Language is the base of human society. In the engagement course of Extinction in Art&Literature, we read Berger's essay: Why Look At Animals? In his essay, Berger states:"Between to men the two abysses are, in principle, bridged by language." Here, the abysses are the abyss of non-comprehension. And, Berger later suggests that language allows human to confirm each other and to reckon with each other as with themselves. Language is what distinguishes men from other species and the force which binds human together as a species. Therefore, I think it is necessary for us to understand how to construct language and the beauty of language. From language, what we can find is human nature.

This statement inspires me a lot. I think this is exactly how education changes me. The value of education does not only lie in the fact that it teaches us knowledge about the world we live in, but it also turns us into a completed human being. By "completed human being", I mean a human being who can interact with this world in a more rational way and who can build a unique relationship with society. In addition,without education, we will never know how to use our nature in a way which creates beauty for this world. It is education teaches us how to write, so that we can express our feelings by poem. It is education teaches us how to use science to break our limits, so that we can turn our curiosity into a space station. I think this is why we need education. More than teaching us facts, education compensate to our human nature, so that we become stronger and stronger.

This mentality is still true to some degree today however is evovling . Some people still regard education to be the only way to get successful. However with the invention of the internet, anyone can gain knowledge about anything. Universities are not the only way to get educated.

All of these components are not only part of the Arts and Sciences now, but are deeply integrated into the New College Curriculum. One must take an engaging ethical, empirical, aesthetic, and differences class. All of these aid in cultivating a well rounded student as the founders of this university hoped.

This is a really interesting point from Thomas Jefferson as he implies that in order to truly be deemed worthy in society you have to be educated in many various topics.

I believe that the way in which the students at UVA learn those fundamental beliefs of our government are deeply impacted by the idea of student self-governing that is promoted on Grounds. This is a more hands-on approach to learning about something so important than what other universities may do, I think.

Even now, mostly western, Latin-based languages are taught widely to students, despite the importance and usefulness of other global languages, such as Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese), Arabic, Russian, Japanese, and more. I think our strange attachment to European origins and languages has limited our growth because language is easily the first step to opening yourself to other cultures and mindsets. Furthermore, languages, like Italian or Greek, as wonderful as they may be, have a very limited capability of use. If those languages are taught, so should other less regionally-wide languages. For example, Nepali was not taught in any college I applied. When I later looked it up, the only public source of Nepali language learning was from Cornell; the power of Western education can either expand or make a language disappear.

It is ironic how at this time, the founders already knew the ramifications of fear as a motive, yet only applied this to people of the University who were to embark on academic study. At the time, slavery had begun to lie on the conscience of many people across the nation. Manumissions were offered to those who desired to free their slaves for moral reasons. Thomas Jefferson, however, feared granting freedom to slaves, because he feared that slaves would in turn rebel. He essentially supported instilling fear within enslaved people to render them at a hopeless stance in society, and only limiting the resources of the University to white males.

Seeing a different spelling of the word "instill" just reminded me of a TV show where the criminal is found guilty through textual fingerprinting. You could tie someone to their style of writing and learn a lot about them, such as the decade they were most likely born, to be exposed to certain grammatical/word styles, their regionality, etc. If anyone knows the name of the tv show, please let me know! I forgot it, and can't seem to find it online. But, overall, I bet there are several words in the report, and certainly the writing style immediately points out to the time period this was written.

I found this passage particularly striking and relevant even today. The fact that the university recognized the lack of privilege but untapped abundance of potential in people as young as 15 and wanted to cultivate that within them gives me so much hope that this institution is truly a benevolent force working even to better the lives of those who may have been neglected due to status. While the premise is vastly different, as these individuals would be classically trained for Latin or Greek and then offered admittance (not to mention it was a boy's club), now we have the community college program that has changed so many of my friends' lives. It is truly heartening to see that this is a common theme that has spanned the entire duration of the University.

This phrase seems so paradoxical in the larger context of the report because they want to teach about government, law, and its equal rights, yet this very document would lead to laws and rules not equal in rights, in race and gender ,at UVA. It's interested the moral implications one has to make to justify being proudly "equal", while rejecting huge populations. I know peer pressure and norms play into it, but I wonder if people, even in that ignorance, truly believe it.

It is fascinating how the commissioners could foresee the benefits of the sciences in society. Even though they already seemed to have a grasp on the consequences of technological advancement, they do not truly fathom the changes which would come. This statement also delivers a clear stance as to the purpose of the University, which is to essentially improving society, and creating a better system.

I vividly remember learning in my engagement that students were permitted to beat slaves, I remember the story of the student that beat a 10 year old black girl for saying "what" as he felt she wasn't respecting or addressing him correctly. Is this justice? Is this hat a good student is meant to learn? Is this action enlightening? On Grounds, this was normal, but my biggest question was why this was enforced. How does abusing others make you a person of justice?

This particular phrasing, "degree of centrality to the white population which constituted the important point of comparison between these places" was startling to me and once I began to read more into it, both puzzling and disturbing. I was puzzled at how one might measure the "degree" of the white population, be it census or by general surveying of the area by a designated determiner. Also, I would like to know how the prospect of utilizing slavery and access to viable workers played into this particular phrasing or if there was literally no regard for anything in terms of demographics except for the white audience that it could reach. What disturbed me deeply about this particular phrasing for the determination of location is the fact that these nuances on which our esteemed university was erected upon are not discussed, and furthermore contradicted what I had thought was the University's aim at this point in history, which was to reach many walks of life in the name of higher learning.

It really comes to no surprise to me that education was established to serve the white upper class. What did surprise me was how blatant this report states it; I would have at least expected that one of this nation's Founding Fathers would try to uphold his very own words that "all men are created equal". By stating that the University should be more accessible to white people directly, this implies the Rockfish Gap Report was written to solely be seen by white people, the university will be run by them, funded by them and attended by them. I see no hope for any equality or growth within these conditions.

