I like this quote because this is an example of how we can use our positive fundamental historical beliefs to fight against our negative history. Education is extremely value and UVa is constantly trying to expand knowledge, especially shown through this New Curriculum. Through expanding knowledge and education to help form our morals, we can learn to balance our controversial history with recent events and fight to be a culturally aware and genuinely progressive University. If students are aware and knowledgable, there's so much a student body can do to progress out society. -Ella S.

Even in our formation of the University, we believed higher education meant supremacy. When UVa didn't allow black people into the school, we believed we were superior and they weren't allowed to have the higher education we have. Even now when we look at demographics, the minority percentage is so low, it seems as if we still follow this superiority complex of education for white people. -Ella S.

The way language was used back then gives a good index of what cultural views were back 200 years ago - especially on the subject of gender. It would be difficult to say whether or not the founders of the University were explicitly sexist based on the language used in the Rockfish Gap Report, but it we can conclude with a fair amount of certainty that men were typically seen as those who held positions of power.

Jedidiah Park

Although it may seem strikingly odd that a subject called "military architecture" would be put in a list with many other subjects we are used to seeing taught in a university, it actually is very fitting given the time period. America was a new country and a strong military was something seen as necessary to protect sovereignty. To this day, America puts a lot of emphasis on military strength and many branches of engineering put a focus on defense and military. So in a sense, military architecture is probably still taught, just under a different name and different conventions today.

Jedidiah Park

The focus on healthiness and fertility reminds me sickeningly of the treatment of slaves and of women throughout history, as land, a place for a school to be built, was regarded in the same way that human beings were -- property; only worthy of life if they met specific criteria. A slave was only useful if it was healthy enough to perform the work necessary of its existence (as the slave owners thought). If a slave could not work in a field or in the home, they were a useless slave and often times killed for their inability to perform. The fertility of a slave and it's ability to reproduce was profitable as slave owners were able to buy a slave (if they raped their females) or two (male and female), and have their slave continue to produce more slaves and therefore more bodies able to do the slaveowner's biding. Such is similar to the view of women, as health and fertility were the most important aspects of a woman to society, besides obedience. Women's fertility could be manipulated and used for gain of both men and society. In some instances, women were only considered worthy of life if they produced male offspring. Such is seen in royalty, as King Henry vehemently believed that Catherine "was condemned by God not to have a boy and that Anne would provide him with one". This belief that the only worth of a woman is their ability to produce male heirs was carried into society for a long time after the Tudor times. And although the thoughts towards women are not as strict in modern society, the stigma towards women unable to have children or who do not want children has continued into modern society.

source link : http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/henry-and-divorce/

I find this phrase "branches of learning" interesting, as it implies that learning stems from a singular object, which in essence is a university. It is a very remarkable way to think of learning, as the university is the foundation for learning, but the different branches (topics) stem from not only what is taught officially at the university in classrooms, but also from the experiences that occur here and people that call this place home. I know that this statement did not mean what I think it means now back when it was written, but I still find it a beautiful way to talk about learning. The metaphor of a tree implies that roots in the university - the land it was built on, the people who built it, the people who used to live on this land - can affect the university and the way students learn from it and on it. Such is so applicable to today as we are attempting to embrace the rotten roots of our dear university, attempting to learn from the injustisces against humanity that occurred on and before our university.

Here, as others have mentioned, Jefferson shows his intolerance for people of other cultures and races. I assume the "indigenous neighbours" he refers to are the Native Americans that we as Americans kicked out of their land and homes. To answer his rhetorical question, obviously things other than education have advanced people beyond their condition: race, for one thing, allows white people to gain a great advantage over indigenous people, whether educated or not. In addition, there are many types of education, as can be seen earlier when Jefferson discusses the inevitability of people arguing over what types of education should be mandatory at UVA, saying they will encounter "much difference of opinion." Therefore, who is Jefferson to call them less educated just because they are educated in different ways than white people? Sometimes it is easy to be blinded from some of Jefferson's less likeable opinions, and it is important to recognize these qualities when learning about him and the University's past. Matt F. Discussion

I find this to be very ironic that a deciding factor of the university location was the area's fertility, and yet another factor is the "centrality to the white population." These two things seem to almost contradict one another when taking in the context of the time period. Fertility, to me, means how well an area can be farmed and used for planting things, etc. In that time, many slaves worked on plantations and areas that would be fertile so as to make good profit. So it seems that many areas of land that would be fertile would have a larger population of African-Americans than in non-fertile areas of Virginia. This, then, makes it seem rather ironic that they want it to be fertile AND in an area central to white people, considering anywhere that is fertile is not going to be only white. Perhaps this is a stretch, but this jumped out at me and showed the irony of wanting to be in a mainly white area, yet also wanting fertility. Matt F. Discussion