Coming to UVA, I felt a sense of disillusionment regarding this very point — that reading is a paradigm for moral and cognitive improvement — as most students, it seems, lack a genuine interest in courses that require them to hit the books. Students lament about the English requirements that have to complete rather than lauding the courses they’re enrolled in, which is an indication that they are not learning for the sake self-improvement. I’m taking two English classes right now (with 17 books between them) because I believe in this very ideal embedded in UVA’s founding document, that the human mind is lost without literature and that it can only grow with the more material it absorbs. Reading changes the way you think and speak and write, allowing you to perceive your other studies and the world-at-large through wiser lenses. Today’s UVA needs a drastic change in pedagogical culture such that we might return to the importance Jefferson placed on reading.

While I do understand that UVA was just starting out and had a lot of subjects to cover with relatively few teachers, I find it a little concerning the idea that a student could go most of his time in higher education learning from the same 2-3 professors within his one discipline. Proper education requires learning from multiple sources and viewpoints and that is often times much harder when one is only exposed to the same 2-3 professors. Of course these professors will try their best, but even the most keen and open professors will have their own bias and opinions on things which will affect one's education. Need-less to say, I'm happy we have a greater diversity and number of professors now.

While I will say this part definitely comes off very western orientated and the part about being "destined" to occupy so much space is a little off-putting, nevertheless it's interesting to note that even after such a small period of time after the independence of our country, these ideas of the states as being one country, one people instead of one state still came about. They founders of the university could of maybe said instead, Virginian education or southern education but instead opted for a more united and country-oriented one. Pointing to the transition into a completely united people, not just by name only.

This part is quite interesting to me because it is another example of how the words of our University's founders still ring true today. If one were to say this in this day and age, it would be just as spot-on as back then. With our three main Libraries and even more special collections libraries, the University continues to show how important it is to hold onto the work of our predecessors and build from there. It can also be seen in the architecture of the school; maintaining the different styles of columns along the Lawn and restructuring the Rotunda shows how we can preserve the great works of the past by improving upon them.

I find this to be yet another example of how hard it really is to put a generalized label of "good" or "bad" when considering the rationale of those responsible for the building of the University. On one hand, it's clearly discriminatory and wrong to base the location off of proximity to the white population. However, it can also be seen here that they did not build it in its location bout of greed for money but rather on certain (socially flawed) principles.

All religious beliefs are meant to be respected and tolerated in the United States. However, this tenant of the US constitution is often forgotten. Discrimination of Muslims is just one example of how the United States does not place all sects of religion on an equal footing. Catholics and Jews have been disrespected, preference towards WASPs given, and today it often seems as though citizens perceive any religion as controlling or as seeing itself as the ultimate, one truth. Some citizens do not tolerate their traditions while preaching a culture of tolerance .

There is a certain kind of pompousness that hovers in this excerpt of the document: that, "with the sentiments of the legislature in favor of freedom of religion manifested on former occasions," the authors see themselves as the noble torchbearers of free religious thought. In choosing to not appoint a professor of divinity, they defer the task of religious teachings to the ethics professor — saying, high-browly, that their mere decision to not establish a position dedicated to divinity is the equivalent of religious inclusivity. Yet, in the very same breath, they outline that this ethics-cum-divinity professor has the responsibility to prove and profess the existence of "a god, the creator, preserver, & supreme ruler of the universe," in addition to teaching "all the relations of morality, & of the laws & obligation these infer" from a God-centric lens. How unethical must it be to chain a professor of ethics to the confines of religion every time he stands before his class, to tailor his syllabus to a distinctively Christian narrative (rather than a distinctively philosophical narrative) well before the syllabus is even written!

While I believe the authors acted in good faith given the circumstances of their time, it goes without saying that their noble case in favor of free religious belief cannot be — and was not — achieved by simply lacking a teacher whose job was to solely preach Christianity; instead, they disguised their Sunday-School lectures behind the vague veil of "ethics" — marring the classes' material, for better or for worse, with a my-way-or-the-highway belief in God.

I find it interesting the way education has changed as shown by this bit of the document. The paragraph this excerpt is from is talking about the ancient languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) and how the University should go about teaching those. They believe that it would be a nuisance to have young boys on the grounds of the school learning the "rudiments of language". Learning these languages was expected and was completed at a young age, yet today a lot of people do not even learn a language, let alone these three.