This shows an interesting historical shift in education. I think it's really interesting to note the importance of military in education back then versus today when something like ROTC is not the common path for students. However, it's also interesting how Virginia has maintained the understood value of a liberal arts education, placing emphasis on arts and athletics, knowing that a student should be well-rounded.

This is actually incredibly amazing that the founders decided to put together historical and political classes. I wish I had the time to take an elective that specifically did this for a period of history, knowing that so much of history is created by the political climate of the people. I feel like this variety of class would accomplish something very akin to what the University is currently trying to achieve with the New Curriculum: synthesizing ideas and departments to create a broader understanding of a chosen topic. For example, my class on the Morality of Mortality beautifully combined the ethics of dying with intimate sociology and even a few historical/cultural perspectives. It takes quite a palette of knowledge to understand something as deep and complex as history, and no student ever walks away with a positive experience just by memorizing names and dates. Instead, if they are cultivated with an understanding of what caused an event to occur, the knowledge is that much more ingrained in their education.

The subjects that the board chose to be taught at the university are still subjects quite important in today's education system. There are slight variations, but still all the same. It is common for the relevance of a subject to increase or decrease with respect to scientific and societal innovation. A modern example is computer science skills. Basic knowledge of computer applications is becoming essential in many career areas.

While the board wants to keep the community close, they also make a wise decision in limiting the amount a students in a given area on grounds. More specifically in the dorm areas. A community where everyone supports one another is great, but overcrowding and minimal privacy can inhibit a student's success.

This is a very interesting quote to point out knowing Jefferson's roots and his education at William & Mary. Coming from Williamsburg, I know quite a bit about the local history of the town and the college, as well as monuments that surround what students there call the "Ancient Campus." One of the only still-standing original buildings on the main square is the school they used to assimilate Native Americans into white culture. The school was finished in 1763, while Jefferson was first enrolled in 1760. The entire concept of this school is repulsive, but perhaps this is what influenced Jefferson's line of thought when he had this detail on the Native Americans incorporated into the document. Otherwise, it seems like a dead-end addendum.

This being the first of the "objects" labels it as the most important goal for the university in my opinion. Obviously, business had a different definition centuries ago, but the tradition of preparing its students has carried on. It is evident today that this is the case with the world class education that the university still provides for the students. The students who graduate from this prestigious university are generally all capable of taking on the real world when they graduate, as was Jefferson's wish.

While there are some more obvious references to the value of religious diversity at UVa, I think that this statement is a more subtle hint that shows the true intentions of the founders. UVa was the first University in America that was not constructed for religious purposes. This was revolutionary for the time, because UVa was the first University to focus more on sciences and liberal arts rather than theology. This is apparent in this statement that simply notes that other buildings would be made in which people could practice religion under "impartial regulations". While this stance is somewhat contested, as UVa probably supported different sects of Christianity as opposed to true religious diversity, it did give a starting point for the University to grow in acceptance. I think that today, most people value religious diversity and hope to see it continue to expand here at UVa.

It's fascinating that the founders held this view about punishment and education, labeling fear as "degrading". Obviously, the idea of corporal punishment is something that lasted in schools far longer than this document, and still is an issue today. I think their specific focus on fear is ironic, however. The founders stressed that University was a positive environment for students to develop. On the other hand, slavery was extremely prominent at the University at this time and it is safe to assume that fear tactics were used often with slaves.

I am not surprised that the university was founded at its location because of its proximity to the majority white population. It hasn't really changed that much now because the white population is still the majority now. UVA has to change that and try to diversify its students population even more. Computing ID: ioo2ud

I appreciate the honesty UVA had with the fact that they were incapable at the moment to successfully prepare future doctors. Although they did not have the resources to do so at that moment, they put it in their future plans. It is amazing to see the progress that has been made from then till now. Computing ID : ioo2ud

The fact that only one professor was responsible for teaching medicine at the University of Virginia is extremely eye-opening considering the prestige of the medical school now. In this time period, having only one professor would have probably implied that graduating class sizes were smaller which thus gives students a more personalized view of medicine. This claim of smaller graduating class sizes is also corroborated by the overarching university policy regarding the targeted demographic as being white, males: a proportion of the entire population targeted today.

However, this practice also makes the university extremely reliant on this one professor, depending on him alone to train the next generation of doctors at the University of Virginia. Moreover, when this sole faculty member is compared to the current multitude of staff that UVA’s peers had devoted to medicine, it really puts prestige and quality of education in perspective. It begs the questions: could one TRULY achieve a proper medical education at the University of Virginia? Would it be better to attend an equally (or more) prestigious school with more resources?

This statement in the Rockfish Gap Report serves as an indicator of progress in the medical field at the University of Virginia: an entire faculty of PhDs teaching what a sole professor could.

I find it interesting that the founders of the University of Virginia decided to include this portion about the poor population when analyzed in the context of their targeted population being white males: a predominantly wealthy demographic. Potentially, this could be some insight from Thomas Jefferson who passionately believed in this idea of the universal student: a student who has received tutelage in a wealth of different subjects no matter their socioeconomic status. In relationship to this idea, this stipulation in the Rockfish Gap Report makes sense; the University of Virginia would not be purposeful if it was just for the rich white males (a common stigmatization even today). Seeking to teach both the rich white males and poor white males alike, this model serves as the basis of the goal of the University of Virginia: to teach students in a manner that aligns with Jefferson’s ideology of the universal student.

Perhaps the most eloquent moment of the report thus far, the founders of UVA acknowledge the capacity for everyone to learn, and reasons to think those less "cultivated" will indeed continue to produce "sour & bitter fruit" unless a quality education changes their fortunes. The founders emphasize that man is NOT fixed, which ties into the psychological concept of a fixed vs growth mindset (of which growth correctly states that intelligence is not fixed and is hugely subject to change. The fact that the founders, as expressed above, consider the unfair advantage of those who can capitalize on their "private & individual effort" and push the argument of a public institution accessible to even those less cultivated, is a testament to the forward thinking and encouragement of freedom that TJ and UVA are known for.

