Wow! This is very true, if one keeps applying pressure, one never achieves, because one is no longer doing it from the heart.

While there is no professor of Divinity because UVa was created to be a secular university, I find it interesting that there was such an emphasis placed on the languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This is due to having "all sects agree." While this is an interesting road to take for a secular university, since religion was not meant to be the focal point of this university, there is a change that is different today. Now, UVa does not emphasize Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. In fact, I know very few people who take classes in those subjects as it is not required now. I feel that today, the curriculum has changed in that it is more flexible with what students can take to satisfy gaining knowledge in a certain field. For languages, a student doesn't necessarily have to take Hebrew, but can instead take Chinese, Russian, French, etc. The language discipline hasn't changed, what has changed is what is offered to satisfy the discipline.

Although stating that no person should violate the equal rights of another, the University and people within it did exactly that by keeping women and minorities oppressed and distanced from educational and social opportunities. The most alarming aspect of this statement is that in this point of view at the time, it was expected that everyone should exclusively treat white males with respect and equality while not recognizing or upholding the freedoms and rights of others. Jefferson and others in this time did not see people of color or women as people, or as "another with equal rights," but as objects meant to be used. Even though the United States wanted to be different from England and its abuses of power, it and its early leaders did the exact same thing by hurting and exploiting people that should have been protected and given freedom and equal rights.

On first glance, this statement seems just and logical, as young people should certainly develop reasoning and critical thinking skills and enlarge their minds with knowledge. However, I found a problem with the second part of the statement "cultivate their morals and instill into them the precepts of virtue and order," mainly because this language is dangerous, as it was used by this institution to oppress women and people of color and to keep certain groups of people from obtaining an education. These mentioned principals of "virtue" and "order" are words meant to perpetuate a culture that thrives on inequality and hurting others. The way the author writes this sentence makes it sound just and good, but when analyzed more carefully to see the irony and hypocritical nature of these words, this statement falls apart because the mentioned "virtue," "order," and "morals" were based in the degradation of others and the wrongful uplifting of mainly white males who tried to rationalize abuses of freedom and violations of humanity with weak and explicitly incorrect academic and intellectual thought, as well as "morals" which were not moral at all.

A major point of contention in UVa's development as a school comes when we consider the involvement of Jefferson's slaves in its foundation. Danielle Allen's piece really helped give insight into Jefferson's stance on slavery as a practice. He openly condemned the practice, yet still participated. This gives the impression of hypocrisy and his status as a slave owner still shrouds UVa in some ways. However, it can be argued that within the context of Jefferson's time, it was most economically advantageous and almost unavoidable to not have slaves. His treatment of these slaves is another ethical issue, but his practicing of slavery is an aspect of Jefferson's legacy and UVa's legacy that definitely deserves more attention and more analysis.

While it is important to contemplate the implications that come with having students enrolled in college at age 15, I think that it's also important to use this sentence as a reminder to think in context of society during this point in time. Beyond the allowance of 15 years olds at the university, seeing the document through the lens of the time period would also help when interpreting the choice of courses, government/lack thereof, and other aspects of the university. Obviously times were very different 200 years ago, and it's necessary to view the document in the correct context.

Jefferson, though he was religious, was also a practical man. His Bible consisted of all the gospels except for redundancies and miracles. He essentially compiled a list of all the Bible's empirical data and used it in his personal life (hence why most people didn't even know about it--it was mostly for personal use). Here he attempts to bridge the gap between church and state, which he must believe should have some relationship. Any religious person would want their religious values to be reflected in government, even if they say they think church and State should be separate. This only means that Jefferson believed that the state should not influence the church, as the church is pure and holy and must only be directly influenced by God. When he says that this doctrine is the lovechild of church and State, he means to acknowledge and strengthen the relationship between church and State.

Jefferson's claim that all sects of religion stand on equal footing in accordance to the "principles of our constitution," is directly opposed to his sentiments about the religious sects of the Native Americans and African Americans. It's quite possible that Jefferson meant all sects of Christianity, as "religion" is singular. If so, would that mean that the freedom of religion described in the constitution implies that freedom of belief (so long as the central belief is Christianity) was what the Founders really meant? Even though Jefferson's religious tolerance here seems lenient, but then he talks about the Natives' "barbarism and wretchedness."

Although stating that no person should violate the equal rights of another, the University and people within it did exactly that by keeping women and minorities oppressed and distanced from educational and social opportunities. The most alarming aspect of this statement is that in this point of view at the time, it was expected that everyone should exclusively treat white males with respect and equality while not recognizing or upholding the freedoms and rights of others. Jefferson and others in this time did not see people of color or women as people, or as "another with equal rights," but as objects meant to be used. Even though the United States wanted to be different from England and its abuses of power, it and its early leaders did the exact same thing by hurting and exploiting people that should have been protected and given freedom and equal rights.

