Moción de censura queda recogida en el Art 113 de la CE, y es un instrumento que tiene el congreso de los diputados para obligar al presidente del gobierno a dimitir, dicho con otras palabras, sirve para que el congreso de los diputados cambie el poder ejecutivo, (presidente del gobierno y resto del gobierno incluido ministros y vicepresidentes. La finalidad de la Moción de censura, es enjuiciar políticamente por parte del congreso de los diputados, la actuación del gobierno, exigiendo responsabilidad política al mismo y procediendo a una sustitución sin nueva convocatoria electoral. Se conoce como Moción de censura constructiva porque la retirada de la confianza lleva aparejada la investidura de un nuevo candidato. La moción de censura debe ser firmada al menos por 1/10 de los diputados, debe incluir los motivos que la sustentan y el candidato a presidir el gobierno que proponen (este no tiene que ser miembro de la cámara y debe haber aceptado previamente). En el procedimiento de la moción de censura, regulado en los Artículos 113.1, 113.2, 113.3 de la CE, expone que, la Moción de censura , deberá ser propuesta al menos por la décima parte de los diputados y hay que incluir un candidato a la presidencia del gobierno ( art 113.2 de CE) , además a la hora previamente anunciada, se vota la moción, y debe a ver transcurrido al menos 5 días desde su presentación en el registro de la cámara y en los dos primeros días de dicho plazo podrán presentarse mociones alternativas (Art 113.3 de CE). La votación es pública por llamamiento, es decir, se pronuncia el nombre de cada diputado y desde su escaño responde, si, no o abstención. Para prosperar necesita el apoyo de la mayoría absoluta de la cámara, al menos de 176 diputados, Si se aprueba una Moción de censura el congreso retira la confianza al presidente del gobierno actual y el candidato incluido en ella se considera investido presidente a los efectos previstos en el (Art 99 de CE), el primero presentará su dimisión y el segundo será nombrado por el rey (Art 114.2 de CE). Si el presidente del gobierno no prospera, mantiene la confianza de la cámara y los firmantes de la moción rechazada no podrán presentar otra moción en el mismo período de sesiones (Art 113.4 de CE).

La moción de censura la podemos ver reflejada en el Título V "De las relaciones entre el Gobierno y las Cortes Generales", de la Constitución Española de 1978, concretamente en el artículo 113, donde podemos encontrar 4 apartados. Es un artículo donde se valora la actuación del Gobierno. Dependiendo de si triunfa o no dicha moción, habrá unas consecuencias u otras. Un ejemplo de moción de censura que podemos tomar, puede ser la ocurrida entre mayo y junio de 2018, donde Mariano Rajoy tuvo que dimitir, ya que triunfó la moción de censura que realizó Pedro Sánchez, siendo este último el actual presidente del Gobierno de España.

Hace un tiempo, pudimos ver que se aplicó el( Art.113 de la CE), tras la moción de censura realizada al anterior Gobierno de España.Pedro Sanchez(actual presidente del Gobierno de España)ganó al anterior presidente(Mariano Rajoy) tras una moción de censura. El tomó posesión ante el Rey y procedió a nombrar el nuevo Gobierno.El secretario general del PSOE, firmó el decreto del nombramiento después de que Ana Pastor( la presidenta del Congreso de los Diputados) le comunicara su investidura. Pedro Sanchez , es el primer vencedor de una moción de censura en España, reunió los apoyos de diversos partidos políticos como: Unidos Podemos, ERC, PNV, PDeCAT, Compromís, Bildu ,Nueva Canarias y de los diputados de su grupo parlamentario.

El (Art.113 de la CE), que a la vez lo conforman cuatro apartados. Es un articulo donde se recoge escrito el poder que se le ofrece al Congreso de los Diputados para exigir responsabilidad política al Gobierno tras mayoría absoluta la propia adopción de la moción de censura. Se recoge también los componente por los que debe ser propuesta("una décima parte de los Diputados, donde habrá que incluir un candidato").

DISOLUCIÓN ANTICIPADA DE LAS CÁMARAS Cuya finalidad es reforzar la mayoría parlamentaria del gobierno a base de una nueva elección electoral. La iniciativa es que el Presidente tenga deliberación con el Consejo de Ministros. Sus aspectos son : 1 Que el decreto este firmado por el Rey y refrendado por el Presidente. art 64 2 Debe de haber una convocatoria electoral. art 68 3 Puede afectar a una o las dos Cámaras. Título III. Sus límites son: -No puede haber una disolución anticipada mediante una moción de censura. art 113. -No puede haber una nueva disolución sin haber pasado un año del anterior. art 115 y art 99 -No puede haber disolución en los supuestos del art.116.