The founders here point out the extraordinary advances in academia in the past 50 years, an era referred to now as The Enlightenment. The authors have attributed these successes to people harnessing more of "the purposes of man" largely through education, and by doing so, improving comforts of life as well as making the bare necessities easier to acquire. The founders have found a good amount of truth in the Enlightenment, and (later on) will systematically place these positive ideas into the conception of the university. This is all under the premise that things are getting better, and will continue to do so by creating new, better systems by which to live.

I picked up a little sarcasm in this line when read along with the paragraph before it, making fun of the native's tendencies to follow the directions from ancestors in the past rather than cultivate their own futures. However, this one sentence is very interesting to me because it also can be taken realistically by someone who reads it. It basically establishes that the rules of their forefathers, like encroaching on land that is not your own and taking what is not yours, are the keys to maintaining a future. It is blatantly justifying any actions of this sort under a veil that they are for "science and improvement" and in the "awful reverence... of our fathers." Read alone, it creates a basis for all actions that were taken in history, but put together within it's own paragraph it completely contradicts itself and makes fun of the natives and their customs.

This line really stuck out to me as prominent because it goes so well with the values our economy and democracy hold today, showing favoritism for big businesses and agribusiness. Companies like Monsanto have so much leverage with politicians and are completely corrupting so much of our country. Our "public industry" is really only accessible to a few people in power, and I find it interesting that these ideals of free market and promoting agriculture go so far back- little did the writers of this document know how the growth of these industries would come to control a nation.

I wouldn't imagine there to be much of a difference of opinion at the time that couldn't be resolved. All the opinions came from people who were in similar social standings or were white men, as none other mattered. Not to say that they could not disagree to each other as they most likely had different views of education, but there probably wasn't much variance in the opposing thoughts themselves. Also, this does show how hard it must have been to actually decide what courses would be taught when there was not much of a precedent set before them. Creating a courseload that suited the men of Virginia at the time must have required thought on what would better them and set them up for a brighter future.

This is certainly a statement that has been proven wrong in many ways and it is good that they were aware of man's capability of changing. I also see a fair bit of irony in this sentence fragment, and the rest that follows, in the way that much of the change that we have seen over the University's history has been away from the norms of the founder's time. I believe that as a society we value the human ability to change our nature more so than most of our other qualities, and to think that people at that time were persuaded otherwise is very interesting. I wonder if the rate of change in the society they knew, was similar to the way it is today (I'm inclined to say no.)

This first part is slightly troubling to me because on the one hand I agree with the fact that French is an important language to teach when dealing with the pursuit of the sciences, but there are also other equally important languages as well. Yes the Enlightenment largely took place in France and was lead by many French scientists and philosophers, the Golden Age of Islam also gave way to some of the earliest scientific breakthroughs. There was a time when Arabic was the language of science. It was even during this time that physicist Ibn al-Haytham discovered the scientific method! Although French is rich in a similar way, there is no one language of intercourse in the world. We should continue to foster the learning of all languages to create an even more globally connected society.

It is interesting to read the document that outlined what the original UVA student should expect to learn while enrolled at the University. These days you hardly hear somebody say, "Oh I want to improve my morals and faculties by reading." Instead they talk about how they want to be a doctor or a stock broker or start their own small business. It is rather refreshing to read that once upon a time it was the norm for institutions of higher education to put emphasis on how to be a good, ethical citizen rather than on how to find the integral of a polynomial. It is apparent that the University saw civic engagement as a crucial component of a UVA education. Knowing how to interact with coworkers/neighbors/bosses is sometimes a more important skill than one would think.

Though I can appreciate the freedom of religion connoted with this phrasing, I find it odd that there was no open establishment of religious education. It makes sense that religion be taught under the ethical umbrella of curriculum. But it is quite possible to teach about religions without being controversial and I'm surprised the founders did not see this opportunity initially.

After thinking about it, I suppose drawing might be useful in military planning- drawing up battle strategies and visually depicting how war materials should be organized. But military education doesn't seem to immediately necessitate for skills in the drawing department. Whatever the case may be, I find it fascinating that these elective-type activities are given such thought and priority. And not just for well-rounded educations but to serve an apparently necessary purpose for later careers, even though the skills are dancing and drawing.

It seems intriguing that since day one, UVA has been especially concerned with its own history. Here, the founders are discussing which subjects to teach based on importance. It is determined that German is important due to our language's (English) historical connection with German. Decisions are made at UVA based off its roots. I'm curious if this is something unique to this university or not. Today, we study how UVA came to be and make connections between our university's history and its present progress today. I appreciate how much UVA considers its own history and the history of the culture surrounding it. It's probably one of the reasons it has evolved so much. Those who don't study history most likely aim to change less.

I find this surprising actually. I would have expected the focus to be solely on curriculum- basically just outlining the essentials for students to learn. Even today more people have questioned whether endless gyms and dining halls is really required of a university for students to learn. I would never have thought that these sorts of luxury accommodations would enter the conversation.

The founders of the University decided to make UVA a selective school even before it was ranked or have its standards established in the country. In my opinion, the qualifications for entrance have only increased over the years making it hard for many to enroll to UVA. On the other hand, the university was to be one of the top in the nation due to the founder's decision to have regular examinations and honor degrees for students based on their time and character at the university. The idea of different days and hours for different schools within UVA still holds true today showing passing of tradition.

It is very interesting to see how the founders of the University thought of the best mode of government to handle misconducts. I found it very surprising how aspects of improvement (such as pride of character, moral disposition) were preferred over fear. In addition, why would they think that fear would be ineffective at this certain stage in life and not earlier such as in high school? Nevertheless, this notion still holds true today. Authority figures would be more willing to use corporal punishment/fear as a motivation for students at earlier in life but use more understanding techniques in college due to more mature minds.

