career and is just as useful in settings that aren't professional or academic. This being said, I am interested in raising the questions of is the ability "to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed" something that can be taught in a classroom. While learning how to articulate your thoughts eloquently through small discussion classes can definitely help with this, I believe a large part of learning how to navigate social situations comes from practice and experience. Maybe by providing opportunities for students to interact with the world outside of the University (internships, travel, etc) UVA is teaching us how to operate well in social situations.

I wonder what qualifications were used to judge healthiness and fertility of location. I find it interesting that natural setting of the University was not considered more, or if it was this report does not go into detail about that specific element. Charlottesville is such a beautiful place, especially because of its proximity to the Blue Ridge Mountains. I believe that education can and should be an aesthetic experience. If an education is an aesthetic experience as well as an experience focused on acquiring knowledge it will be more enjoyable over all and students will be more excited about what they are learning and motivated to continue their learning on their own. It seems that Thomas Jefferson believed this as well considering how much time and effort he put into the architectural design of the University.

The author uses pronouns such as "they" and "their" to refer to the "boys" they referenced earlier; this distinction is unsurprising given the time period, however, the idea that young adults will begin college when they're 15 is shocking. The human brain isn't even fully developed until around the age of 25.

At first I found this excerpt interesting because it immediately felt confining - "which we think should be taught," "within the powers of a single professor." I also realized I'm currently taking multiple classes not listed, such as evolution, psychology, and ASL; this reminded me that knowledge expands over time. Like others who annotated this piece, I was confused as to why they thought one professor for each branch would be sufficient; initially I just thought that they wanted the university to be small and exclusive, however it's possible that the board wasn't aware of the university's potential.

In this sentence listed the main reason to choose the central college in Albemarle as the "convenient and proper" site for the university, which is the degree of centrality to the white population of the state. The word proper catches my attention in two ways. First, it shows that the people choosing the location of the university have never taken into account the education of the population other than white, male, and probably land-owned people. Ignoring is the worst kind of discrimination. When people started to debate over the unfair treatment between ethnicity, gender, race, or any other causes of unequality, at least it means that they are taken by the public into consideration. However, in this sentence, the population other than white people are totally ignored, reflecting the serious discrimination at the time. Second, proper is a very subjective and ambiguous word. The repetition of this word in this report, for example the proper choice of location, and the proper breadth of the lawn, leaves a lot of space for personal interpretation of what proper exactly stand for. This also remind me of one of my Engagement classes, in which we talked about the history of Eugenics. The proponents of this theory also used a really ambiguous word "unfit", to describe the people who they think should be sterillized. But who decides what's "unfit"? And who decides what's "proper"? The final interpretation was left to people in charge of the university, who were White males, and who believe that people with similar traits as they do should receive the college education.

These are really familiar last names, and I would assume that Wilson Hall, Slaughter Center, and Old/New Cabell Hall are named after these people who founded the university. I really wouldn't have known this information without reading this report to the end. I believe our University should really provide us with more information of the history of UVa: no matter how positive or negative the history is, we current students need to know. This really reminds me of a reseach I did before one of my Engagment classes. The advocacy of Eugenics was a big part of our University's history and Pinn Hall, a building in the medical school, was previously named after Harvey Jordan, a Eugenics researcher and former Dean of the Department of Medicine. However, the university decided to rename the Hall into Pinn Hall recently. Indeed the new name enbodies the spirit of the school better than the old one, but the Student needs to know about the unknown part of the history behind the change of the name. Just simply changing the name of a hall cannot and should not erase the fact that the university has once supported a pseudoscience, and we need to face, and at lease try to preserve our history. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/02/uva-school-of-medicine-looking-ahead-from-eugenics-roots http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/2-origins/

It is so intriguing how far back every ounce of UVA history goes. Our current board of "visitors" stems from this very document. As a student self-governing body who works alongside the Board of Visitors, UVA students have so much power and learn the art of citizenship. This document lays the foundation for that. Specifically today, with all of the BSA Demands, crucial Student Council Legislation, etc. our board of Visitors is at a bold and important place. It is important for us to acknowledge that their power has so much history.

Though all of this injustice of the Rockfish Gap Report occurred and has impacted our university, reading this report with a 21st century lense gives us the ability to view this statement as hope. "Real and living examples" is what we are called to be as UVA students. And although our predecessors failed us in a variety of areas--not letting African american students in, women, etc. We have the dreams of hope to push this university to achieve greater, and i believe as Engagement students reading this document now, we have the potential to make the change.

This statement is contradictory to its actual meaning in society at this time period. Although the sentence mentions giving "every citizen the information he needs" it fails to acknowledge that only white males were able to attend the school for a long period of time. Women including blacks and/ or African Americans and men not belonging to the white race were not accepted.

Within this line of text, it is clearly shown that the University of Virginia was not in favor of blacks and/or African Americans on attending the school. The main points of importance were "the healthiness of the site, the fertility of the neighboring country, and it's centrality to the white population of the whole state." With this, it is shown how the inferiority and nonexistent nature of blacks was seen during this time period. Although this text was created in 1818, it relates to the ideas in the 20th century where blacks and/or African Americans were not accepted to the University. The history and documentation shows that the University was not created for people of color but rather the "white population."