That must have worked well. Putting families with possibly young children right next to students. In all sincerity, though, this arrangement seems like being a professor was a trade. Blacksmiths or tavern keepers lived in their place of business, and so are these professors. It shows just how evolved of a society we are that our professors are more than tradesmen, that they not only teach but are also participants in research institutions.

It is necessary to understand that cars and the like did not exist at this point in time. As such, keeping the university central to the state's educable population must have been the primary concern for the founders. Also, because I expect an intense amount of responses keying in to the "white" mention, I've said it a hundred times, but black people were not people in the eyes of whites at this point. It was not a good system, but that's a given from our perspective. To them, slavery was perceived as traditional and necessary. So when people say that this was unfair to black people, keep in mind that unfair is a standard in this world, and that slaves were struggling to keep their families intact and survive from day to day, not get a higher education.

I appreciate the fact that they mention the importance of learning other languages in order to advance as an individual as well as a member of the community. I think this section of the document is one that is still applied to the education at the University of Virginia today. For example, students in the College of Arts and Sciences are required to take a language course in their first year and I believe part of this is to make us more well-rounded individuals that are able to connect with multiple cultures and languages. UVA also has language houses meant to immerse certain students to a particular language that they are learning. This is significant to one’s development because studies have shown that bilingual people have more cognitive benefits such as multi-tasking and better attention span.

Upon reading this section of the Rockfish Gap Document, I noticed how there seems to be an emphasis on the individual. The use of phrases such as “for himself” and “ his own” exemplifies a common theory in economics derived from Adam Smith that when people work to benefit themselves, they indirectly benefit society. In the same way, the theory can be applied to education. However, there are pro’s and con’s to this mentality. In regards to the positive aspects of individualism, people feel more to express themselves, which allows for a more creative community. However, an emphasis on individualism can also be dangerous in that it can also lead to a selfish mentality, straying away from important values such as compassion and camaraderie. It is important to balance the concept of individualism with such values, which I think the writers of the Rockfish Gap Document tried to do. For example in the line that follows, they mention that it is imperative for one to “understand his duties to his neighbors and country,” allowing for an application of individual thinking.

Although this is a common subject that all schools still teach, I'm sure the subject matter must have been very different. It's similar to how history classes change inevitably over time to constantly update with current events as well as new discoveries about previously "known" facts. Considering the Louisiana Purchase being only 15 years old at this point, geography must have been quite an important field of study. Today we learn from texts compiling ages of knowledge acquired over many lifetimes of contributing people. Perhaps "geography" was a skills-based class as opposed to a purely information-based one. Some people had to go out and chart good maps. If property lines were disputed a cartographer would have been sent in. Today the profession exists (with satellite and computer assistance), but is very different in main goals and intentions.

I am curious about what kind of law mandated this very specific location for the meeting. What kind of circumstances would have led to this oddly specific legislation? Since new universities don't really get chartered anymore, are there any obsolete laws like this? It just sounds very weird that the Commissioners were mandated to meet at a specific tavern.

This section of the reading describes the preferred method of teaching for students. The philosophy for the way of teaching essentially promotes praise as opposed to criticism when motivating students to push further and gain a bettered sense of intellect and character. I see this as a very positive aspect of what the founders of the university sought to implement in the teaching style of the university. It is important that there is a positive relationship between teachers and students. During this young-adult phase, positive reinforcement is much more effective than discouraging criticism. I personally respond better when my teachers and authority figures criticize me constructively, and encourage me to reach further and offer me insight as to how I can be a better student and individual. This method of reinforcement is especially important among diverse communities, such as that of UVA, where members of minority groups pertaining to race, gender, and sexuality feel vulnerable to discrimination and degradation. During my experience at UVA, I have felt that my teachers really do exercise this effort to encourage me in constructive ways. As a member of the Hispanic demographic, as well as being a woman, I feared feeling looked down upon and discriminated against by my professors and peers; however, this has not been the reality. Just as the founders of the university intended, the faculty at UVA generate positive energy in the classroom, promoting a great sense of ambition and passion towards their respective subject areas. They choose to commend us for our successes and motivate us to improve on our weaknesses, rather than discouraging us and having us live with a sense of fear that we as individuals are not enough to succeed at UVA. -Estefania Salume

This is certainly an interesting little tidbit of medical views at the time. Part of the purpose is to teach the students what medicine can do, something that I suppose not very many people at the time would know the exact extent of, either exaggerating or downplaying the uses of then-modern medicine. I also enjoy that they throw shade at any other institutions by saying that it would be both expensive and much longer to pursue a medical education at another institution. Pretentiousness is universal after all, I suppose.