I keep returning to this part of the passage, more so for its current relevance than anything else. Especially in this past school year, the University has made a distinct effort to allow different opinions to be voiced. While this lassiez-faire sentiment fits with the first part of this clause, interpretation of the condition that people should be left to do "whatever does not violate the equal rights of another" facilitates room for a bit more discussion (if not controversy). When UVA doesn't aggressively and actively prevent hateful speech, not only in the case of the August protests but also in the multiple situations in which hateful remarks towards religious or ethic minorities have been posted/written around grounds, then how are the equal rights of those minority students being protected? As the one who famously changed Locke's natural right to property into a right to the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, Jefferson demonstrated if nothing else hope for the future that people would retain the freedom to pursue happiness as they wish. I'd be curious to see how he would act today to protect speech and/or support students in the 21st century who aren't made to consistently feel welcomed/safe at the University.

This paragraph especially seems to support the idea that higher education was intended to be a public good. While at the time it seemed obvious that providing opportunities would better a society by ensuring a better informed electorate and more competent future leaders, perspective on universities today has sharply changed. In modern society, college is frequently treated as a private good, assuming that the success of the individual takes priority. Higher education is now often reduced to merely a financial investment in which the return is a career. It would benefit many people today to look back at documents like these and consider the intrinsic value of a liberal arts approach to education not simply for the individual, but for the functioning of our democratic society as well.

I found this addition to the document intriguing and slightly amusing because Jefferson labels maturity and independence as a "preparatory provision," which I have a difficult believing would guarantee standard readiness for college. Furthermore, it was interesting that Jefferson planned on establishing another institute at a level of education below the university, similar to a high school, though from my 21st century perspective, I disagree with the promise of education to boys and men exclusively.

This statement resonates with me because while I agree that education is the key to becoming informed, contributing members of society, it also leaves me unsettled because of the implicit, colonialist tone of the sentence. Does Jefferson mean to imply that any individual without an education does not posses "qualities of virtue" or "social worth"? Additionally, I believe Jefferson forgets that education, though necessary, is a privilege and therefore, not accessible to all.

This line is quite interesting for its emphasis on the social relationships of the student as an important concept to consider when pursuing higher education. Even though America is based on mostly individualistic ideals, this document outlined multiple goals that seem to balance both individual values and societal duties. It's quite impressive, especially considering how this value attribution is still a hot sociological and philosophical debate right now.

This proposal caught my attention because it's extremely different from the religious environment during that period. From a bit of research on American religion, there seems to be great religious energy from 1700s onwards over Christianity. Early higher institutions often also have religious backgrounds. It surprises me that not only did UVA not adopt a religious background, but also didn't appoint a professor dedicated to this study. It seems to be a progressive act to combine divinity and religion into the subject of ethics. Even though the language itself implied strong indication of Christian faith, the actual decision is a step away from the common religious beliefs during that time period.

As a contrapoint (not counterpoint) to all the annotations that (correctly) point out that the founders of the University were sexist racists, I would to praise those founders for the otherwise excellent job they did coming up with plans, goals, and ideals for the University (this praise in addition to the condemnation for their sexism and racism). Aside from the fact that these plans would have been much better (and less hypocritical) if they had included women and those of other ethnicities/races, they were themselves very good plans. I would even say the goals and ideals are better than our current societal goals for education. Nowadays, paradoxically, society teaches that there is no absolute truth (which is itself an absolute statement); then it still supports all the truths taught in schools and universities. this makes no sense. Why say there is no truth and otherwise confirm that you think there is? The University founders laid down a well-thought-out plan whose aim was the betterment of society. Yes, they could have done better, but they did not do all bad. [source: we all wanted to come to UVA; this place is not terrible in its essence.] It's great that we're acknowledging the evils of our past and the sins of our forefathers, but we should not at that time also throw out all the good things they did. Implying or insinuating that the University founders don't deserve to have their whole story told, just because they were white men, is just as racist and sexist as they were.

As supplement, please check out this TED talk about "The danger of a single story."

Thanks!

All everyone seems to be able to talk about is how sexist and racist the University founders were. They are right, of course; but keep in mind that everyone was back then. It's a terrible truth about our past; as a white male myself, I'm ashamed of these aspects of these people and the society at large at that time. However this is only one side of the story. Here's a link to a TED talk my RA showed me and my suite about "The Danger of a Single Story." There are more things these people were than racists and sexists. There are more things these people did than racist and sexist discrimination. In my opinion, they did a fantastic job coming up with the plans, goals, and ideals for the University. Yes, they excluded women and those of other races. But, otherwise, their plans were very well thought out, and for the good of everyone (at least what they thought of as everyone) in society. Their ideals and goals are frankly probably a lot better than current cultural goals and ideals for higher education. Currently all society seems to care about are diversity, inclusion, and the idea that there is no absolute truth. Those first two are well and good, but the last makes no sense, especially because it itself is and absolute statement so it automatically disproves itself. A better goal would be to actually search for truth itself and to not say that everyone can define their own truth, because that goes against the definition of truth as "reality." You can't just decide that reality is different than it is and have it be so. Tangent aside, the University founders were trying to improve and give benefits to society. Yes, those benefits were not extended directly to everyone, but that does not mean they were purely evil sexist racists. They were sexist racists, but that wasn't all they were. They also did a lot of good. Please consider both sides of the story, and try your best to leave your modern and political biases at the door when examining and discussing a historical document. Thanks!

Originally learning about UVA’s more racist history, I was sadly surprised, but it made since, America’s past and being in the South. It’s always just the details that made it more gruesomely real- the fact that the centrality of whiteness was a key factor in deciding location. I looked on Google Maps of the other two location the founders were deciding on to see if perhaps they were more North, and that’s why they weren’t “white enough”. Instead, I saw they were more West and behind the mountainous Appalachian regions. I wonder what made those regions less white. Were there more indigenous people or was it more slaves in plantations? Or was there, in fact, a distinction between the more city and educated white folk versus the country white farmers and their stereotypes? Perhaps both?

