The 1931 Gorham Silver Smith Corona by [[Typewriter Chicago]]

Clearly the frame workers of the college put considerable weight upon the learning of foreign languages. I admire the kind of insight that the writers had when nothing that the German language lead to considerable advances in sciences. During the time in which this was written, it was not often considered as to how language changes the way you think. There are many distinctions that come from speaking a different language, some obvious, many very subtle and elusive. An example of this would be the fact that German speakers often focus on goal oriented details when constructing a sentence because the nature of their verbs are not as versatile as in English. Studies have shown that Germans can predict goal oriented behavior better when viewing an action, while English speakers focus more solely on the actions themselves. This is a subtle distinction, but it evidences that the differences exist, and these differences can culminate to big implications in terms of ways of thinking. To bring this full circle, UVA requires me to take a foreign language; but UVA has also come to the point in which they offer classes that study specifically Language and Thought. This may not have been in the original plan, but has become an offshoot based upon the broad curriculum that was originally setup for the school to branch off of.

Although the statement seemed to be inclusive because it provided resource to every citizen, the definition of citizen was actually limited, and both African Americans and women were excluded. Virginia was a white-dominant area, and even though the school aimed to give everyone an equal opportunity to get education, African Americans were not in their range of consideration. Also, all the pronouns used were he/his/him, and at that time, the university only accept male students. The founders’ ideology was great, but what they actually did was away from their beliefs. The social context was an important part of the reason; it was extremely hard for anyone to challenge the mainstream ideology.

The document explains how most of the subjects were related to their educational objectives, but I didn’t find the explanation of the language part, and I was surprised to see that language was in fact a great portion of the whole education. Both ancient languages and modern languages were included. I think mastering different languages could fit into the second objective, which allows students to express their ideas under different situations. Its importance may also related to the political background at that time.

While few people today would consider the sciences to be useless acquisitions, a similar debate has recently emerged over the value of a liberal arts education. The liberal arts' detractors claim that many of the subjects taught in a liberal arts curriculum are "useless", perhaps in the same way that some believed science to be useless in Jefferson's day. People who dislike the liberal arts argue that a university education should be a means to an end; something that prepares you for a specific type of job. Because liberal arts generally aren't career-focused, those people label it a waste of time and money. However, proponents of the liberal arts argue that an education should be more than mere job training. They argue that an education should foster critical thinking, interest in ideas and thought, and a passion for learning. It seems very clear that Jefferson would agree with this position, as the report goes onto say that an education "generates habits of application, and a love of virtue". Jefferson's belief in education as an end in itself lives on at UVA today, as the college of arts and sciences still promotes a curriculum which is well-rounded and not career-oriented.

Virtue is defined as having high moral standards. As we delve into UVA's past, the presence of these supposed moral standards is lacking in one area: equality. The attempted justification of our university's participation in the discrimination against people of color and women is over. The white supremacy that existed during that time still exists today, as UVA accepts less and less black students, as Sullivan sends out contradictory emails, as white supremacists march on the place we call home. The white supremacist attack on August 12th was a wake up call, though discussions about UVA's dark history should have been started a long time ago. To worship our founder is to worship his actions of discrimination and abuse. As students, it is time we take responsibility for UVA's past as well as our individual complacency and inaction. Discovering new virtues and adhering to them is essential if we truly desire to change the course of our university's future and direct this institution towards genuine equality and authentic responsibility.

Oh the irony. What the writers of this document meant to say is that students are allowed to do what they desired as long as it does not violate the equal rights of white men. UVA's history of slavery, a founder who was racist and abused his slaves, and the university's role in advancing eugenics blatantly and horrifically violated equality. The normality of slavery during that time period does not mean that such injustice should be excused. Hence, if this institution intended (and they did) to utilize slaves to build this school and then deny them the right to enroll, then this sentence should never have been written. It is almost as if the writers of this document were aware of the inequality they participated in, but when that era came to an end they could point to this sentence and announce how they were blameless since the document establishes UVA's perspective of equality.

I like this passage because it clearly reflects the quintessentially American belief in Lockean-style self government, the cornerstone idea of the Declaration of independence and our Constitution. Both documents respectively criticize the British government for its heavy-handed response to American dissent, and outline a style of government which is bound together by pride and moral principle, rather than fear and punishment. The writers of the Rockfish Gap Report clearly intended to replicate this style of government in the university; they wanted students to obey the rules of the university because they believed in them and were proud of them, not because they were afraid of the consequences that might follow if they didn't.

This line stuck out to me because living in the 21st century, these are not prominent issues that come to mind when constructing new buildings. However, in 1819 when UVa was being constructed, these were major concerns to consider. They did not have the same infrastructure, fire safety programs, or health programs and institutions that we have today. Before reading this section, I assumed that Jefferson's main intentions of this plan was to create a living space where professors and students are interconnected. The considerations mentioned here really put this entire document into perspective.

I find it very interesting that a hotel tavern was used as the location to discuss this matter. Furthermore, it is strange that the meeting that was held in this peculiar location was required by law. It seems like a rather informal setting for a formal and legally required meeting. This leads me to wonder if the development in the region was a contributing factor to this choice. Was a hotel tavern the most formal setting available to the commissioners?

I guess I'll take up the most obvious part of the whole document. It is truly a peculiar thing that UVA was founded by an enigma like Thomas Jefferson. Aesthetically, it's pretty cool to attend one of 2 schools founded by U.S. presidents (the other being the University of Buffalo by Millard Fillmore). It is also the only university to have had 2 presidents serve as its chief officer, the other for UVA being James Madison. It is also interesting to note that of all the things to be put on the grave of a man as accomplished as Thomas Jefferson, he chose to list his contribution to the founding of UVA over his position as U.S. president. This was obviously place founded with much hard work, by both the men who thought of it and the slaves who constructed it.

Obviously instruction on government is not unique among institutions of higher learning but it would have been rather unique at a school like UVA which was founded and run by people directly involved in politics. This may seem like a very cool opportunity, and perhaps it would have been, but it could have also led to biased teaching for reasons separate from academic rigor. Universities have a certain role to act separate from The State and to provide it criticism from a purely intellectual and objective standpoint. This blending of Government and learning could have been detrimental.

As with throughout the rest of the report, I find it interesting to see how important and established the use of subjects for military purposes are. For example, today we would consider art and drawing to be done simply for artistic or even architectural reasons; however, here it is stressed because of its importance for a "military education."