On first glance, this statement seems just and logical, as young people should certainly develop reasoning and critical thinking skills and enlarge their minds with knowledge. However, I found a problem with the second part of the statement "cultivate their morals and instill into them the precepts of virtue and order," mainly because this language is dangerous, as it was used by this institution to oppress women and people of color and to keep certain groups of people from obtaining an education. These mentioned principals of "virtue" and "order" are words meant to perpetuate a culture that thrives on inequality and hurting others. The way the author writes this sentence makes it sound just and good, but when analyzed more carefully to see the irony and hypocritical nature of these words, this statement falls apart because the mentioned "virtue," "order," and "morals" were based in the degradation of others and the wrongful uplifting of mainly white males who tried to rationalize abuses of freedom and violations of humanity with weak and explicitly incorrect academic and intellectual thought, as well as "morals" which were not moral at all.

This particular statement grabbed my attention because I fully agree with it. There is a Utilitarian aspect in this statement, for laws and government should result in overall increased happiness for all. By respecting the rights of others we are free to evaluate and study all that intrigues us.

Surprisingly, at the current inflation rate, in 2017 dollars, each dormitory only had a budget of $5,890.23, which is incredibly cheap in context for the housing that would house the students who are paying large sums of money to attend Jefferson's university. In comparison, the pavilions, which operated as the classrooms and housing for the professors, their budget is equivalent to $84,146.08 in 2017 dollars. This is more in line with what the budgets should have been, but this is still incredibly small for something of this caliber. Furthermore, the hotels where the dining halls were (in addition to a housekeeper and contracted slaves) had a budget equivalent to $58,902.26, which is still incredibly small for something of this caliber. Interestingly, the raw materials might have only cost this much because, at the time of construction, they had free labor at their disposal to develop these buildings. Seeming as though labor is one of the largest expenditures of modern real estate development, these budgets might be accurate for the bare necessities needed to construct the buildings.

Using reasoning that includes "unexceptional as to healthiness and fertility" to describe a population that has more minorities in the population speaks loudly about the rampant racism that was supported in the 19th century. Today, Charlottesville is the most diverse city of the three-- 33.5% minority compared to Staunton's 17.7% and Lexington's 22.4%. Each of these towns have their own colleges and universities, meaning that people eventually saw that they were suitable for occupation, but it was the strong, anti-minority beliefs that forced them to choose Charlottesville.

As I touched on in an earlier response, these are the types of lessons that the founders looked to instill into its inhabitants of the University. Yes, one can make the point that the founders held certain racial views that prevented the general premise of the University from being totally geared toward equality. However, I believe that the lessons the founders were preaching in the roots of the University enabled growth of character that ultimately led to individuals who started to understand the importance of equality. Inadvertently, the people involved in the University were becoming better members of society, better members of the community, and better learners to understand the wrongs and rights of our world. I think that this is shown by the prowess of the University's attitude toward free speech today.

Naval mathematics is seen as one of the hardest mathematics to do and yet everyone in the university would be taking this course, to have more of complex general education. why would they teach specific topics in a general education curriculum that would rarely be used by the majority? why not make this optional?

Jefferson was a strong proponent of a laissez-faire economic system. It makes sense then that he would want the people attending his university to understand the mechanisms for keeping such a system in working order, for a capitalist system cannot function without a proper education of how to use it.

This wording "convenient and proper" is interesting because it echoes the "necessary and proper" clause of the constitution. It begs the question of whom sould the location be convenient for. Is it everyone in the state? Is it only for the wealthy? Also what makes a location "proper" for a university? Is it proximity, or lack thereof, to urban centers? Is it diversity of natural wildlife? There are many facets on which the commissioners may choose, but the vague wording makes it seem as though it was at the commissioners' discretion.

I think that it's interesting that they started off with a fixed number of professors in certain disciplines. I wonder a lot if Jefferson ever thought about the extent that this university could grow and what he would think about its expansion. Could he have imagined that this school would still be thriving today as a premiere public university?

Footnote number 4 says that Jefferson underlined this part of the text in the original version. Underlining is something that Jefferson does in other documents as well, so I thought it was interesting that he chose to put emphasis on these languages in particular. Jefferson himself knew French, German, Italian, and Greek, so I wonder why he chose those languages.

While it is interesting to see that Anglo-Saxon is considered an important language at the founding of the school, it is also interesting to see what is not considered to be important. Most of these languages are either Western or Antiquity; a microcosm showing how small the world was to the educators of 1818.

I am very curious as to why studies are separated into specifics; practically all of physics has been sequestered into many sub categories. I personally think that it might be because at this point and time physics isn't complete yet. Physics as a study/field is pretty new, and more and more discoveries are being added to list as it grows (for instance, electricity). The document is an interesting window into the education material of a bygone age and I honestly wonder if the cutting edge science we have now will become as mundane as physics in the next one hundred years.