Within this paragraph, the authors and early founders of UVA made several points on why education was necessary by countering some of the current one-sided beliefs of society, with some key words. Man was not stagnant and his improvements did not need to be a chimaera, or a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve. The other definition of chimaera is a fire-breathing monster from Greek mythology, which I think can be an interpretation that improvements to one’s morality and state of mind did not need to feel like some huge obstacle that we needed to face, but rather were very possible through knowledge. Then later, they speak about how the effects of education are not some far-fetched, optimistic, or “sanguine” hope, and marketing strategy, but a reality that is backed by proof. I found this all very interesting because, back then, education was still a point of debate, whereas now it’s one the most easily agreed solutions for a various of world problems.

I find this language to be quite sad honestly. As a literary man I don't see why he seemingly belittles the arts here as "innocent" and referring to people who "less inoffensively employ it." Strange how he kind of plays down the importance of art, but it makes sense him being a political figure and all and him being focused more on legislation. Plus uh art does way more than furnish amusement and happiness

Jefferson and the other authors are banking on the positive returns of education and all that the topic implies, they are sure of the benefit that will come from the university and that it should even exceed expectations "above all estimate." I really like this line as a transition from regarding the doubts and reasoning favorably with all the possibilities because this show of confidence implies that all is worth it, bad and good. The sense of education to which Jefferson is aspiring to is that which knows no bounds, is hard to define from day to day, and is so innovative and successful that it shall truly always be a sensible deal to keep such an institution around.

I found this to be a very important phrase, especially due to all that Charlottesville and the country as whole has been going through with all the acts of violence and racism. In addition it ties into Our Declaration and it's discussion of equality and liberty. Liberty can be seen in, " shall leave us free to do whatever," and equality can be seen in, " does not violate the equal rights of another." These two have a difficulties arranged relationship that must be reevaluated and calibrated often as times change.

I find it really interesting that one of the many things that the founders of the University considered was the way that the students were to be approached/governed. They realize that college will not only serve them through the classes that they attend, but will in fact impact the way they behave in the future and what type of people they become once they're fully a part of society.

It is evident throughout the document that the idea of government was and still remains one of the principal factors of this University. One of the most memorable, or unique, characteristics of UVA is the idea of student self-governance, but I did not realize that it had been a part of its backbone ever since the first few stages of its creation.

Meetings should move on by general rules, defined by the group itself. This is really interesting since the writers of this document such as Jefferson were the same as the writers of important government documents. And bodies such as Congress follow these same "general rules." Although the meetings at UVA are more informal and less strict than what was intended 200 years ago, they are still bound by this tradition. It is small practices such as this one that form the core of the university.

Self-governance has been at the core of the University of Virginia ever since its founding. It is remarkable to see that the spirit of honor and responsibility is still so active in the community. Students truly do take this attitude to heart. From the very start, students have shaped the ideals of their community at the University. Although the administration plays one role or another in almost every other sector of student life, they have left self-governance up to us. From the honor society to student council, we are in control. The real world is shaped by those who put in the effort to make it a better place. What better way to begin this initiative than at the collegiate level?

Visitors and a corporation should be under the style of Rector and Visitors of UVA (Visitors being students in this case). 200 years ago, the founders thought of a student governed bodies, which still stands today. Examples of these include the Student Council, University Judiciary Committee and even the clubs at UVA. It is amazing how tradition passes on. The positive traditions such as these have moved on while the negative ones (like gender & color segregation) have been gradually eliminated.

The school was only expecting to have male students. Which shouldn't come as a surprise because of the time period. It is only recent that women have been able to attend UVA.

It is very interesting to see that many of valuable subjects to learn at the time are still very important today. In modern times the methods of how these subjects are taught are more complex in the sense that multiple professors contribute to the teaching of a particular subject. Also in today's times there may be different courses under a key subject that focus on different aspects. The learning system that was in place at the start of the university seems to be ore structured , while today it is more flexible.

It is interesting to read that the founders of the University viewed civic engagement as something expected of all graduates. By receiving a multifaceted education, students were entrusted with a sense of responsibility to serve the community. This is rather unsurprising since many of the founders of the University were also founders of the nation. Leading others and engaging politically was something they viewed as a given. I am enthused to read these lines because I happen to share the same views. The founders saw education as the key to a politically engaged and active society.

While at first read this sentence appears to express that the plan for the university was to be based on the alliance of church and state. Upon closer analysis (and remembering Jefferson's stance on separation of church and state), it is clear that this statement refers to how the alliance of church and state actually prevents the pursuit of knowledge. It emphasizes how this alliance prevents the discovery of knowledge that goes against anything it believes. This further highlights Jefferson's commitment to separating his school from the church, and provides some of his reasoning for doing so.

The importance placed upon teaching the sciences is very apparent throughout the duration of the report. Science represented societal advancement, and essentially was believed to be a quintessential part in creating a free thinking individual.The fact that it was considered essential for the sciences to be taught under law reveals how essential it was for the board to create a certain line of thought considered more unique and advanced to their predecessors. This was most likely in part to also ensure the future of the new American republic.

I personally believe that this holds a very deep truth. Throughout the report, the board of commissioners explicitly and implicitly reveal their preference for white male. Given the historical context from which this report was written, it is almost shocking that they had known the importance of education, yet would be fine with limiting education to a select type of people. The last part of this is especially interesting. The board of commissioners argue that education renders society wiser and happier than our forefathers, yet it seems that they did not consider any of the apparent social flaws within society of their time.