I always find it interesting the power a signature holds. By signing one's name, they are agreeing with everything stated in the document and pledging their support. I love how it takes the time to emphasize "each in his proper handwriting" as if that is bringing even more validity to their signatures. It is proving the authenticity of this document. All of the document's credibility lies in these signatures.

At this point I feel like the original structure of education back in the day is more or less the same as the current societal expectation of our education. It does not take into too much account of the previous education that one has undertaken, but instead offers much freedom for one to enjoy the opportunities different schools of different places with different resources offer to the individual. Of course the inevitable and perhaps unfortunate fact there is unfairness due to socioeconomic differences.

I think at this point it is bringing up the discussion of the meaning of education. It is suggesting education should be open for the individual's own interpretation and preference, which echoes to the contemporary society where people go to school while a small proportion attends homeschooling. I agree to the point where education should be decided by the individual, especially in perhaps at a high school level when teenagers have reached a certain degree of maturity, they would somewhat know what their direction of education lies at.

I think it is interesting that since the University had been envisioned its been growing. It is still growing today with the addition of new dorms and buildings. I wonder is the growth will ever stop or if the University will just continue to expand in new, creative ways. It is interesting to see how new expansions change the image of the University over time.

I did not know that James Madison had a hand in the drafting of the documents for this University. It is interesting to see that while 2 "founding fathers" worked on the drafting and worked towards crafting the purpose of the University, that they still had some majorly problematic views in regards to the vision for UVA. I think it is positive to see though that their original vision, although flawed, was able to foster the kind of change and created the type of community that has allowed UVA to work towards and continue to work for a positive community for all regardless of race, gender, or background.

This is a direct example of exclusion within the University. One of the explicit objectives of the University was to instruct men. It is sad to think that it wasn't until 1969 ( http://uvamagazine.org/articles/women_at_the_university_of_virginia/P7/ ) that UVA allowed women to join the University. Women have accomplished so many things at UVA and because of UVA, and it is hard to imagine what the school would look like without women in it today. Unfortunately, it is expected that a statement such as that would be put in this document, as women's rights were not something being talked about. I just find it shocking that it took UVA so long to begin admitting women.

I think this statement is absurd to assume that Native Americans were somehow less than for respecting their ancestors and living from the earth. I think this definitely highlights the issues of Native Americans being systematically abused in favor of the ideals of those of white, European descent. This shows how thoroughly their traditions and opinions were disregarded and filed under derogatory terms like "barbarism" and "wretchedness", that do not at all describe the Native American people. Our society was founded on top and without regard to theirs and I feel like sometimes we forget the extent of wrongdoing towards the Native American people. It seems the founders never tried to understand or accept Native American culture which seems completely backwards considering the purpose of the University is supposedly to promote education and cultural awareness.

I find it interesting that because the founders could not justify building a hospital, they deemed it unnecessary to have multiple professors teaching in the medical field, as if teaching medicine was less important simply because there was no hospital. I also think it reflects the founders' favoritism towards the classics. Earlier in the document, it is stated that some of the most important goals of the University was to teach morals and politics and history and then, at the bottom of the list, was the objective of teaching the physical sciences. I'm not sure if the order to which the objectives were listed has meaning, I suppose that is up for individual interpretation, but if it does, it would, perhaps, show the founders' favoritism towards the humanities. However that is interpreted, it is clear that at the time the founders were not entirely concerned with the study of medicine as they only proposed one professor for the field all together. This is a link that shows that the UVA hospital was not built until many years later. https://uvahealth.com/about/health-system-info/history

The writers of the Rockfish gap report clearly did not have a highly favorable view of the arts. While not everyone views the arts in a positive light nowadays, the arts have still become much more integrated into the core of education. This reflects the growing trend of liberal arts education. While in the past, universities were mainly meant to teach practical skills to use in the world, nowadays there is a push for education that enriches the mind instead. It's not a black and white situation, as the arts are still looked down upon by many, but I think the increase in appreciation for the arts is a good thing.

I find it fascinating that latin and greek were considered to be useful for anyone, even if they didn't pursue a university education. This reflects a change over time in what we value in learning, as nowadays knowing latin and greek is essentially meaningless in the everyday world. While the spread of technology and global communication has advanced society, the declining ability to know multiple languages is one of its major drawbacks, and it would probably be upsetting for Jefferson to see.

This can be considered to be quite an insulting progression of thoughts. The founders classify the indigenous populations as barbaric and wretched, deeming their conservative methods and practices preposterous. This leads me to question how much the founders valued respecting others' cultures and traditions; it seems as if they jump to conclusions without properly understanding or appreciating the indigenous population as a collective society.

It's also quite ironic that the founders ridicule the indigenous populations for respecting and looking to their fathers for advice and knowledge, yet, expect future members of the University of Virginia community to consult this document for guidance.

I found this clause intriguing. The founders affirm their belief that physical education is of utmost importance and should be addressed by "every institution of youth." However, the founders chose not to include a formal provision of "gymnastics." More interesting are the reasons behind why the founders deemed physical education necessary; they attribute it to the importance physical health and strength play in warfare. Ironically, the University offers physical education centered classes now, when the likelihood of students being drafted into a war is extremely low.

This excerpt seems to signify a refreshing departure from the remainder of this rigid document. Even in contemporary society, education is seldom discussed in terms of happiness. Considering the idea that a plurality of the Founders struggled to locate value in all non-math and science disciplines, it seems antithetical to believe that they located value in happiness. This is one of the only aspects of the document that seems to be genuinely transparent and founded in logic and reason. If the student body is disaffected and unhappy, they are less likely to perform well academically. It thus follows that happiness is constitutive of a diverse and well-rounded education and should, as the Founders suggested, be regarded as a priority.

I find the emphasis on military education to be somewhat telling about the beliefs and values of the United States during this time period. Today there is no such expectation that all young men must learn about military subjects, but in from the document it seems that there is almost an expectation that most men will eventually serve in the military. It seems that the proximity in time to the revolutionary war, and the value of independence are likely contributing factors to this belief.