Student self-governance is such an integral part of UVA and its easy to see the beginnings of this system in this document as the founders discuss how to set up the University. However, I was shocked to find this bit in here as it shows that the idea of student self governance was not something the founders were thinking about. Rather, this points to this system evolving as the University aged.

This is an extremely interesting object of focus for the newly established University of Virginia in that it highlights the ability of how the single individual's pursuit of self-interest and enlightenment can have tremendous impacts on society as a whole. An education at UVA, particularly one in mathematical and physical sciences, would not just improve the individual. An invention, innovation, or improvement can be made by an informed scholar that has the ability to improve the arts, health, and other aspects of daily life. The general public can advance beyond living on subsistence and past just trying to survive. People, with advancements made by educated scholars, can have the ability to not worry about if a cold or infection will kill them or where their next meal will come from. Instead, society will advance due to improvements and new comforts because people will have time to spend elsewhere, such as pursuing their own intellectual development wherever their curiosities lead them. UVA stressed from the beginning that enlightened students have the ability to do great things and improve the lives of others as a result. This focus also highlights the transformation of society from one unconcerned about public health to one that would create scholars to improve it. Cities became cleaner, as knowledge about how disease can spread by not separating sewage systems with water systems helped eradicate cholera, and people began living longer. Without innovators who helped benefit society in areas like public health, such as those from UVA, the standard of living in America would be very different as we know it to be today.

The fact that the following was an object of focus for the newly created University of Virginia proves how advanced of an institution it was for its time. America was a fundamentally land-abundant society; one with labor scarcity and land abundance, especially in the South. This was characterized by low urbanization, industrialization, and high wages. The University of Virginia, as a public institution in the South, would be expected to promote the interests of agriculture since that is what Virginia primarily relied on for economic growth and success. The economy of Virginia was less reliant on manufactures and commerce; for that was the designation of the Northeast to specialize in those industries. Yet, UVA wanted to educate and create dynamic scholars, not just ones focused on one industry. Even if a student did not end up in commerce and manufactures, the very fact that they were educated in those areas would help them in agriculture, etc. The reference to "free scope" reinforces the principle that one should not be shackled down by putting blinders on and studying one thing. Public industry is large and expansive, and by studying these different areas of business and political economy ("the art of economics," which is the application of accepted, economic principles and to normative goals of what policies should be implemented) would create not only knowledgeable and prepared businessmen, but also active, aware and participating citizens.

I find it interesting that the Board of Commissioners believed that kids at the age of 15 are ready to attend the university. Today, kids at the age of 15 are beginning high school and are far from ready to go to college. However, the lifespan in 1818 was much different than it is today and the country needed young scholars to be ready to take on the challenges of the country as soon as it was possible.

This statement intrigued me because it ties together intelligence and social interactions, which don't always go hand in hand. I think it shows that even from the beginning, the purpose of the university was to help students become educated and respectable enough to be successful contributors to society. I think it shows that the mission of the school was to produce young adults that would make marks on history, much like its founder. I think it's funny that currently UVA has a reputation of being uppity and pretentious because of its academic prestige, and this statement shows that the founders, in some sense, wanted it to be that way.

I found this statement particularly interesting because of the use of the word "youth." It reminded me that UVA's first students were around fifteen upon their arrival. We begin our first years as young adults, having gone through roughly thirteen years of prior education and eighteen years of prior life experience. I wonder how differently we would all turn out as adults had we gotten here three years ago. When it says "enlarge their minds cultivate their morals" I think about how these first students were probably much more impressionable than we are (not to say we are completely mature), so these values were probably more prominent at that time than they are today.

I believe these two sentences to be very contradictory. The Board of Commissioners wants the University of Virginia to be a place of healthiness and fertility, yet they also believe it needs to be located in an area with a population of white people only. Leaving out African-Americans only hinders the learning experiences of everyone in the university as they won't be able to learn from other peoples' perspectives. Also, not providing African-Americans' an education only hurts the country because educating more people creates more growth for the country. However, we have to put the time period into perspective and in 1818 slaves were not even considered people, which provides the reason for why they were not allowed an education but does not excuse the ignorance and racism by the Board of Commissioners.

Debates similar to this still continue today. Many people still question whether it is better to go to college or a trade school and whether it is better to go to private schools, public schools, or to be home schooled. The fact that this continues to be a topic of debate means that it is something that is complicated and most likely does not have a concrete answer. I having these differences in opinions means that there should be options of all types like we have now because different types of education will be better depending on the individuals.