There is potentially significant foresight revealed in Jefferson's input on the salary of professors. He suggests a "certain" salary, which shows cognizance and care regarding the well being of employees. With a contentious movement for a livable minimum wage today, I wonder how he would apply this sentiment to the variety of employees at UVA besides the elite professors. It is also worth considering that he intends to provide professors a stable and livable wage, yet had no intention to exhibit this basic compassion when it came to the people who actually built the University. Today, UVA staff members who work in custodial and dining services generally receive Virginia's minimum wage, while professors often are granted a high salary. This seems to create a wicked parallel that I find worth discussion and further analysis; perhaps including research on how workers were initially paid/treated at UVA.

This part of the sentence really upset me but did not surprise me. Schools were not initially created to cater to anyone but white people. If you were not white, you were not considered valuable enough to receive an education. It is very unfortunate that our university was founded with this mindset but we can not let that be our story now.

Why is it named the Rockfish Gap Report, titling it this makes you think of something else.

This phrase makes me confused, because only a few paragraphs later, as I replied to a fellow student's comment, the writers bash the indigenous peoples for following in the footsteps of their predecessors. Yet, right here, they claim that we must tread with "awful reverence." Though it is no surprise to me that they would not recognize the irony in their writing, it is quite clear that regardless of how honored or worthy these men were (in their time of course, and some still today) they lacked the basic understanding of the lack of situational equality.

Placing these areas under the ethics department emphasizes Jefferson's intention for the University of Virginia to be a place centered around open and free thought. It goes along with his decision to have the Rotunda as the focal point of the campus - a place of learning rather than a chapel, which was typical of campuses at the time. This was Jefferson's way of keeping the focus away from religion and focused on knowledge.

The sciences are particularly noted perhaps because the lack of faith in belief. Science is technology for the most part is cumulative learned information over time and generations of active research. Faith can deny science and lack of funding can as well. A positive note is how science could have been rejected, as stated , even by the finest and most scholarly of men, but still push through to be part of UVA's early curriculum. That stands true to what the University stands to be today. Since this virtue is still alive on grounds today, we can assume many other ones are as well.

What is important to notice in this line is evaluating what the definition of proper was to the commissioners and why. Location was of great concern because their intentions are to keep the finest education exclusively to esteemed whites of wealth. They wanted this University to be that embodiment of "knowledge through power" and power was indeed a playing force in the dynamics of 19th Century UVA. Virginia's vast plantations and overwhelming reliance on slavery was shadowed by Thomas Jefferson's view on what should represent Virginia, this being rich, white educated men ready to lead and take forth, but not without the convenience of being served in a University that so fed into racism and white supremacy.

The wording of this significant little sentence is really interesting to me. Jefferson writes "Also" which I inferred to mean "side note...", representing the lack of importance Jefferson places on the wellbeing of slaves. Furthermore, the note on slaves follows directly after the part about the acreage of the University. It is clear that slaves, in this particular document, are given little to no attention or respect, which is typical of Jefferson.

This is a really interesting sentence. In context of this paper, this is well-substantiated from the latter arguments. However, when viewing it from a modern perspective, it's ironic that most of the arguments that's presented is actually based on assumptions stemmed from the "innate obliquities" in the moral application. On the other hand, this statement of education is still quite liberating and stands true even today, as education is exactly the spark that provokes changes in the general assumptions towards equality and human rights, and is still regarded as the most effective method of combating inequalities that still exist.

This sentence is, to me, one of the most explicit statements of racial discrimination that I found in this paragraph. Not only does this sentence re-emphasize the earlier point about how the school should be placed in the center of the white popularity, the wording of this passage also puts this as the most important aspect of the university's location. Earlier on, the idea of centrality is brought up as one of the three different characteristics that the ideal location should hold, but here the discrimination is more pronounced as it seems that the proximity to white population is the deciding factor in finalizing their pick.

I think the cultural contrast between now and then is fascinating. Jefferson's goal for students in their time at UVA is that they "improve by reading, his morals and faculties." Morality was certainly defined differently when this document was written, as we know that Jefferson held slaves in his own household and on grounds. This stark contrast in today's morality versus an antiquated definition is what stuck out to me most in this excerpt.

Besides the issue of gender equality in this sentence, another intersting point is that this first objective emphasizes individual needs instead of social needs or national needs. I want to link this to my engagement course "the Individual and Society". It partially shows that the importance of individual happiness has exceeded the welfare of society as a whole. I can see the importance of individualism in American society from this sentence. Furthermore, I am also confused that why the first objective is to give citizen the ability of transacting his own business, because I don't think it's not the most important objective of education. Shouldn't education teach citizens to think in a broader vision and pursue authenticity of oneself?

A liberal arts education generally prepares students to have a broad mind to different aspect of society and change. Thomas Jefferson was a firm believer of the liberal arts and the role it plays in expanding the knowledge of a people. This line clearly demonstrates that the founders of the college believed that every student should have the right to gain knowledge at this institution and use that knowledge to then apply to their respective ideologies. Expecting everyone to follow the same ideology and not having a diversity of ideas would only be reflective of resistant and baseless thought.

The authors planned the establishment of this University with the idea that it would only serve the white population. It is ironic how they state that the comparison between the different places was made with “full enquiry and impartial and mature consideration” when in its essence, the decision is entirely partial towards white men. They were aware of the existence of other races and women but did not think those groups were worthy of the education provided by this institution. This reflects a part of UVA history which is important to consider when reflecting on the Charlottesville events that took place on Grounds this August. We cannot be selective about the facts. There are still people who believe in the vision of the authors that the only ones deserving or fit for this place are white people. This makes it even more important now to promote diversity and love in our communities here at the University.

