4 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. [4 August 1818]

      The group project tells a lot about the focus of the New College Curriculum. By educating us on the history and origins of our education, we get to understand why we are now in a curriculum that is changing that. It gives us better understanding of the university's present and future condition. Having 600 students annotate the document however, without a clear purpose to it is not ideal. It would be interesting and possibly more impactful if we discussed it for ourselves in our discussion groups and then perhaps presented our thoughts on it as a group. That way the views and commented could be more organized and less overwhelming.

    2. centrality to the white population of the whole state

      This states with stark clarity about who the university is seen to be "for" and "good for." By placing the institution centrally, the authors are implying that they expect the university to serve and be engaged by the "white population." In Engaging Citizenship, we have talked about what it means to "be a citizen of U.V.a. and our responsibility to be informed, take action and make changes. Understanding that citizenship of the university was originally envisioned for white men raises the discussion: if our pool of citizens has been changed and broadened, what institutional standards (originally catering to the white community) need to be changed in order to serve the full population? Changing the basis of citizenship mean matching that change institutionally. The New College Curriculum could be part of that change.

  2. Sep 2017
    1. To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business. To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express & preserve his ideas, his contracts & accounts in writing. To improve by reading, his morals and faculties. To understand his duties to his neighbours, & country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either. To know his rights; to exercise with order & justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciaries of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence with candor & judgment. And, in general, to observe with intelligence & faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.

      The nuance behind all of these purposes for education should be seems to be the idea of individual thought. They want to educate students to make intelligent decisions in society, business, relationships, and morals. It touches on the idea of engaged citizenship and knowing what freedom one has under the constitution.

      Ironically, diversity plays a huge role in developing an intelligent perspective on these issues, and that is something left out.

    2. centrality to the white population

      It is fascinating to me that the writers make distinction: to ensure that the university was in a location central to the "white population." Firstly because it shows strongly that the intended use of the University was exclusive to white people, but also because it assumes the usefulness of the university would be exclusive for white people as well.

      Despite the fact that this is obviously racist, it is interesting that they would strive for the University to be in the central of the population. It shows a vision for what they think the students of the University are able to offer society. They are assuming students will be leaders and therefore need to be in the middle of the population.

      It goes above the encouragement of segregation, but also limits the sharing of resources that could be gained from society through the University. If they assume that these educated students will have a lot of influence on society, they are also assuming that they will have no impact, (or that they do not care what the impact is) on the black community.