According to a quick google search, "$350 in the year 1818 is equivalent to $6,479.25 in 2017." This is a small sum of money considering UVA has since spent millions on construction and redoing dorms. A large part of this discrepancy in expenses is likely due to the fact that slave labor was used to build UVA originally which means the only expenditures would be on materials. Nowadays a large percentage of the budget for a construction job is allocated to paying the workers rather than purchasing material meaning that UVA would have been hugely more expensive had slaves not been utilized. I am curious if UVA could have been built to the same level of grandeur (or even at all) if the laborers had been paid as it would have been a much more expensive project and may not have had adequate funds.

The idea that the fertility of the soil was such a prominent factor in the location of the university is interesting to note as it reminds the reader of the time at which UVA was founded. UVA is by no means an agricultural school today, however, in the 1800s every school required an aspect of agriculture as that is how students got their food. Students now seem to have a hard time envisioning the gardens as anything other than study spots and areas where fancy receptions are held, but realistically they once served a far more practical and important role that has been almost entirely lost over the past 200 years.

It's interesting to note the absence of Asian languages. The only languages appearing are European, which is troublesome. If the university at the time wanted to expand its students knowledge of the world, Asian languages should have been included: Arabic and Chinese.

This statement is very powerful because it exhibits one of the university's most important goals. I thought this statement was particularly important because the university recognizes good moral characters and showing compassion to others, which is a crucial trait for an individual to possess.

Although UVA has gone through many changes throughout the past 200 years, like opening up the university to women and people of color, there are many ideas and goals that are still present at UVA. The community of trust and the Green Dot Program are both examples of how the object, "To understand his duties to his neighbours...," is still seen today. The fact that many of the objectives that Jefferson had for the university when he wrote this report shows how he was capable of creating an institution with values that remain relevant throughout time.

It is important and intentional that the first objectives of education in the entire document all have to do with engaged citizenship and morals. Each of these objects aims to shape students into more competent and active community members with thoughtful opinions and the ability act out of the betterment of society with their knowledge. I think that this is something well reflected in the engagements curriculum as we strive to understand different modes for perceiving the world around us rather than striving to gain skills. Our practice with critically reflecting on knowledge will help us apply knowledge and skills gained as engaged citizens both now and in the future.

I find this paragraph interesting because, despite fine attention to details of professional fields, Jefferson leaves much of the university's future unsettled in order to foster an institution that will change in order to best meet the needs of the students and of society as a whole. Despite diction that trivializes the arts as only auxiliary and for "amusement and happiness," Jefferson acknowledges that it is important to have passions and interests in a vast array of subjects, as opposed to one vocational path. This has fostered UVa students over the past two centuries to engage in a range of interests and helps shape well rounded students.

"Sumptuary" is defined as "relating to or denoting laws that limit private expenditure on food and personal items" (Google search). The fact that this is an archaic term in our current dialect reminds that this document was written in a different cultural era; thus, the language of the document is subject to a dialect different from that of present day. This cautions against reading the document literally; it should be translated with contemporary dialect to extract true meaning. Beyond linguistics, the idea of limiting private expenditure does not seem to be integral to life on UVA campus today. The meal plans are generous, but there is no determent to spending one's money at any restaurant or store on or off campus. In fact, adding plus dollars is encouraged and advertisements for businesses near campus (i.e. the Corner) are commonplace. Would Thomas Jefferson see this as a problem?

It is a powerful claim to allot the ability to change the innate personality of a person to Education. This suggests that Thomas Jefferson and the Commissioners agreed with the idea in the field of personality psychology known as malleability--the ability of one's personality to change throughout their lifetime. This is an interesting facet since it was not until later in psychology research that studies began supporting the malleability of personality through one's life. Enlightenment thought, which had great influence on Thomas Jefferson, is a likely source of this innovative perspective on personality relative to his time. However, today, most researchers would not support the idea that time spent in a university could so drastically shift a "vicious & perverse" person to one who has "qualities of virtue"; they would argue change would only happen very gradually over a lifetime. It seems the claim that the college curriculum could transform a person could have come from an overexcitement for the potential of the university.

This sentence is trying to show how important education is, and they did so with a rather cruel example.It is saying that without education, we would just be like the Native Indians, which are "barbaric", "wretched", and just wants to eat acorns and roots all day. Without education, it is sticking to the past. With education, we look forward into the future.