This facet of the Rockfish Gap Report is remarkably interesting relative to the contemporary status of the University of Virginia as a renowned Institution of Liberal Arts. If Thomas Jefferson was as committed to creating a beacon of Higher Institution as is claimed, it seems that there shouldn’t have been cynicism surrounding the merits of disciplines other than math and the hard sciences. Regardless of its founding in the nineteenth century, a formidable education is one comprised of a diverse and representative curriculum. If education is confined solely to the ordered and mechanical departments predicated upon logic and rote memorization, it fails to impart the critical thinking and diversity of thought necessary to attain a well-rounded education. This close-mindedness seems to have been a pattern of behavior reflected in the Founder’s idea that a satisfactory education could only exist in a caucasian, prosperous setting. This excerpt from the University’s founding document elucidates the underlying inequality and sectionalism that still pervade the University of Virginia.

This passage really made it clear to me how small the University was when it first began. It is very telling to realize, for instance, that the University started with just ten professor and I am sure that we now have hundreds. Furthermore, it implies that the professors themselves were liberally educated, as many professors surely had to teach more than one subject.

I meant only to highlight the languages, as I was fascinated by the number of them being taught. It is impressive how, at those times, there were fluent speakers in both the language being taught and English, willing to work at a new University, founded just after the American Revolution. Although America was the New Land, were most unemployed Europeans wished to go, due to the scarce labor and high wages, the costs of transportation were huge at that time. Indeed, it amused me how the University managed to get language teachers, I suppose foreign, that were scholarly respected.

This paragraph is kind of contradictory, as it first advocates for the equality of religious thought, but then describes God as the supreme ruler of the universe, "author of all the relations of morality". There was no space for the possibility that God did not exist, which is today a realm of religious manifestation. Perhaps before this was not a contradiction, as the existence of God was almost universally acknowledged. Now, however, both theism and atheism are scholarly accepted and respected. Furthermore, it is fascinating how, despite the rejection of atheism, the university strived to teach a large spectrum of religions; Thomas Jefferson was not satisfied with UVA teaching only the classical religions.

This excerpt is very interesting as the reservation of land for the specific purpose of constructing an observatory seems to be very peculiar when considering the primary plans for the University. However, its inclusion is very relevant, as such reservations lead to the construction of the Leander McCormick Observatory, which currently sits on the summit of Mount Jefferson, commonly referred to as Observatory Hill. Though it took nearly 70 years for such plans to be carried out, the implementation of the McCormick Observatory has proved to be a prominent addition to the University, as it has helped enhance the education and has also served as a platform for astronomical research within the Astronomy Department.

Link: http://astronomy.as.virginia.edu/research/observatories/mccormick

I think Jefferson's explicit inclusion of architecture is very interesting. Obviously, Jefferson valued architecture as its own subject because of his own passions. Moreover, it is so cool to see how the university has evolved to have its own separate School of Architecture for students to study in. I cannot help but wonder what Jefferson would think about the school and its creation and its curriculum. While I am not a student in the Architecture school, I would still love to learn about his opinions of the fact that the university has created a separate school and whether or not he believes their mission to be successful.

I really like this portion of the document because it speaks to how connected Jefferson believed UVA and the United States to be. I think this speaks to how Jefferson really sought to create a public university that coincided closely with the US and its newfound beliefs. And, as a current student here who is very passionate about history, I love knowing that this school's basic ideology coincides so closely with the basic ideology of our country. Also, this highlights Jefferson's efforts to create the first secular university in the nation which was unprecedented in itself.

The founders emphasized the maximum of professors’ salaries instead of a minimum, which I found interesting. They did say the amount of salary should be moderate in the parenthesis, and it shows their concerns, but I don’t really understand what effect they expected the maximum would bring. Does it have anything to do the limitation of the faculty number? Another point that stood out to me was the professor first engaged in each branch didn’t have that limitation. It implies that the founders were open to new subjects and indirectly encouraged people to explore other unknown fields.

I feel like the debate of whether or not education should be private and individual is not something we look upon highly nowadays. Now, if you are unable to get an education you are looked down upon, I feel like homeschoolers even get a bad rap. It is interesting that back when this document was written you were considered of high class the more private your life was.

The debate of whether or not to include the sciences in curriculum seems to be an ongoing debate throughout this document. I think nowadays the sciences are considered more essential than the humanities but back then the more "practical" subjects were of value.

The use of the word "morals" brings up an interesting point. Does the University have the right or place to influence the morals of its student? In my opinion, I don't think they do. It is unrealistic to think that one's morals can be changed through education alone. The University has to remember that morals of their students are already implemented when they arrive. Nowadays, I think that the University has stopped trying to change the morals of their students but rather just give them the information to make the right choice about how they should react in different situations.

The writers believed that providing everything in the above list would give students all that they needed to go forth and extend their practices into the community and eventually throughout the country, hopefully making a difference in business, government, etc. I think it is interesting because this is something that continues to be one of the strongest traits of our university today. We have students attending from all over the globe and really push for international involvement in everything we do.

I believe this metaphor to be very profound, as it challenges the statement within the previous sentences that, "man is fixed." The excerpt vividly depicts how a tree that yields sour and bitter fruit can be changed, through artistic processes, to produce a rather sweet fruit. These artistic processes serve to represent how man can be improved and changed through the role of education. Consequently, the Rockfish Gap Report discusses how education is crucial to the positive development of man, further illustrating Jefferson’s vision of the University of Virginia, where individuals will not only continue to grow as students, but also as cordial and honorable members of society. I believe that Jefferson’s vision has been fulfilled, as the University’s academic programs have enhanced the minds of those who have been, and are currently, students, while also providing them with a foundation of integrity and honor which will stay with them throughout their lives.

I find it pretty cool that they took the time to define and explain each subject. I think most people would not consider this important or necessary, but it shows once again the immense amount of detail and planning that went into the founding of UVA. This university is the direct result of a vision by Jefferson and the others who signed the document, and I think it's pretty crazy to see how we get to live out that vision still to this day.

Again, I find it important to note the emphasis placed by the founders on encouraging social intelligence as well as academic intelligence. The University was not meant solely as an institution of book-learnin', but also one of character development. Still, this sentiment is rather ironic in the face of UVA's history, but I prefer to look at it from the perspective of self-betterment. The social relations of the university are certainly included in "all the social situations under which [the student] shall be placed," so change can be made from the inside, especially with the advent of student self-governance.

I find this statement quite interesting because it seems a lot like the necessary and proper clause found in the Constitution. Jefferson, leader of the Democratic-Republican party, despised the necessary and proper clause because Federalists found it as a way to have the the federal government do more than what it is strictly allowed to do in the Constitution- following a broad construction philosophy. Jefferson's party followed a strict construction philosophy. I find this quite interesting for Jefferson to include something in his University that he seemed to have quite disliked in the past. However, perhaps I'm reaching here.