German has had a troubled and war-torn past, but is now known for being a major scientific nation, partially out of necessity. I'm not sure about the sciences then, but a lot of philosophers and musicians at the time were German. In terms of military history, Germany wasn't exactly a hugely united country, torn with religious and political strife.It's almost odd that they were being praised for their scientific advances in a predominantly religious area. Calling it a country at this point would be a bit of a stretch.

The sentence here regarding technology and its use to manipulate and claim land as resources instead of shared environments hints at sentiments that continue to fuel the debate on man’s role in exacerbating climate change and the degradation of the earth. While the document emphasizes the benefits of higher education on improving man as individuals prior to this point, this statement here presents a darker, more exploitative use of knowledge for gain. Undertones of submission and subservience to the human race further invoke a strong sense of superiority that inherently perpetuates dangerous rates of resource consumption of in order to maintain high standards of living without a thought for its cost to the environment. It is this fostered sense of entitlement that inherently proves destructive to man’s surroundings, solidified by the current state of the world and the earth.

Even in the early beginnings of America, there existed a “take up the white man’s burden” mentality already brewing in the American citizenry, especially among the educated elite - seeing as education is still inherently more accessible to mainly a white populace (even by today’s standards). Illustrating the kindling of policies such as the Manifest Destiny, to “send us to other countries, to seek the instruction they require” invokes a certain sense of western superiority over other cultures, fueling a sense of responsibility to further westernize countries and peoples deemed “developing” or “third world”. Even in America’s origins as settlements rooted in imperialism and colonialism, the notion of spreading westernization, be it through colonies or missionaries, continues to maintain its relevancy within this document as well as tensions rooted in this notion still present globally.

Spanish is one of the branched groups that was planned to be taught at the school from the beginning. Like many other schools, UVA now offers this school in other countries were students are able to have have the full experience of a different culture. It's a great opportunity for students to come out of their comfort-zone and gain skills that will make them a more well-rounded human being. Not only is Spanish the only language the is taught abroad, but their are a wide variety for various people to choose from.

Not only has the plan of the buildings, known as the pavilions located by the rotunda, shown to have an arrangement but I have also found it in old dorms. The way the buildings are structured and placed makes the quad the center of them all. This allows for all the people that are located in the dorms to have a centralized place where they can all come together and socialize. It is well known how old dorms are know to have a better sense of community. I wonder if new dorms are not as known for their sense of community because they were built later on and the people that made the plan didn't have the same goals in mind.

This section of text regarding professors' salaries is particularly intriguing because it discusses the fact that professors should be paid a moderate subsistence. If you look at the Cavalier Daily's report on salaries on some of our most distinguished professors are rather high and nowadays that is what I believe is what it takes to get some of the best minds to teach at our university and why the moderate subsistence clause of the Rockfish Gap Report is no longer relevant if we want to keep UVA's standing as one of the world's best universities. Professors want to teach at the universities that are the best deal for them which is why we can no longer just pay them just a mere living wage as in the time when this document was originally written.

I have noticed the several implicit and subtle racist comments made throughout the report but this is the first segment that bluntly exhibits the authors’ ingrained racism and superiority complex. It seems both unnecessary and unprofessional to include this type of comment in such a “serious” document and it makes me wonder on what principles this university was founded. This seems like an important topic to explore since usually the image that comes to mind when we think of racism is an attack on African Americans but we mustn’t oversee the racism that has taken place against Native Americans for even longer than the racism directed towards black people in America. What the authors are trying to say in this section (but fail to do it in a decent manner) is that they would like UVA to provide an education that looks forward rather than to the past and that builds upon the knowledge of previous generations rather than limiting themselves to hang on to that knowledge only. It seems fine that they adopt this philosophy of how knowledge and education should be; but what I don’t agree with is the way that they use Native Americans as an example that they shouldn’t follow and degrade them by saying that their ways are “barbaric” and “wretched.” I was just recently made aware of this type of racism in America in my engagement class Making the Invisible Visible where we explored the several types of racism that still exist today and are usually overseen or disregarded. A black-Native American farmer came to talk to us about the racism that he receives on both grounds (his black and Native American backgrounds) and how Native American techniques on farming are often looked down upon by whites (despite their efficiency and good results). This shows how the racism that existed back in the 1800’s still prevails in this minority’s present. As this report states, it is important for us to look back on previous generations in order to better our future and avoid the same mistakes. For this same reason, UVA students should be able to make racism against Native Americans and other minorities visible in order to stop it.