This sentence shows the horrifying reason when choosing the location of University of Virginia. Although we do not like to admit this, but UVA was founded on racism. However, this also shows how far UVA has changed since then. Back during those times, white supremacy was common. Now, as most of the country's perspective changed, so has UVA.

It's incredible to think how much one professor had to handle during these times. It would certainly have been impressive to learn under one of the professors, and I think that the professor-student community feel would be a lot stronger. However, I am much happier in the current area, where there are many professors that teach essentially one or two classes. I think that it shows how differentiated our studies become as we dig deeper into these origin subjects. They are very straightforward, but seem to be too broad to really holistic in their field. The change of these subjects to the courses we have today also illuminate our current values as a contemporary society, just like these portray an image of practicality only in education to me.

This is a prime example of why it is so complicated to assess the moral nature of our forefathers. As with Thomas Jefferson, many of our forefathers displayed almost explicit discrimination but also offered logic that made sense whenever it was independent of race, gender, or other demographic aspect. Here, they show obvious racism through their tone of supremacist ideology when referring to the indigenous nature here, most likely being the Native Americans. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering the report already based the school's location on white supremacy. The authors use cold and degrading words to describe the Native Americans, which can only make one scowl in modern times. However, one should agree that they make fair points about education being the key to progression and that looking forward is the best way to bring about growth. This is sound logic when liberated from the supremacy bias of the authors.

To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express & preserve his ideas, his contracts & accounts in writing. I find this emphasis by the Commissioner very interesting. As the author of Independence, Thomas Jefferson was known for his ability to eloquently articulate the sentiment of the colonial public and those pushing for revolution in the Continental Congress. Beyond that, his writing skills carried him to the Presidency. He was a scholar and dynamic citizen due to this passion to constantly evolve his education. There is no doubt that the ability to write is a freedom of its own. To not only organize one's own thoughts, but others as well during the democratic writing process, is a unique and necessary strength to foster intellectual discovery. As a young university, UVA would want to immediately leave its mark on American society to create alumni who would strive in interpreting information, making their own determinations, and use such knowledge and experience to write. The influence of Jefferson and his emphasis on the necessity of exceptional writing skills is shown on the Commissioners as they state that it provides one with independence and self-sustainability.

I find the offering of the branch of learning known as "Political economy" at the University of Virginia's conception fascinating. Less than a century after Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, was written in 1776, this branch of learning must have been extremely influential on the young minds of those entering UVA. Political economy, known as the art of economics, is the application of both positive economics (what is observable, universal principles and facts) and normative economics (what the goals of government action for example should be when interfering in the market). This branch of learning must have been just as pioneering as Smith's writings about the theory of the free market, division of labor/specialization, and the praise of the colonial American economy. I am curious as to what this branch of study would have composed of, especially since it is such a subjective matter. Would Jefferson have pushed for the teaching of Smithian free market principles such as those his Democratic-Republicans advocated for? Would beliefs in free markets with government intervention limited only to promote safety, certainty, and expanding the extent of the market be fostered at UVA? Or would the Political economy of Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, be more commonplace? Would the study promote protectionist measures to promote American industry so resources could be forced to flow from agriculture to industrialized urban areas to modernize the young nation? Would establishments like a National Bank be supported? My best guess would be that the former's principles for how the art of economics should be practiced would triumph due to the Smithian influence on UVA forefathers such as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The very fact that this study was offered must have been a trailblazing aspect for its day, especially since it was offered only a few decades after Smith popularized the concept of Political economy.

This line is completely damning evidence of the authors' inherent classism, favoring to avoid building a hospital simply because the poor would, in their minds, overrun it. "Medicine... cannot well be [taught] without the accessory of a hospital," the report states, underscoring that hospitals are foundational to the pedagogy of medicine as they provide students with tangible medical experience. Yet, in the same breath, the report says that the University of Virginia is unable to support a hospital in its infancy because of "the numbers of poor, who would leave their own houses, and accept the charities of an hospital." This language presents Charlottesville's impoverished people as mere dependents looking for handouts, opting to live in the hospital rather than their own homes. And, to make matters worse, the authors propose that the way to prevent this problem is to hire a single professor to teach both the medicine and anatomy classes, which constructs a complete contradiction between the value they place on medicine and the fiscal backing they propose for UVA's medical division — all because the poor would flood the hospital, should the University allocate the money needed for construction.