I didn't mean to highlight Military, Naval, and General grammar, but just Ideology and Ethics. I find these two subjects interesting because they are so broad. In sociological terms, ideology are the actual things that we face in every day life and we actually think about, as opposed to hegemony which is the background knowledge of society (so, ideology is basically the foreground). Outside of that definition, ideology is very broad, and so are ethics. As someone noted above in the document, Jefferson's influence is seen throughout this document and in what the students at the University would learn. In such subjective matters as ideology and ethics, could Jefferson's influence be significant in these classes? Could he only teach what is right in Ethics and Ideology? I wonder.

I find this part to be extremely interesting! A days journey now is A LOT different than a days journey back then. Now, we are spoiled with cars, trains, and planes to find our way back to Grounds. Parents hours away, in different states, can make their way here in less than a day! Back then, however, a day could be somewhere merely 2 hours away by car. The diversity of the school couldn't be nearly as different as it is today!

If this still holds true, then why don't we improve the dining hall food? The typical meal found in the dining hall lacks proper nutrients. We should continue to enforce the importance of a healthy diet through the food we are forced to consume.

The selection of what to teach at a University is something I never really considered before now. Like anything else, there is sure to be a difference in opinion of the founders as to what fields of study are worth teaching. Fortunately, they seem to have struck a good balance. This relates to the idea of a "true liberal arts education," one which will produce not only scholars, but well-rounded individuals.

This seems to evidence a kind of culture that the founders wished to harbor. The point contrasts a leadership predicated upon intimidation and fear with a more laissez-faire and hands off approach that places more independence on the students themselves. I think both forms have their uses; but the setting determines the application, and I would agree that the approach the founders took very much fits UVA's setting. UVA holds itself to a standard and expects that its admitted students should hold themselves accountable and should be responsible enough to have this kind of independence. What this does is further instill a sense of leadership to the students themselves; this perpetuates a degree of "excellence" and calls for a positive outlook on UVA in today's world. It is no secret that today's college system is a hierarchical meritocracy and that different colleges enforce different limitations on their respective students. Understanding the way UVA treats its own students allows you to juxtapose UVA with other colleges, as well as helping you understand more about UVA itself during the four years here.

This is a very large breadth of topics and education for just one professor to teach. It makes me wonder how in depth they really went into each subject, and how holistically successful the education people got here was. I feel like either professors were absolute geniuses who had a vast knowledge of multiple subjects, or they didn't do too much in each discipline.

This is an incredibly interesting sentence because of the complete difference between the idea they had then and the ideas we hold now. Something that has been so prevalent, especially recently with our President, is the argument that there should be a distinct separation between Church and State. However, here we see that it used to be not just overlapping, but a genuine alliance between the Church and State. Especially since UVA was built particularly as a university that is not a Catholic or specifically religious school.

One of the things that I do respect Jefferson for was his intelligence. Jefferson was instrumental in forming the government we have today by essentially creating its base. Our government is divided into two parts: the state government and the federal government. The federal government does have a lot of power, but they are several restrictions and regulations put into place to make it difficult for the federal government to even use its power let alone abuse it. This offers the state government, which is closer to the people, a level of autonomy in governing the people. I see the same structure in the University of Virginia today. At UVA, students are governed by other students, while the administration oversees the students and steps in when they need to. In other words, student council functions in the same manner as state government, while the administration functions like the federal government. State government is typically viewed in a more positive light than federal government, just as student council today is viewed in a more positive light than the administration at UVA with recent events in mind. I wonder if Jefferson imagined this for the school in the future.

This statement is interesting because it highlights sexist beliefs and values that dominated this time period. Jefferson stated that practicing with arms and warfare are inherent to manhood, while women were expected to simply stay at home, raise babies, and look nice. It seems that a person's status in life was determined not only determined by color, but also race/ skin color. If a person was black then he or she would be a slave, but if a person was female and black then they would be below that of a slave. Likewise, if a person was white they would be an American citizen, while if a person was a white female then they would be below that of an American citizen but above that of a slave. Wealth also played a factor more for white men of this time period in determining status, but this sentence is a reminder of how gender also played a role in determining someone's status and worth.

This is hypocritical in a way if one were to look closer at the American Revolution in a more objective manner. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers believed they were being taxed unfairly by the British government because they did not have any representation in the British Parliament. The phrase "No taxation without representation" is used even today to justify the colonist in their decision to revolt against the British. However, the British citizens were actually paying more in taxes than the average colonist. In fact, according to Grover G. Norquist, the British citizen was paying on a per capita basis 10 times that of the average colonist. Norquist further stated, "Britons, for example, paid 5.4 times as much in taxes as taxpayers in Massachusetts, 18 times as much as Connecticut Yankees, 6.3 times as much as New Yorkers, 15.5 times as much as Virginians; and 35.8 times as much as Pennsylvanians." Some colonies, however, did pay more than the average citizen, but Britain needed the money to pay off their large war debts that the colonist did not have to worry about previously. The colonist, who were debt free, were more focused on westward expansion where they would eventually come to blows with the Native American tribes and French settlers, which the British wanted to avoid. However, the colonist or Americans during the 19th century felt no remorse or sympathy when slaves attempted to gain their rights in just revolutions. Instead, people like Nat Turner and Gabriel Prosser, both of whom were slaves that led slave rebellions in Virginia, were labeled as rebels and were put to death. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revolution/ https://amstudz12.wordpress.com/gabriel-prosser-vs-nat-turner/

Nowhere in this description are the housing of slaves even discussed. During this time period, the University would not be able to function without the use of slaves. During the tour of the lawn, we learned that the pavilions on the lawn had three to four floors, and they all had basements or attics. The attics were used to dry clothes, while the slaves were forced to prepare meals in the basements. In other words, Jefferson was entirely focused on the comfort of the white students, while the slaves worked away preparing hot meals in cramped underground basements. This report seems to overlook the degree that Jefferson went to in order to hide the slaves or make their suffering invisible.

This is interesting because UVA functioned because of slavery when it was founded. In Making the Invisible Visible, we went on a tour of the lawn and learned that the university rented slaves from hotels not only to build the university but to cook meals and clean clothes for the students. Virginia was also very much a slave state, which means that the cite for the University was dead center of the black and white population.