-Estefania Salume

The notion that the students of UVA in the early days should be preparing for military battle while they are in their hours of recreation. Nowadays these preparations would only be seen at traditional military academies like VMI and the Citadel. UVA is known for having ROTC programs but the amount of students that participate in them is not as high as it seems Jefferson wanted in the original proposal for the university.

Honestly, I initially misread this as "menstruation" and I was thoroughly annoyed at the thought of women being blatantly excluded from this report, yet the founders stating that something that only applies to women would be important. My mind was bombarded with questions of why women could be deemed as lesser when these men are saying that menstruation is so very useful. Luckily though, my mind was simply playing tricks on me, and I can't be too angry at this particular line.

I am curious as to why these specific locations were initially considered in the placement of the University. Were there meanings behind them or correlations other than the heavy population of wealthy white people? It almost seems as if the founders simply pointed at some areas on a map and chose the one they deemed most suitable for the benefit of themselves and the caucasian folks that lived there.

Another connection between the Declaration of Independence and this Rockfish Gap Report can be found here. The founders of this university, just as the founders of the United States did, prevented theocracy from entering their establishment. We read in Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality by Danielle Allen, how Thomas Jefferson made a conscious effort not to directly reference God or any religion in the Declaration of Independence. For the University of Virginia, this was also important as to create a community that valued education as suppose to a supreme being.

I enjoy how the founders of the University of Virginia are embracing the public university that they have created. Thomas Jefferson believed strongly that one of the fundamental roots of a Democracy was that its citizens must be well educated. I believe that this is the reason why he made the University of Virginia a public university. How was he to live with himself simultaneously arguing an educated society while in the mean time founding a private institution?

I believe this this quote is emblematic of the cultural that was present at the time of the University of Virginia's finding. In the 21st century, you rarely see direct references by Universities promoting agriculture. However there are still many similarities between the University's goals for how students will be prepared to participate in society that have remained to this day. These include: political involvement, industry, commerce (especially present with our commerce school at UVA) and manufacturing (which I believe now would be synonymous with engineering).

I wonder what he meant by "healthiness". Did he mean economically healthy? If so I can understand why he said he wanted the university to be in proximity to the white population. If we look at the socioeconomic status of the United States population at that time, unfortunately, any other race had little to no socioeconomic status. While I do not agree with how racism has lead to this type institutionalization, I believe this could be a possible reason for my Thomas Jefferson said this.

For how much the university still follows this report it is intriguing to see where UVA has deviated from this report. I also find it funny how Thomas Jefferson said, “guarding from encroachment & surprise” and that was how the Chapel was eventually built.

I find it hard not to see the irony in this regard. While the university has become more diverse, originally. it was only meant for white men. And yet, the report claimed that one of the primary objectives is "To improve by reading, his morals and faculties." It is immoral for be exclude someone based on their race or their gender. It is immoral to establish a supremacy of a certain race. It is immoral to belittle another human being. The ignorance that the founders had pertaining to this is just appalling.

It is interesting to note that they considered the condition of the land when deciding to build UVa. They took account of the environment in which the students would obtain their education. I would like to believe that, the founders understood the significance of the environment to the students' ability in retaining the education that they would receive.

Evidencing just how different a world we live in, the process of navigation (almost certainly with a physical map!) was once a topic covered by University professors. We can question whether a University education is still meant to supply young people with the practical everyday skills they will need when they enter the workforce. I often hear people complain that despite a multi-thousand dollar education, they don't feel prepared to navigate adult life (e.g. filing taxes, doing basic car repair, etc.) Should such practical knowledge be the responsibility of a place of higher learning? It's clear that on some level, the founders of UVA thought so, but they established the school in an age before YouTube tutorials.

This section of the document was obviously penned––or at the very least heavily influenced by Jefferson himself. The understanding of theology as a more practical moralistic framework than an actual system of beliefs is exactly what you'd expect from a man that cut all the miracles out of the bible. Now that the college actually offers religious studies, Jefferson's theistic understanding of Christianity is probably offered as more of an alternative interpretation than the founding doctrine that it once was. I personally have not taken Can a Text be Ethical, but I would imagine that it offers some insight into the breadth of views that Christianity can be understood to cover.

The design that professors and students live under the same roof reflects Mr. Jefferson's intention to create opportunities of endless discussion between professors and students; however, the design that the "professor and his family" live with the students brings the personal, intimate layer. It implies that the connection between professors and students extends beyond merely academic learning and into daily, personal life. They may eat and have fun together. Students therefore become more like family members than merely students to the professors. Because of such an intimate connection, students have opportunities to learn life wisdom from the professors, as well as to have life-long mentors and friends.