This passage, in the grand scheme of the report, is rather unsettling: In a document that sets out to determine the foundation of the University of Virginia, the authors make a tangental quip against Native Americans, deriding not only their faculties of intelligence but also their practices and customs. The construction of the beginning of the first sentence — "What, but education..." — posits schooling as the sole reason why white settlers overcame Native Americans, making the argument that the Commonwealth must prioritize educating its youth so that posterity doesn't match their dismal view of Native Americans' civility. Moreover, the authors neglect to acknowledge the innumerable injuries that deterred indigenous populations' ability to succeed — like, for instance, forced migration, the introduction of European diseases, or theft of resources. The authors, then, deride and dehumanize Native Americans, writing that the indigenous peoples are enslaved to "barbarism and wretchedness," and yearn for society to "return to the days of eating acorns and roots" just like animals do. Such condescending and vicious words do not logically belong in a report calling for the foundation of a university — and, yet, the fact that this racist sidebar was included in "Rockfish Gap" means that the authors believed a meditation on Native Americans' perceived-savagery would appeal to the General Assembly's reception of the document.

The faculties part of this line I mainly agree with but after reading this line my first question that came into mind is to improve his morals to whose standards? Saying someone has good morals is a very subjective idea. Some people may have an entirely different idea of what are good morals compared to others. In the context of the time and creation of this document good morals could also include owning slaves and treating women indecently. Of course this document is more of a living document that changes with the times but the vagueness of this sentence should be noted. And that may of been the point.

Reading this passage really puts into perspective how UVA has changed over time in regards to its medical program. It makes me curious as to what lead to the University and it's medical school becoming so prominent and extensive. UVA hospital is now second to none in the state and well known throughout the country and something like that doesn't start from nothing. To think we the medical part of the university has come so far is astounding.

When reading this, it disturbed me to see how the Board of Commissioners decided to put this statement here. Preceding this sentence is a list of property and while slaves were treated as property during this time, it's very unsettling to actually see human beings being listed under a section of the document as property. It's also interesting to note that "Slaves" is capitalized in this statement. Even though I'm not sure why "Slaves" is capitalized, I'm highly certain it has a significant purpose, and a different meaning than if it wasn't capitalized.

My initial reaction is one of disgusted surprise, like I have been asked to try a new food so many people have raved about but it turns out the taste is rather gross. I have come to this University ignorant of its roots. This line displays the importance of knowing our history. It is crucial to be aware of one's past in order to improve in the future. The taste of racism is obviously still apparent at this University and all over the country. This is a reminder that this problem isn't new, and is absolutely time to find a solution.

This line bring me to my Engagement course this quarter, The Individual and Society. The individual goes to college and pursues a unique education and liberation of self in order to be functioning within the context of a society most likely less unique and less liberated than he is. This line wouldn't fly today, in a discussion about education. Today, we go to school in order to escape society and become completely singular, to become individual in the most literal sense of the word. Today, in this increasingly utilitarian and relativist culture, functioning in a community is not as important as gaining knowledge for its own sake and discovering truth for yourself.

My initial reaction is one of disgusted surprise, like I have been asked to try a new food so many people have raved about but it turns out the taste is rather gross. I have come to this University ignorant of its roots. This line displays the importance of knowing our history. It is crucial to be aware of one's past in order to improve in the future. The taste of racism is obviously still apparent at this University and all over the country. This is a reminder that this problem isn't new, and is absolutely time to find a solution.

I found this passage really interesting because it shows that their initial vision has remained a part of our university. These details describe the lawn as it appears now very accurately, even after renovating original structures. I think this shows that UVA respects its traditions and values the vision of its founders. It's a nice representation that both literally and metaphorically the students and staff are at the center of the university.

It is great to see that although the university emphasizes the liberal arts, it realizes the importance of mathematics and science. In addition, it's surprising to see how much new languages have been added as a result of immigration to America. Lastly, it's interesting to see the different subcategories for mathematics such as military mathematics and architecture.

This sentence is extremely shocking, yet not surprising considering the time period the university was built at. By building the university around a White population it displays the university's ties with racism and slavery. In addition, it is also noteworthy that even to this day, African-Americans are still outnumbered by White students.

I think in light of recent events it is very easy to see UVA as one of the more progressive universities in the state, and we often pride ourselves on our diversity and our resistance to racism. However, saying that the University of Virginia was built on racism is not an exaggeration. It was literally the deciding factor when choosing where to establish the school. I cannot say I'm surprised that this was taken into such serious consideration given the time period, but it is pretty unsettling to envision our school as a racially biased institution at any point in history.