This statement exemplifies the superiority complex that the founders of the University operated under. This patronizing tone is incredibly abhorrent and misrepresents the University's values today. Although education enriches the world around us, it is not all that defines a person and should not be the criteria or justification to talk of others, not as privileged to have this access to education, in a demeaning manner.

I found the fact that geography was included in this list for two reasons. The first is that it was included in the Physics-Mathematics section. When I think of geography today, I would think it belongs more with subjects such as history and social studies. The second reason this stood out to me is that geography is no longer a subject that is really taught in public education. If it was originally included, then I wonder what happened that made it less prominent, esepcially because geography is super important to know and something that most Americans are embrassingly not good at.

Currently, in my engaged citizenship engagement we are discussing the most appropriate and ideal definition of citizenship. This specific statement in this text describes the more administrative side of citizenship which we have found often overpowers the more crucial obligations we as citizens must fulfill like building community and striving for an inclusive environment.

This idea that morality would be achieved through the education the institution provided is incredibly ironic. This same institution that tolerated slavery. What exactly can morality and the responsibility as an ethical citizen therefore possibly entail in the founders' minds, when they failed to see human inequality as unjust? What is more of an engaged citizen's obligation than to report immorality?

This idea that fear cannot effectively regulate behavior after a certain time is founded on basic social psychological principles. There is a concept of internal versus external justification. With an external justification, such as fear, one does something only because they know they have to, which leads to only a temporary change. Internal justifications, such as belief in a system of governance or code of ethics, leads to a permanent change because one does it because they believe it is right.

Thomas Jefferson had an appreciation for French language, as can be seen in his words to Dugald Stewart, "the French language is unquestionably an important object of education." Jefferson had been in France during the first portion of the French Revolution and when serving as U.S. Secretary of State became the leader of the pro-French Democratic-Republican Party. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/french-rev https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-language

I found these specific objects of primary education to be quite important to the standing and image the school wanted and still wants to portray. It addresses the purpose of the University to create better more intelligent citizens for Virginia and the country. However, to me it seemed somewhat ironic due to the University’s background. It reveals earlier in the article that University's location was chosen based on its centrality to the white population in Virginia. This statement clearly implies a bias against non-white Virginians, even though the listed purposes of the University and what it hopes to impart to its students in this report depicts a different message. It paints a picture of in which the students utilize their higher level education to behave morally, accepting, self-aware, and faithful to social relations and knowledge. Does this mean these standard morals don’t apply to non-white Virginians? The irony highlights how the purposes of the University can be interpreted in different ways, either as a way to serve the white people in order to “preserve [their] ideas” of bias and superiority. Oppositely, the students could use their newfound knowledge to “improve [their] morals” and work to bring about change in society by education others ethics and equality.

In an article I found about the importance of arts being included in education states that “Arts experiences boost critical thinking, teaching students to take the time to be more careful and thorough in how they observe the world”. I found this segment of the report to be interesting because it is the only segment that regards the university attitude towards the arts. The language of this segment is very passive, and does not imply its importance, rather it finds these activities to be more of an optional pass time. The authors of the report refer to the arts as "innocent," implying that they are childish and not the foundation of a mature job. However, I am not surprised that this was the view towards arts in that time period because their society, especially for men, was to get an education and job to provide for their family and community and arts was never involved with that idea. That being said, these days we are getting much better in recognizing its importance in actually helping “critical thinking”, this boosting achedemivc education as well as happiness and morality. I find that arts education produces well-rounded students that think holistically, contradicting the reports depiction of the arts being more extraneous.

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/12/03/13greene.h34.html

I'm assuming that they're referring to something similar to what we know as public and private high schools today? When did public schooling become commonplace and when was it considered the step before college?

I think it's really interesting to note that the languages offered at the time were extremely Euro-centric, reflecting the values and international relationships of the time. Obviously, now we have an extremely robust language program that offers languages from every corner of the world. I wonder when other languages, such as Chinese or Arabic, were added to the language program?

I do not think this goal was possible with the existence of slaves at UVA. No one can accept the most immoral institution and remain moral. I find excerpts like this extremely interesting, as these men apparently valued virtue but still supported the university’s ownership of slaves. The existence of slaves also cultivated a racist mindset among the students, not a "virtuous" one, which was counterproductive to the founders’ goal.

Throughout this report, we see a lot of Thomas Jefferson’s influence. This excerpt is interesting because in the early republic, Jefferson supported an economy dependent on agriculture over a mixed economy. Jefferson believed that an agriculture-dependent economy would mean more land owners, and therefore more voters. According to him, this would create a stronger democracy. He feared that a mixed economy (agriculture and manufacturing) would lead to a more unequal distribution of wealth and create low qualities of life for factory workers. However, by the year this report was written, the US was already starting to industrialize. At this time, Jefferson was looking to “harmonize” the interests of agriculture and manufacturing, which shows that he accepted the way the US economy was heading although it differed from the way he hoped it would.

This is also interesting because it was Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, a Persian who created the bedrock to algebra. In Notes of Virginia Thomas Jefferson praised Europeans, in other words white males, like himself for all the achievements mankind has made. In essence, Thomas Jefferson spoke of how white people were superior to all other people, yet he recognizes Algebra as a necessary class, which was founded by not only a Persian but a Muslim. While al-Khwarizimi had a Persian background, it is well documented that he was a follower of Islam. http://gulfnews.com/culture/people/the-father-of-algebra-abu-jaafar-mohammad-ibn-mousa-al-khwarizmi-1.1233076

I find it fascinating that the University's founders decided to fix the number of professors to 10. At first glance it seems to be limiting the potential knowledge on grounds, which is contradictory to the University's values of the pursuit of learning. However, I view it as a great example of the extensive planning and detail that went into the founding of UVA. The University was so thought out and structured that even the number of professors was planned. The architecture, the lawn, the subjects, and now even the number of professors reflect the high level of organized detail that contributed to the founding of UVA.