I find this sentence very intriguing because it basically mentions how Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are the foundation to all the aspects of science. In modern day, these languages mostly seen as "dead" languages. Even though the languages are used in certain contexts and regions on the Earth, they are not very present among many societies or communities. Also, a majority of students either study or have studied languages like Spanish, French, Arabic, or Chinese. A lot of students most likely have started learning a foreign language during middle or high school, and the selection was probably not as vast as the selection here at UVA, so some students may not have even be introduced to learning Latin, Greek, or Hebrew until they attended the university.

If Thomas Jefferson were to return to UVA, I think the thing that he would be most surprised about is the amount of diversity among the university's students and professors. Compared to what the university used to be, UVA has students/professors of all colors, as well as female members. I find it interesting how they explicitly stated "men" when mentioning their citizens. It makes you wonder if they specifically included the word men to subtly express their desires for the population of UVA. In my opinion, I think they did include it on purpose since women or people of color were not the intended audience to read this document or even attend UVA for that matter.

Even back then, the very beginnings of aspects of the University, such as the hospital, already began taking form. This further pays testament to the longevity of the University and the long-term goals of learning in an environment where there are opportunities to study any subject. Aside from the educational purpose, I believe that the hospital serves a practical purpose as well. This is stated in the quote. This effectively added another dimension to the University that would make it more self-contained, making it so students and staff need not leave grounds to receive medical care, thereby creating a greater sense of tight-knit community.

Looking back, it is clear now how the vision for the University changed over time. 200 years prior it must have been difficult to envision how UVA would become a center of learning that would encompass a plethora of different subjects. By blatantly stating that it would be difficult to assess the purpose of the school, the founders left it open-ended, laying the grounds for adaption and evolution. I believe that this willingness to let the school develop on its own accord, allowed UVA to become such a successful college.

Considering the size of the University today, which is far larger than a lawn surrounded by buildings, it shows the evolution that many of America's constructs have undergone. Now the University is so large it takes me about 20 minutes to get to the lawn from my living area, and I live with 6 people, not just one roommate. Also, the conditions the report describes are very similar to the lawn rooms that upperclassmen students can obtain, which is a funky little tie to the past. All in all, the changes of UVA over the past 200 years is just an example of the vast and rapid development of America.

In the nineteenth century when all other universities were religiously affiliated, it seemed odd that rather than having a church at the center of the campus, UVA would have a Library as its focal point. This plan reflected Jefferson's belief that the church should be separate from the state and since this was a state school, it had to be in accordance to this ideal. Therefore, the Rotunda, which was the building that ultimately replaced the typical church, represented/ symbolized the "Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom" because it separated the school from any specific religious affiliation, allowing for a free expression of faith on campus. This plan also reflected the idea that knowledge should be the driving force of humans and is the most important and powerful weapon one can have. The Rotunda can be defined as a "temple of knowledge" because it celebrates education.

Further, in my engagement class, Making the Invisible Visible, we discussed how some locations are places while some other are sites. The difference between these two is that places evoke familiarity and are meant to represent something important in people's lives while sites resist familiarization. The Rotunda could therefore be considered a place because it draws people in and it has certain features that makes it a memorable, unique place. The grandiosity of this building makes people feel like learning is an awesome thing, which accomplishes Jefferson's goal of celebrating knowledge over all things.

The idea to improve someone’s moral and faculties by reading is truly a logical one. However, it was clear that it was not the case. The university’s aim of improving someone’s moral tremendously failed in the past when it refused to accept people of color in this school, when it refused to accept females in this school, and when it tried to do whatever it could to ensure that only white men were able to attend this school. Thus, it begs the question, what kind of moral did they have? And was their morals worth being improved or they should have been abolished and changed?

Personally, I feel it is rather odd that they had to meet by law to discuss school matter. Does it mean that they wouldn't have met if it had not been mandatory? And why was that the case? It seems like, prior to the law, they were not willing to meet up and discuss the education of the school. Hence, the quality of education back then was questionable.

This passage was one of the most baffling ones I found in the Rockfish Gap Report because it is not only ironic but it seems to be very untrue. I do realize that the meaning of "equal rights" during the time of UVA's construction and founding is not the same as today's meaning, the one I am most familiar with. But I believe that as educated scholars and active members of the community, the authors of this document and founders of this university were aware of the inequality that existed at the time. In my engagement class, Making the Invisible Visible, we have discussed issues regarding Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on slavery. After analyzing some of his personal texts, we concluded that he was aware of slavery's perverse end and he knew that it did not contribute to equality among all human beings. However, he believed that in order to keep the structure of society, slavery had to exist. Thus, I believe it is very hypocritical that, knowing the inequality present in a society where slavery was still prominent, the authors of this report still decided to include "not violate the equal rights of another." I would feel more comfortable if they had not included this part or if they had specified who "one another" meant, which obviously meant "whites." Nonetheless, I understand that the report's intended audience was all educated white people, thus it must have felt useless to specify who "one another" meant if only one specific group of people was supposed to read it.