It is interesting how similar debates about education carry on today about whether private schools or homeschooling is better and about what subjects should be taught. The idea of students having experience in a variety of subjects and becoming well rounded is an idea from this report that also persists today. The fact that we are still trying to figure out the best forms of education shows how education is not just black and white and that there is no single form that will work for everyone.

Unlike their plan to keep the university all white, the board's suggestions for the structure and planning of the buildings stood the test of time. The reason that these plans were and still remain successful is because the arrangement of the buildings and the lawn foster a sense of academic growth as well as a tight-knit community. It is crazy to see how the layout of the lawn today has not changed very much from the original layout that the founders had planned for. This adds to the historic importance of the university and the strong tradition it holds.

This part of the report highlights how evident racism was during these times. Although it seems wrong for the location of the school to be chosen on a basis such as the "centrality to the white population", it is understandable considering that all the students attending the university at the time were whites. Despite the motives of the university's founding fathers, the university as well as Albemarle County has become much more diverse.

In modern day, 15 years old seems premature for college--first years would be too young for a license, to vote, to give legal consent, even to watch 'R' movies! However, back in the early 1800s, 15 years of age was a completely different stage of life. Legacy.com lists the average life expectancy of the population of the U.S. for the first half of the 19th century as 37 years old (Life and Death in the Antebellum Period). Although the mean life expectancy of the white males intended for the university would have exceeded this average, 15 years was still a larger chunk of their lives than it would be of the people's lives today. The students attending in the 1800s would need to obtain a higher education earlier on in life in order to take over their father's role as a provider--a father that would be retiring proportionally early. Yet, physiologically the 15 year old male's brain in the 1800s was at the same level of development as a 15 year old male in present day. Thus as life expectancy increased, the opportunity to start university students later on in their development was jumped on. Description

Throughout history a signature has carried an extreme amount of weight both legally and socially. By emphasizing that each member signed the document it gives the document validity as well as expresses that each member backs the argument made. The detail that the signatures were made in each member's proper handwriting makes the event of signing far more official and meaningful as the signatures are not casually written. Once a member has signed, their name is forever connected to the endeavor and they will be held at least partially responsible for any outcomes which motivates signers to give their all to the University.

The formation of the University directly resembles the formation of the United States government. The aspects that the founding fathers were forced to consider are also valuable to consider when forming any sort of organization, for example, a university. Both the United States government and the University of Virginia developed a protocol for problems such as what to do if a leader can no longer serve. By thinking of the school as a type of governing body it sets up the heads of the school to deal with immediate problems as well as the future problems that Jefferson could not even imagine.

It is interesting that, despite the specificity of the document in describing the physical and academical structure of the school, no definite structure is given for the governing of students. This was left open for discussion because the founders of UVa believed in the character, ambitions, and "moral dispositions" of the students who would attend this school as sufficient for correcting behaviors. This belief is still evident in UVa's honor system and strong sense of student self-governance.

Although the university has changed quite a bit in its values, priorities, and structure since this document was written, I believe this statement still rings true and is vital to everything we do at UVa. Becoming more aware citizens is an integral part of our higher education experience. This spirit of civic engagement is especially palpable in our engagements courses, as we strive to better understand our society and our place in it as citizens.

The specific word choice in this line immediately invokes a popular philosophy of the time (early 1800s): the Manifest Destiny. This doctrine stated that the US expansion was inevitable, and right. No doubt, Thomas Jefferson's plans for the university were influenced by these ideals; Jefferson's Louisiana purchase during his presidency exemplifies his accordance with and support of the belief. This right to expand would have inspired Jefferson to create an institution that could produce individuals that would then go on and spread their knowledge to new frontiers. Thus, the curriculum would need to reflect the knowledge the assembly wanted to be spread through the entire nation, and possibly other parts of the globe.

Yet another example of the moral irony in this document. One goal of this new University was to teach student how to grow in their morals and instill proper virtues in them. The irony is implicit in the document, however, it seems to say "you can learn these things as long as you are of the race we see fit to learn".

I find this moral irony interesting; on one hand the Commissioners are interested in a location's centrality to a white population in order to found a school for such a population, but are also making sure to prevent money from becoming the driving force behind the University.