I looked up Fortescue Aland and found that he was an English lawyer, judge, and politician whose publications influenced Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Jefferson mentioned Aland's ideas in many of his writings, especially about Anglo-Saxon language. However, Jefferson disagreed with Aland's description of the relationship between church and state (Ten Commandments and English common law), as Aland left it open to interpretation. Jefferson's feelings here thus parallel his desire to make UVA a non-divinity school, which is why, for example, the Rotunda was made the center of the University instead of a chapel, which was the norm at the time. https://web.archive.org/web/20150105154722/http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/member/fortescue-aland-john-1670-1746 https://web.archive.org/web/20021110200336/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html

As someone whom I had not heard about, though seemed to be relatively important, I wanted to learn more about the men who were involved in the report. Archibald Stuart was one of these men. He was born in 1757 and studied at William and Mary, later reading law for Thomas Jefferson. Although the two were not close in age, they became friends and Stuart spent quite a bit of time at Monticello learning and studying law, also being involved in Virginia lawmaking. He became a part of the Rockfish Gap Commission in 1818, before he died in 1832.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/archibald-stuart

I find the way these subjects are categorized are interesting sometimes; for example, Military and Naval are put in Mathematics Pure instead of category VIII which Government and Politics belong. That shows at that time, people emphasized the practical part of military, things that can make them win the war. Also, Chemistry and Mineralogy are in a different category from Physics and Geography, but I feel all of them are closely related, and this particular division is much weaker than the other ones. I also wonder why only the first four categories have names.

I was curious about the careers of the lesser-known people who signed the document, including that of James Breckinridge (in this document, his name is spelled with an 'e;' however, after further research, I found that it was indeed Breckinridge, with an 'I.' He was born in the area that is now Fincastle, VA in 1763 to a well-known, wealthy family. He served in the Revolutionary War before studying law at William and Mary where he studied under George Wythe. He then began his political career entering into the House of Delegates, then serving in Congress as a Federalist beginning in 1809. He served there for four terms before returning to the House of Delegates in 1819. In that same year, he was appointed to the Board of Visitors at the new University of Virginia, of which he stayed a part until he died in 1833.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Breckinridge_James_1763-1833#start_entry

When I first ready the report, this duty didn't strike me much, other than that the college would be named the "University of Virginia" to represent the whole state. I felt pride for it until I thought about how location was the first goal, meaning their association with The Grounds for the site be healthy and fertile. This I understood, however, the statement "centrality to the white population of the whole state" bothered me. Later on the report finds that the centrality of white population was the main reason they chose this county over others. I assume it was for easier access for Virginians to attend the school, because only White men were allowed to attend the school until around the 1970s. This is a part of history our school holds that is inevitable, but to see how the University has grown from it is inspiring, however there is more growth to be made.

If I understand this correctly each number represents a group of majors that are of the same category. I cannot image how law municipal, ideology and general grammar suit in the same category. Law municipal and ideology maybe, but with general grammar in this category and also it as a major at that time is quite interesting. Feels to me the politics, law and ideology should be in the same group, while general grammar should suit into the language, linguistic major categories instead.

It strikes me when looking at the other annotations that whether the UVA student volunteer service center Madison House is named after James Madison. It sounds kind of random but I could not Google any information why Madison house is called Madison house. But given the school's founder Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are close colleagues and both share similar values, I thought it might be related.

Merriam-Webster's definition for ideology is "visionary theorizing." Another definition says that it is a "systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture." I find this statement about ideology very interesting in the sense in that it views ideology as how we think in general. In my sociology class, my professor is very peculiar on when to use the word ideology. I think it is a word that has been interpreted several different ways throughout history and it is very interesting that it ends up on this list. Regardless, it is something that is very important to teach. I think Jefferson knew that and he wanted to teach it for that reason. However, Jefferson is known to have his own views (like everyone) especially in politics. These views often contrasted greatly with many others. Would he teach "his ideology" or ideology in general?

This is peculiar because Thomas Jefferson was always focused on agriculture. It was one of the major points that he differed from Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. According to On the Notes of the State of Virginia, Jefferson believed that the ideal independent citizen was the farmer, who when needed to could feed and take care of himself instead of relying on others. The problem with agriculture being the predominant economic source of income was that the new nation as a whole received less money for exporting agricultural goods and paid more for importing more expensive commodities from nations such as Great Britain. Jefferson realized this but attributed poor government with manufacturing and used Great Britain as an example. Thus, Jefferson believed that a more just government outweighed the need for a better economy of the nation as a whole. It is this reasoning that Jefferson made in his On the Notes of the State of Virginia that I believe the 'public industry' here is actually referring more to agriculture and the teachings of manufacturing may have been biased in focusing more on the negatives of manufacturing.

It is very admirable of the commissioners to take this stance. To aspire to be more conscious of morality than the average citizen, who might be motivated not to break the law for fear of imprisonment or other legal repercussions, is truly at the heart of UVa's dogma. It would be ideal, albeit unrealistic, if everyone could be held to this standard, but to change the world you have to start somewhere, so why not here? This passage makes me proud of my school for encouraging its students to rise above mediocrity of the conscience and for attempting not only to provide a world class education, but to produce well-rounded individuals who are good people at heart.

This sentence caught my eye due to the term "social relations". After all, societal structures shape people both implicitly and explicitly. UVA's founders desired for the university to be progressive, unique, and make its own path. The founders prided themselves on creating an institution that was so vastly different from others in terms of goals and expectations. So why was this sentence written? Shouldn't a progressive institution encourage students to defy social norms and forge a new path towards a better and brighter future? If the sentence was simply "...observe with intelligence all the social relations..." then one would understand that students must not adhere to the social constructs but seek to break down what limits them and remain aware. Yet, the implementation of the word "faithfulness" causes me to interpret this sentence as encouraging students to be obedient, to not create any ripples, and to do what society expected of them. After all, creating ripples could lead to true progression, and true progression could topple the delicate system of oppression that was ravishing the country.

This desired ideal of community and support seems to be contradicting for the authors of the report to include, considering that prior to this point, bigotry, unjust superiority, and unabashed racism, have rooted and underly many of their previous statements. How can a community built on "intelligence" and "faithfulness" possibly arise when their bias assumptions of the world around them are flawed?

What is perhaps the most highly controversial sentence within the entire document boils down to one word: white. Linguistically, the word is a simple label for race. Yet, in the context of this document, the message of the entire piece changes. Suddenly, "white" converts this document into one full of racist undertones. To see such discrimination so nonchalantly expressed causes the reader to stop in their tracks and reevaluate the mentality of the writers. Therefore, the questions remains: What if the word "white" was not included within this document at all? Surely, racism and the enslavement of African Americans would not change or vanish, however, would the environment of UVA be different today? The Rockfish Gap Report bred a culture of subtle white superiority that has permeated each and every year and class since UVA was founded. It was only until actual white supremacists marched across UVA's lawn that the community actually decided to take a good look at itself. Disturbingly, the evidence of white supremacy can be traced back all the way to UVA's founding document.