UVA ID: dc3jr

The ending phrase "can neither be long nor expensive" struck a note with me. Medical School nowadays (and college) can take 8 years and put a person in immense debt. It appears that at the time, one's ability to become a doctor did not necessarily require the time and effort that it would take today. The following sentence clears that up slightly, but I still think that there are some important ideas to be taken away from the fact that it was easier to become a doctor at the time. Of course, Medicine has changed and the profession looks entirely different than it did at the beginning of the 19th century, but the basis of the profession, that one's life should be kept in great hands, seems to be missing. The University's founders offer the medical education but no further schooling on the topic. How one can learn the "operations of surgery in a hospital" without a Hospital on grounds is a mystery. These aspiring students would have to be shipped off to another University or school at the time to learn the craft.

This quote is really interesting to me because it makes me think about the context of this statement in Jefferson's time, and the context of this statement today. Today, I'd say that our university values religious diversity, meaning that they accept people from all over the world of different religions. However, in Jefferson's time--the era of the Virginia Stature for Religious Freedom--"religious freedom" didn't exactly mean accepting diverse religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., but was more about accepting different sects of Christianity. It's interesting to see how the phrase "freedom of religion" has changed over time, and how the university has changed as well.

From my perspective, I feel these three conditions are not necessary for the establishment of a university. The aim of a university it so educate young people no matter where they are from or which social classes they are in. The pooper a place is, the necessarier for government to establish a school in such place. So, I think these three conditions go contrary to Thomas Jefferson's motive of establishing the university. But, I can understand why they had these considerations. Fertility of the neighboring counties, healthiness of the site and white population can make the university easier to manage since students were from well-educated middle/upper class. Furthermore, the founders might not even know that they were practicing racism by writing "centrality to the white population of the whole state", because racism was normal in that period. Therefore, the term "racism" and "discrimination" were meaningless to them. How can we expect them to realize that their considerations were inappropirate, if there were even no such thing called racism in that period?

Although the authors make an important statement regarding the indefinite potential for advancement of a society though education, their disparaging of the “indigenous neighbours” detracts from the effectiveness of their argument. Regardless of their technological growth compared to past generations or new vision for education, the authors are still incapable of having an open mind towards different cultures. They refer to Native Americans as pursuing a life of “barbarism and wretchedness” because of their long-lasting traditions. This kind of prejudice most certainly goes against their stated object of education, “to observe with intelligence & faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.” It is necessary to be forward-looking not only about education but also about engaging with different communities in our country.

UVA ID: dc3jr

The thought of a sort of preparatory school for students who aspired to eventually attend the university is - while practical - a little wild to me just because of what I've grown used to in the modern age. While Jefferson wished to create a healthy living-learning community for scholars of all disciplines, he did not mean for it to encompass scholars of all monetary walks of life. This is evidence that the University stood and still stands most accessible to those with money and a family whose history necessitates their children's success. Children of the middle to lower class at the age of fifteen would be part of the way through their apprenticeship, learning their father's craft to eventually inherit the position and make a living for their future family.

All of these languages have significance in both Classical and religious spheres of influence, giving historical connotations to the religious texts students were encouraged to read freely. With the exception of Islamic texts, it is interesting to note that the University supplied an equality of opportunity to people studying the original texts in a number of faiths from the texts of the Orthodox church to synagogue. However, were these languages chosen specifically to provide freedom of religion, or were they meant to encompass what Jefferson thought to be important time periods in Western history? Given that Jefferson himself knew several languages including French, Italian, and German, I believe that this decision leaned more toward the freedom of religion aspect, but it should still be noted that the most Eastern of these languages is Hebrew.

This section serves as a bullet point list for the goals of the University of Virginia for its students, thereby being representative of an inherent mission statement.

Reading over it, I could not help but feel as though the sentiments of the Unalienable rights are echoed in these objectives, the curricula serving as the basis for which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be obtained by citizens. The authors demonstrate that attending the University of Virginia would provide an individual the necessary education to adhere to the constituent elements of quality livelihood such as business knowledge, morality, jurisprudence, and self-sustainability. By understanding subjects ranging from mathematics to agriculture, a better individual is cultivated by society who can then carry out their Unalienable rights through business dealings, religious piety, and volition.

Furthermore, the majority of these ideals embody the ethos of Thomas Jefferson. For example, his belief in the farmer being the backbone of a republic is seen in the core curriculum of the University of Virginia with the promotion of agriculture being a main point in this document. Ultimately, these lines establish the precursive ethos of the school that is to come, seemingly training students for life as a proper citizen and the adherence to the Unalienable Rights.

After taking Debating Islams with Professor al-Rahim and recognizing the importance of identifying ideological statements and their underlying rhetoric, I find it interesting that Ideology is a branch of learning that is emphasized in this precursive schematic of the University of Virginia. There is an inherent importance in being able to deduce both the spirit and letter of a sentimental statement which serves as the basis for Ideological Studies.

According to Professor al-Rahim's class, one cannot be ingenuous to the possible ulterior motives of rhetoricians that attempt to dupe the public. In the case of our class, these people were ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, an individual must be actively thinking when presented with an assemblage of beliefs in order to make an informed decision.

Thus, this metaphorical pillar of Ideological Studies to the young University of Virginia serves as a profound indicator of its overarching goal that has been perpetuated throughout the years: the training of the informed citizen in a liberation from the darkness of ignorance and deception. One cannot remain naive in our global world and the University of Virginia seeks to alleviate our naïveté as to make us better individuals overall that will contribute to the global climate rather than solely take from it. Classes in "the doctrine of thought" corroborate this claim.

The hypocrisy of this statement is so obvious and really sad- the people constructing and eventually attending this university are at the time considered the smartest and most capable in society. Yet despite the morals and order they claim to have, they are riding off the backs of slave labor as if it doesn't exist.

How interesting that previously he was arguing for everyone having education and being "enlightened" and yet manages to view Native Americans as third-class citizens referring to them as "our indigenous neighbors

There was a university already established? cac8aa

It is interesting to see here, and in the preceding paragraphs how much emphasis Jefferson and his compatriots put upon education as a means for successful governance. He wants the purpose of his University to provide not only the education necessary for success and contribution in one's desired profession, but also (and possibly moreso) the education necessary to become an informed, conscientious, and contributing member of society.