Perhaps education is the only plausible explanation as to why society is in a constant state of advancement. This notion, I believe, is the truth. Education is built upon the grounds of curiosity and stands for innovation; it thrives on the pursuit of discovery. In my opinion, education is the most powerful tool that one could ever hope to yield. The application of one's education is their skillset and only a lack of education can "chain" someone down by shrouding one's perspective and giving him/her an unforgiving and ignorant view of the world. Education is not meant to be a blast from the past, but it is a portal to the future. In order to solve global issues that require more complex thinking than the "days of eating acorns and roots," education is a priceless tool that must be used with the utmost care. This passage reminded me of a famous Nelson Mandela quote, which is, "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." I believe in these words of wisdom with all of my being because I have full faith in the power of education and its capacity to fix global issues. If we want to "change the world," then we need education to unchain us from the past, and not "look backward" because we know that there is a brighter future waiting for us to create it.

What stood out to me here was not the fact that they had slaves but the location of this sentence. The slaves are listed along with the other properties, also showing the reality that the people of this time period saw that slaves will always be property and can never be considered as humans. Also, the word, slaves, is capitalized showing how it belongs to him and only him.

UVA today is made up of these five things that provisions were made for to continue our education. Tuition is a huge factor of the process, especially depending on if you are in-state or out-of-sate. We are provided with many dining options including meal swipes and plus dollars, and are given dorms to live in. Our government is controlled by the Judicial System and Honor Code. The “honorary excitements” created were used to promote student involvement in a variety of extracurricular activities to help balance with their work. Therefore creating a well balanced student.

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.

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.

I am still not sure what I want to be when I grow up, but I know that I want to go and work alongside people in other countries to help advance impoverished societies. I like this idea that with education, leadership, and experience, we can help those around us.

I am curious as to the writers' perception on physical activity. Jefferson clearly holds physical fitness to a high standard, because he says that it is important for any institution of youth. However, you can clearly see the context of the time overriding his beliefs, as they state that the only recommended type of activity is for the military. Furthermore, that the age of the youth is even more of a reason for military activity to exist at the university.

When I took a moment to think over this quote, I can't help but believe that it's completely true. Education is essentially a tool at its very core, it's a tool that people use in order to further society and innovation. "Education generates habits of application" because it constantly forces us to think about what else could be improved. What skills do we need to do this new procedure? How do we create this new procedure? What is the problem and what can we do to fix it? These are all questions that education answers and with education, people have the ability to not only understand these questions, but to understand the answers given to them by themselves, by colleagues, neighbors, etc. Education is an intangible thing, but it is more valuable than anything one could possibly want. While education doesn't directly control one's morals, it definitely has an influence in what people value, what people think is worlthwhile.

This ties into my engagement discussion on how we have made such vast scientific advancementsin such a short time and continue to make those advancements, but something to note is that this does come with a cost. The cost has to do with us compromising our immune system and allowing it to stay weak because with modern medicine we do not build up stronger immune systems , but instead just cure the ailment we have these medical breakthrough of vaccines, prescriptions, and antibiotics. Allowing us not to pass on a better immune system to our offspring in future generations. -lna3av (server wasn't loading on my own computer)

I see a great paradox within this statement. When talking about the University of Virginia, the Board of Commissioners was creating an environment that considers "the healthiness of the site" of the University of Virginia. When I hear "the healthiness of the site", I think of a community and the people that make up a community, all functioning as a collective whole in accordance with correct moral conduct and academic prowess (for an academic institution). However, the sentence goes on to talk about the "centrality of the white population". How could a "healthy" environment function properly when the very principle of its upbringing is challenged by racism and seclusion?

This statement jumped out at me because of the recent events that transpired in Charlottesville involving the white supremacist rally. We must recognize that our country still needs to be improved. Hate and bigotry still exist, but we should not be discouraged. Instead, we should use our education in order to influence positive change whether on individual lives, or the country as a whole.

Though this is a rather self glorifying view of how our society is doing in comparison to our neighbors, they are not wrong. Look at how education has advanced our societies and all members of it, education is an escape route to a higher quality of life, standard of living, and a way to give back to your country. An example of education promoting our country further ahead of others is by the inclusion of women in the educational experience and work force.

It is interesting that the writers recognize the possible disapproval of certain subjects, and thus limit those classes to "the meaning intended" for the university. What are the exact intentions of each class? If subjects like ethics, natural philosophy, and astronomy had taboo themes at the time, what was the true nature of the class? What would professors be trying to hide from students taking these classes?

These words seem really similar. Infinitely implies that there is an end and that we can learn absolutely everything. Indefinitely implies that we can always make progress but never reach an end. The "def" root implies learning something about our origins. There could be a difference in what the terms refer to: amount of knowledge versus time. It promotes collaboration.