Within the highlighted excerpt, I want to focus on the masculine articles of "he" and "his" as they depict the forms of gender discrimination and inequality that were present within the University prior to 1920. Preceding 1920, women were not legally allowed to enroll within publicly funded professional and graduate schools. Consequently, following 1920 and the legislation which allowed female enrollment, the University exercised forms of gender discrimination within its application process, thus illustrating its masculine roots. However, following a law-suit accusing the University of its discrimination, it was determined that the school could no longer exercise any forms of discrimination, "with respect to race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." Therefore, as a result of such legislation, female students now consist of 55% of the student population thus inviting the revision of masculine pronouns within the Rockfish Gap Report, thus illustrating the University's progress toward gender equality.

I find the selected excerpt very profound and relevant to modern society, as it creates an aura of inequality and racism surrounding the University of Virginia, which has, as a result, been protested against within the recent months. The reality that one of the aspects considered for the location of the University was based on its, "degree of centrality to the white population," conveys the belief of white as a superior race. Furthermore, this directly correlates with the events that have transcribed within the local Charlottesville community over the past few months; not only have neo-nazis publicly illustrated their personal forms of hate and racial inequality on grounds, but students have also pushed for equality at the University by protesting its public display of such historical bias, which has led to the removal of plaques commemorating confederate soldiers from a place of public display, to a place of historical remembrance.

I thought this passage was very interesting, as it shows an impact of the Constitution on the university, in this case the principle of the freedom of religion. However, religious influence is not completely removed from the education. It is stated that the ethics professor’s job is to teach religion and prove that there is a “supreme ruler of the universe.” Although the document claims to place “all sects of religion on an equal footing,” it seems like it only refers to monotheistic religions. This is another contradictory use of the term “equality" in the text.

I find this quote very ironic. The quote puts emphasis on protecting the equal rights of another; however, restrictions prevented people of color and women from enrolling at UVA during this time, a blatant violation of equal rights. It was not until 1950 that the first African American, Gregory H. Swanson, was admitted to the university, but not without a fight. After the Board of Visitors rejected his application on account of his race, Swanson filed a case against the university. In addition, the Board of Visitors did not lift restrictions preventing women from enrolling until 1969. The prevention of African Americans and women from enrolling at the university directly contradicted the principles stated in this report. To the drafters of the report, “equal rights of another” merely meant the “equal rights of white men.”

I find the detail and specificity of this sentence to be interesting. One of the hopes of the University was that the students would not just complete their classical learning, but critically complete their classical learning. And not by just studying authors, but by studying authors of the highest degree. The tone that this sentence sets through the use of its words conveys a University that thrives on independent thinking and intellectual curiosity. It is creating the prestige of the University by making it clear that students will be taught and learn from those of great intellectual capacity and those of the highest degrees. It's not just education that matters to the University, it's education of the highest quality.

I think the use of pronouns in this document is something worth noting. The pronoun 'him' in this sentence is referring to the gender of the professor who will teach medicine and anatomy. The implied gender of the professor was male, because at that time, there were only male professors, along with only male students. This document is concerned with creating the best school possible that will allow its students to intellectually and academically thrive, but by prohibiting women to join the University as professors or students, the school is hindering its ability to intellectual thrive by cutting itself off from the perspectives and ideas offered by women. In 1963, UVA welcomed their first female full professor, and to this day a plethora of women teach at the University. However, most University programs report to have fewer female faculty representation than male representation, so equal gender representation is something we are still working on. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2016/04/a-gender-gap-in-faculty-salaries

Though this academical infrastructure was advertised to foster a socratic style of learning in which students and teachers were able to transparently and consistently collaborate with one another, it evolved as a mechanism for professors to assert control and subsequently established a hierarchy predicated upon elitism and status. The balcony residences reserved for the University’s professors were utilized by teachers to both monitor the slaves maintaining the lawn and ensure that students were conforming to the University’s academic and social standards. This vessel for control appears contradictory to the tenants and values espoused by the Rockfish Gap Report.

Even in a society plagued by bigotry, xenophobia, and racial prejudice, the nation’s Framers recognized the significance of morality and intrinsic virtue. That Thomas Jefferson and those who contributed to the foundation of the University of Virginia were able to dissociate their ideologies for an educated, honorable populous from their endorsement of slavery seems both remarkable and paradoxical. This dichotomy between personal ideals and reality has transcended time and is pervasive even in contemporary society, as evidenced by the events of August 11th and 12th.

I think this paragraph is significant to the understanding of the document as a whole. At first, it says "to instruct the mass of our citizens", focusing on the importance of building a society. Then, at the end, it says "and the individual happiness", directly referring to the development of the individual. This equilibrium between the individual and the society, and the importance of building both at the same time, complementing each other, is perhaps one of the university's primary objectives.

It is interesting the regard to which the university upheld the sciences, in a time were religious thought predominated, and religion and science have long been thought as incompatible.It appears to me as if the university did not have this idea. Rather, there was space for both religion and science.

This concept is very interesting when comparing it to the New College curriculum that UVA has now adopted. In this guideline, the founders are clearly emphasizing the separation of subjects and the independence of their material. Their hope is that each subject taught at the university is very singular and separate from other departments. However, currently with the New College curriculum, we see a change from the independence of subjects to the overlapping interdependence of them. With the Engagements classes and regular classes covering different requirements, there is an obvious change from the extreme degree of separation at the start of the university to now.

I was unsure as to what this meant, but after looking it up, it means, "namely; in other words (used especially to introduce a gloss or explanation)." Is this a relatively archaic way to say "namely" or is it just uncommon?

This stated value of an original University of Virginia education is very interesting. Firstly, it is interesting because it shows how times have greatly changed from education standards at the time of this document's authorship. Nowadays, Latin and Greek are not very popular languages, and we see the UVA student body leaning more towards languages like Spanish and French. This fact demonstrates not only how the interests of the student body has changed, but also how the world has changed from valuing dead languages to valuing the ability to speak foreign languages and the importance of becoming a global citizen. Also, this quote is interesting because they call the knowledge of Latin and Greek "usefull and sufficient" even for people not pursuing a higher level of UVA education. Now, these languages are seen very difficult for any student pursuing a four-year degree. So, this idea really makes me think the students on campus must have been incredibly smart at the time the university opened if people not even seeking degrees were still encouraged to take difficult classes.