What struck me most about these five lines is the repetition of male pronouns such as “he,” “his,” and “him.” I think it is hypocritical of the author’s goal of giving “every citizen” the right to an education. The reference of only male pronouns suggests that females were not considered citizens, which simply isn’t true. On a more positive note, it seems that the authors’ of this document are placing great importance on individual development, which can be seen through phrases such as the “transaction of his own business.” The word “own” especially conveys this message and is reflective of the growing interest in capitalism and individualism during that time. It was believed that the focus on the individual would indirectly benefit society further. But could it be that this emphasis on the individual caused one to be more oblivious of social issues such as racism and sexism? It is important to note that at the time only white males were considered to be individuals, not women nor African Americans.

This is an incredible ironic statement. The founders are both saying "every citizen" and "his." As we think about the reasons why attending college is so valuable in the present day, we still maintain the same viewpoint as the founders did 200 years ago: to learn how to independently and successfully live our lives. That theory has not been altered, however the people to whom that theory pertains to has expanded.

This sentence stuck out to me because it reminded me of a discussion I had in my high school anthropology class: we were discussing why certain skin tones were more favorable than others across cultures. One of the reasons offered here in the Rockfish document is that the color white represents "healthiness." This idea was not only apparent in the United States, but is a widely popular idea in many Asian cultures even today. According to these cultures, white suggests cleanliness and a sense of purity. But where did such ideas come from? It can be difficult to further investigate this because it is highly offensive. As an Indian American, I found this line challenging to read because it suggests that any other skin tone is inferior or unhealthy. That is a lot to process. Despite this difficulty, I do find it to be imperative to explore where such ideas derived from to prevent the popularity of such beliefs in the future. One theory we discussed in my anthropology class last year is that people favor skin tones of those in power. There was indeed a time in which darker skin was seen as superior and even today, tan skin is becoming more and more popular. But at the time the Rockfish Gap Report was written, it was certainly the white population that was in power, and due to this power, they felt that they were more entitled to a higher education. This does not mean their actions were justifiable whatsoever but it could provide insight as to why the authors believed the things they did.

I feel this is one way that education at modern universities is changing in a negative way. I find that this style of education is very important in allowing people to have a diverse selection of reference points. However, with the raising costs of education it seems that people are less willing to explore their options and are just picking the degree that would yield the largest return on investment. As bgoodwyn said it is great that the College Fellows are using the core principles of Jefferson to create a curriculum that is diverse.

This idea is perfectly neoclassical, which is why one can see that Jefferson stated this claim about the purpose of education in his report about the founding of the nation's next great university. Education as stated by Jefferson creates a new person out of the savage that he once was into a righteous person. The idea that education changes the nature of the person is not something I necessarily agree with as some of the most vicious people in history were well educated. Take a modern example someone such as Richard Spencer one of the leaders in the alt-right he is highly educated and even attended UVA but still remains vicious. However, it should be noted that usually the qualities of virtue and social worth are taught to a person when they come to university and they usually leave with greater virtue and social worth, it is just not always the case.

In the Rockfish gap report, the writers have to justify the relevance of mathematical and physical sciences in a holistic education. However, in the intensely, stem-based environment of today’s society, the notion of advocating in favor of these fields strikes a rather amusing chord. With the rise of technological advancements at a near exponential rate, a focus on STEM education has taken the global community by storm, which unfortunately results in the lack of support, and, more concretely, lack of funding for the arts. Yet, as laid out by President John F. Kennedy, “this country cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor.” Mirrored in the ideals of the university, the writers continue to solidify the importance of a well-rounded education, pushing the importance of both scientific thought and artistic expression, and the value in encouraging growth in both - a personal mission of mine.

One of Thomas Jefferson's main goals for the University was that he wanted it to be centered around learning and education. Back then, around the time this document was written, most schools had a church as the center of their campus, but Thomas Jefferson set a library as the center point on Grounds to symbolize the importance of learning. Other Universities had churches in the as the focal point because, most likely, the school in question was based to revolve around a particular religion such as Christianity. Thomas Jefferson did not want religion to be what fueled the University of Virginia since he viewed all religions on the same level, and he very much valued the rewards that knowledge provides us, and a library was a perfect symbol to express that belief.