The "healthiness and fertility" I think can be taken in two ways, literally and figuratively. Figuratively the areas taken into consideration were easily accessible to the white population of the state from all sides, and were not barren. These areas were already established and presumably somewhat well grown. On the more literal side, the ground physically must be stable and the climate must be moderate. Buildings must be able to stand and ways to produce food (farming, livestock, etc.) have to be easy and long lasting.

It's really interesting that they included ethics as a course of study/class, as the subject itself is very broad. Furthermore, I'm curious to know what was included in any "ethics" course at that time, and what was described as "ethical" or "unethical". In my current engagement class, "Can a Text Be Ethical?", we have read many texts from the mid-19th century by ethics professors of other schools. Many of these texts are religiously based pro-slavery arguments, and are texts that today, we would regard as unethical. Since we know that UVA was not free of white supremacy upon founding, I wonder what its ethics department looked like, and if, at all, topics like slavery or religion were touched on.

ndr3qd

The planning on how the university would be constructed was something that I found very interesting. It was surprising to read the many considerations that went into initial design, which included, particularly infection and creating a unified community. When looking at the dormitories on the lawn today, it is hard to think that they were placed strategically in order to prevent the spread of infection. Modern medicine makes this of little concern today. Also the proximity of the dorms to the pavilions was significant because it better enabled interaction among students and professors. This was likely key to establishing a supportive and family oriented atmosphere. Those that we are surrounded by and those we learn from, play a major role in the formation of the individual.

It is interesting as a first year student to see the cost of a meal plan. First years are required to buy the most expensive meal plans available. $3.500 in today's money would equate to about $64.79. Students in the present have to spend about $2000 yearly for meals. This shows how while $3.500 is still not cheap by 1818's standards, meals didn't really cost students a fortune. Also, slave labor was probably used to prepare the meals; therefore, no salary had to be paid, making the food cheaper. It would be interesting to see a data set of the cost of meal plans every year at UVA since 1818. There would be possible, statistically significant correlation present with the end of slave labor and the rise of meal plans.

The objectives as per this report still remain a guiding force for today's objective. The objectives essentially provide a student with a liberal arts education so they are they able to make a general sense of the world across various disciplines. In addition, collegiate institutions pride themselves in not only teaching academic content, but teaching students how to think and reason. Some of the objectives are about morals and ethics, for those I think the university can try to influence but its up to the individual to live up to. Institutionalizing morals, character, and ethics is valiant in theory but fickle in its delivery.

From these objectives, we can see that Jefferson regards "Education" as a powerful tool to bring people/citizens happiness and create a better society.

The definition of a glebe is, "the cultivable land owned by a parish church or ecclesiastical benefice." Although Thomas Jefferson specifically centered UVa around the Rotunda, a library, rather than a church, to place emphasis on education separated from religion, the truth is that our university will inherently be inseparable from the Protestant donations contributing to UVa's founding.

This is the first time that a collectivist/communal goal is recognized. The rest of these goals and the following principles are the paragon of American individualism, always focusing on individuals rights and the cultivation of individual people. There's a clear lack of a global perspective or any sense of humanity on the world scale. It's clear the priority of this education is on cultivating one's self and then his/her nation, rather than the world as a whole.

It is probable that this mention of "visitors" refers to the Board of Visitors which would direct and continues to direct the decisions--including policies and budget--of the university. Though there has been much controversy surrounding the Board of Visitors of UVa in recent years, the fact that these "visitors" existed at the founding of the university suggests that the current Board continues to uphold traditional, outdated values.

As noted by others on this document, there is a strong sentiment of white superiority in this part of the report. The present state of indigenous Americans is referred to as one of "barbarism and wretchedness." While the explicit racism throughout the report definitely was apparent to me, I was more struck by the fact that in this part they seem to be condemning a simplistic lifestyle. The irony here is that Jefferson has become well known today as a historical figure who supported an agrarian lifestyle, especially when compared to Hamiltonian Federalism. Here, the writing is indicative that he conversely believes the lifestyle of following our ancestors (and functioning in a hunting/gathering society in the case of the indigenous Americans he describes) is insufficient. Instead, he condemns the notion of looking back to the past, and instead encourages an education that will force citizens to consider future intellectual pursuit. I am curious to see how his other writings support his simultaneous support for an agrarian democracy and condemnation of the "barbarism" or simplicity of indigenous American life.

this is so much more affordable than it is now..

Though these few words are repulsively blatant and racist to any person now, these words did not appear so back then. When reading a document written in the 1800s, I think it important to perceive it critically through one's own values, but also be able to read it from the perspective of the writer. I highly doubt the authors of this document were thinking "ah yes let us add in a particularly racist line right at the beginning to make us all sound like monstrous trolls of human beings." I think the writers thought this line would be particularly appealing and welcoming to the public. Yes, they emphasized the "whiteness" of the public. But I think the original point of this line is to show the extent to which they had thoughtfully planned and organized the location of their university. They were probably thinking, "ah yes, we have found the perfect place. Where there are tons of people to educate. Location, location, location. Much less rural than some other parts. All in all, a perfect spot to educate the public since the population is so large here." I do not in any way want to justify the racist hatred towards Americans either two hundred years ago or today. But for us to truly read this text we have to find the meaning behind everything. None of these words were added in nonchalantly. I would imagine that every word, phrase, and sentence was considered very carefully, and because of this it is crucial that we understand their particular thought process. Even if we do not agree with it, we should know where it is coming from and the purpose they had in mind while writing. To counter an argument, we must first understand the argument we are countering.

Here it is expressed a core value of the university; one which is expressed more implicitly throughout the report, but is still seen several times. This value is that of a well rounded education, not in its typical sense where an understanding of the arts creates more intellectual scientists and researchers, but where a greater undertanding of science and research helps enlighten and advance the arts.