It says that dieting is to be paid for at their own expense, which is strange because it comes directly after saying that provisions for diet were to be made. I'm guessing that the food "paid for at their own expense" is not a part of the $3,500 for tuition, so Im guessing it's similar to the way paying for UVA nowadays is handled. Attending UVA after its founding was no cheaper than attending it today!

While the Rockfish Gap Report does not specifically call for the concept of student governance and an honor system, this excerpt seems very reminiscent of the reasoning behind the honor system that is now so deeply engrained in UVA. The idea of one's "pride of character" and "moral dispositions, etc" having a more beneficial lasting affect on character than the motive of fear, seems to eloquently encapsulate the reason why the honor system and student governance has had such a meaningful and lasting tenure at UVA.

It is interesting to imagine, from our point of view in 2017, what UVA might be like if it were founded in Lexington instead of Charlottesville. This hypothetical possibility makes me wonder if UVA would have ended up being smaller, more similar to Washington & Lee which actually is in Lexington. Or perhaps, Lexington would have developed into a larger city, more similar in size and demographics to Charlottesville?

By January 1819, the General Assembly formally approves Central College in Charlottesville as the site for the UVA. The Board of Visitors also meets for the first time and Thomas Jefferson is appointed Rector of the University of Virginia.

This section stood out to me because of how true it remains today. The university continually emphasizes student self governance, and it can be seen in almost every aspect of student life here. I guess I never really thought about how this started at UVA, but I never would have thought it would be written into a document like this one. I love that the students here are still following the intent of the founders of the University, and that it remains at the heart of what UVA is all about.

The foresight of the charterers is pretty incredible to read through. This concept of foresight really came to a head during the enlightenment period. We see it in the exhaustive efforts for creating a US constitution (or a US in general), and this example shows the continuation of this mindset; it might be worthy to note that a founder had considerable provision over the creation of this school. Before contrasting this mindset of foresight with modern mindsets, it's important to note that this concept was applied because of the context of the situation: the beginning of a nation, or the beginning of a university. This makes it obvious as to why we see multiple examples of foresight being explicitly mentioned. At the same time, just because the nation is not still in its toddler phase, does not mean we should so easily become accustomed to thinking with limits to only our lives and none thereafter. It seems apparent that the concept of foresight has steadily fallen out of the norm with parts of society that are in power positions. As aforementioned, the context of our current state clearly shows why it would decrease from the times in which our nation was beginning; but this does not make the fall any more acceptable. With the advent of newer technology and quicker forms of gratification, it seems as though there has been a rise in short-term goals, solutions, and mindsets. Of course, these are broad generalizations; nevertheless, I don't hear or see much foresight in a lot of society today as refreshing as what we see in the works of our nation's- and our university's- founders.

We see here the great emphasis on understanding languages. The idea of teaching ancient languages has nearly plummeted out of schools across America, with my high school here in Virginia eliminating the Latin department. During the time of UVA's chartering, it was clear that the studies of these ancient languages was imperative to a comprehensive education by their standards. I have found very little usage of my modern foreign language education and currently consider it a complete failure of the education system unless one were to specialize in their respective language (although the charter does maintain that other languages than the ancient will be taught, my point is that the emphasis on ancient language has diminished heavily). I see Latin and Greek, on the other hand, as relatively useful for multiple facets of education. This part of the charter provides a clear contrast in education motives between historical and modern expectations.

It is interesting and a bit confusing why they did not include any knowledge of science to be learned in primary school. From a modern day perspective I assume science is a core subject but it is possible that this was not the view during the 1800s. Since the University was only accepting white males and wanted them to be "statesmen, legislators & judges" it wasn't necessary for common knowledge of science. I also think it is interesting to point out that the document believes that men in these roles brings "public prosperity" and "individual happiness". What caused this belief and why is it so important to the writers for this to occur in society?

The use of the word "convenient" is very interesting to me. What makes placing UVA in Albemarle more convenient than placing it in Lexington or Staunton? Is it convenient because its located closer to a white population or for some other reason? What connotation does that word choice hold?

This sentence cumulates the main idea that the community of UVA was viewed to be, such as creating a communal social relationship that involves intelligence and and having faith in each other.

The lawn at UVA currently contradicts this specification, as it is clearly boxed in on all 4 sides by buildings. Although it would be impossible to have a truly indefinitely extending lawn, it seems that Jefferson didn't want to have a space that was closed in on all sides, at least at first. Perhaps Jefferson originally envisioned the lawn stretching much farther than Cabell Hall.

This excerpt details the growth and progression that the University hopes to make within the youth in society, to build and grow the community with intelligent and well versed youth as they prepare even prior to their entrance at the University.

Interesting to note that any sort of religious studies is not included in their list of topic areas. This is a big departure from major universities of the time, given that many were essentially seminaries. This, however, makes sense given Thomas Jefferson's intense secular outlook on the world and education.

I find it interesting the emphasis that Jefferson puts on language. The topic of language has been one that I have found interesting. Jefferson recognizes that language, not just English, is essential to understand because language is how we understand the world. Information has been changed and manipulated throughout the years partly because language always changes and through miss-translation. Jefferson here acknowledges that language changes throughout time, focusing on Anglo-Saxon, which is an essential language to understand because it is a product of change.

I wonder why this report was named the Rockfish Gap Report. Wikipedia says that the Rockfish Gap is a wind gap, and it defines a wind gap as "a gap through which a waterway once flowed that is now dry as a result of stream capture." It seems odd that such an important document and one that relates to education would be named after a wind gap in Virginia. Although this title might make sense practically, because of where the meeting was held (1st sentence of the report), I would have thought a more useful title for the report would have been adopted.

The proximity of the pavilions to the dorms was to encourage the establishment of a "living-learning community," as Jefferson envisioned. He wanted to promote purposeful collaboration and encourage a working relationship between professors and students. Each pavilion was meant to house a specific discipline and the the professor for that discipline was meant to live in the upper level of the pavilion where that class was located. Now, only one pavilion is used as a classroom. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/establishment-university-virginia

The writers are making a point that the incredible advances in science and technology that have been witnessed over the last half century are not an endpoint, but the beginning to a new age of knowledge. They are saying that the cause of the University is not a "vain dream" but something that can truly make a difference in a world that is already changing for the better. They can see, right before them, people and opportunities that will advance the state, the nation, and the world, and the University can be at the center of it all.