At the time that this document was written, readers would not glance over this statement twice. However, having read this sentence in the modern day time, it really does not sit well with me. This is basically the first instance in the writing that states the the University of Virginia is going to be a school meant for the white population. This phrase essentially declares that UVA should be built in Virginia where the most white people live, since that is their main target "audience". Although this statement does not necessarily seem hostile or obviously racist, the intent and goal behind it is, in fact, discriminatory. Albeit, the presence of this sentence is not surprising considering who wrote the document and what time frame it was written in.

As Jefferson was someone who believed in the separation of church and state, encountering this sentence in a document proposing a university designed by Jefferson and his colleagues is rather alarming. It is almost implying that because of God, the university is being founded. However, I believe the sentence could be interpreted as saying that because of the heavy reliance on religion in other contemporary institutions of higher learning, that this new university would be one that is secular and not reliant on a religious governing body such as the other universities did. That being said it also noteworthy that Jefferson capitalized State and did not do so for church, implying possibly what body he believed to be superior. It holds true to today that the University of Virginia is a secular one

Though I was initially shocked by the kind of bluntness of this statement about the 57 slaves Thomas Jefferson owned, speaking about them as if they were animals, I realized that considering the time this all took place, slavery was such an unfortunately common act that there is almost no way that these people could not be mentioned. I hate that Jefferson, who often wrote of every man being equal, actually owned slaves himself, but it is something that the University of Virginia must address and continue to discourage any racism that has occurred or may occur in the future.

A fundamental part of higher education laid out in the Rockfish gap report was its role in building and molding “good men,” and ultimately, the citizenry of America. Even as many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, have reflected in their plans for the newborn country, they championed an educated population in the form of an electoral college to elect the country’s executive, in fear of the direct election of a tyrant. However, the access to higher education was limited to only a singular demographic: white, landowning men. While ensuring educated decisions on the fate of the country is a reasonable, and respectable notion, the very barrier to access to education for underrepresented groups primes the ruling class to be solely dominated by a white, male populace, therefore laying the foundations for centuries of control.

As my fellow students have mentioned in these annotations, it is clear that Jefferson intended for White people to be the only attendants of UVA. I am intrigued by this considering Jefferson's rhetoric of liberty and equality in his writings, The Declaration of Independence in particular, yet the reality of his lifetime support for slavery. This is a truly hard topic to face when taking on the standpoint of someone living in the 17th century. I don't think it would have been easy for a multiracial school to be opened at this time, as many white folks probably would not have accepted it, but I wonder, even if Jefferson was not worried about no one attending his school, would he have still created a desegregated one? Based on his owning slaves, I am inclined to believe that he wouldn't... I am conflicted as to how I feel regarding Thomas Jefferson's words versus his actions.

I would personally be interested to know if UVA is still required to accept any voluntary contributions, and, if not, for how long this was a policy. It might be the reason that certain extremist groups were able to contribute to UVA so much. Of course, that is assuming that whoever was in charge of accepting and regulating such contributions didn't identify with said groups.

In a way, this furthers the Democratic-Republican view of limited government. The writers specify "free scope to public industry" as a way of promoting non-politically-involved enterprises. I personally think the "political economy" part really just means economy in modern terms.

I guess this would be considered "Old English" to most, but I'm pretty certain that, historically, this is considered to be within the category of English that we now speak today. I've heard that even the language of Shakespeare is actually considered "New/Modern English" in most regards, despite it sounding very foreign at times. I wonder how vocabulary/grammar would have begun to shift differently in the States compared to Britain, as we now see that many common words in the UK are quite different from the USA, but even common words are spelled differently.

Adjusted for inflation this would be around $55,635.64. This seems extremely expensive considering Thomas Jefferson's goal to have an educated populous. This combined with the language in this text regarding race shows that those who attended from the inception of the university were upper-class white Americans.

From this paragraph we can understand the two "pyramids" in the founders of the school. The first pyramid is the pyramid of knowledge structure in every human. To be competent to serve as legislators or judges, one must be educated broadly from primary schools (like the base of pyramid), and then build the "high branches of education" upon it. Founders understood that without a broad base, elite education is useless. Another pyramid was the pyramid of the structure, as the founders perceived that the "prosperity & individual happiness" depend on the elite class (statesmen, legislators & judges). It was the class structure like pyramid that gave them the perception that the top part of society can lead the rest. Through these two pyramids we can try to imagine the society back then that emphasizes "structure", which is in sheer contrast to our leveling society now.

Here, we see the University offering study of 'Natural Law'---an intersection of politics, psychology, philosophy, and a dash of spirituality that was wildly popular with the founding fathers. The basic premise is that the "nature" of humanity causes us to demand governance and order. The founding documents of the US are heavily reliant on natural law. Today, does the University––and education in general–– highlight these philosophies clearly enough, or does a merely cursory knowledge of the thinking behind some of our most important documents fuel historical and political ignorance?

It's vital to remember when reading this document that while it has no legal basis in and of itself, it is being submitted to the State Assembly. This has a number of important implications, but its most noticeable effect is on the diction that the document uses. The language is formal and the sentences are lengthy and self-referential, both of which can give rise to considerable confusion in a modern reading.

Before moving to UVA I didn't really know much about the school. i knew it was one of the best public schools in the nation, yet that was it. As I began to research more of the school, I became more and more convinced of its greatness. I wasn't able to see the school until move in day which I was really nervous on doing because I didn't know if I's like the environment. When I was finally able to walk around and look at the school, I couldn't help but be mesmerized by the structures and set up of the school. I can still remember the first time I saw the pavilions. I wasn't sure what they were but I know today that UVa has kept the rotunda and surrounding pavilions as a central place of grounds where students can spend time as a community.

In this section they mention the use of languages such as Latin, Greek, and Hebrew as the "foundation common to all Sciences." It is very true many things have been translated over the years for the purpose of learning and the continuation of modifying techniques of various fields, not only science. Through reading this, it was brought up to me that in earlier times a lot of people learned languages because it was necessary not much because of a want. Nowadays, I see more and more people striving away from the need and pushing themselves to learn a second language because they want to. There are many languages being taught at various Universities, not only these three, showing the great changes our world has come about in these 200 years.

The impact of creating a truly all-encompassing place of learning was a relatively unique concept at the time, especially under these circumstances. Sciences in particular fall in line with the enlightenment concepts pertinent to prominent figures and ideologies of the time. The empirical measurements and hard facts that are characteristic of studying the sciences are a perfect exemplification of how humanity progresses towards a greater understanding of the natural world.

While many people may comment on the racism this sentence implies, claiming that everyone would make mistakes, it is important to note that under the social context at that time, the difference between races was not considered racism; people probably did not know what racism is. Racism is based on the assumption of egalitarian society, while at that time people were born to believe that other races were inferior. It was normal to believe African Americans were inferior; it was eccentric to believe that every one was equal (women, Native Americans, African Americans). At that time, discussion of racism would simply be INSIGNIFICANT. It is just like we believe that robots are produced to serve humans; it may be considered extremely racists hundreds of years later when robots are considered equal to human, but this conclusion is based on the social norms in that far future. Similarly, to understand 19th century United States, we need to put down the lens of modern social norms, because only in this way can we understand their perspectives; otherwise, we are rejecting values away.

Mankind was living under relatively the same conditions in 1500 CE as they were in 1500 BC. Newton changed that. (Referenced from the book 100 Most Influential People) The writers of this document are honoring specific advancements in knowledge by teaching them at the university. In truth, the Board is expressing their hope that through the establishment of this institution they may be able to snowball this effect, further increasing the pace with which humanity can understand their world.

This attentiveness to world languages at the time indicates a strong awareness by the Board of Commissioners as to the global status of the early United States. Despite becoming a self-sovereign nation and establishing a proper constitution, the US was just a fledgling nation on the world stage. The US as a super power wasn't even imaginable at that point, since the nation had so much catching-up to do in relation to the real centers of power at the time. The commissioners envisioned their system of education from a highly grounded and pragmatic perspective.

In the previous lines, the founders of the university make it clear they are interested in re-designing the future, not simply repeating the mistakes of the past. This line displays one of Jefferson's great complaints about religion: that it inspires adherence to the status quo, and discourages dissent and curiosity. The University is meant to be a platform for change and advancement.

Clearly, languages are an extremely important component of a well-rounded education from the perspective of the members who signed the document. However, I found it fascinating how Anglo-Saxon (Old English) was chosen to be a part of certain curriculums because it is so difficult to interpret. Understanding our roots, whether in language or culture, is certainly an essential part of growing as a society, so I understand the importance of studying Anglo-Saxon, but I wonder what type of applications there were for the language aside from studying history.

By addressing the inevitable "change(s) of circumstances" and stating how the people of the future "will know best what will suit the circumstances of their day", the writers of this founding document are explaining to the future members of the University of Virginia that this is in fact a living document. They admit that they cannot predict the future, however they do know the great potential of the United States and more specifically this University. As a result, they understand how what they are putting forth here in this document are more guiding principles than foundational pillars.