The first sentence of this selected passage does not make a large amount of sense. It states that being free from restrictions liberates one from rules, but as long as any action does not contradict upon the one rule, do not violate the rights of another, that is fine. However, in this instance, "equal rights" has no final definition, allowing for a wide array of interpretation that could be abused. Like how slaves were owned when this was written. This statement seems almost anarchic. It is then followed by the means in which the university will help society to achieve this ideal, of which there are 4: agriculture, teaching, math/science, and reflection. This feels too restrictive; there are many other ways to utilize in providing for society. Both of these statements contrast one another; one is to liberating while the other is too strict.

The idea of teaching the Alphabet at the University of Virginia seems initially like a joke, and it is, but it illustrates the disconnect between our era and the past, where education was not exactly a universal right. Free public education was not available in Virginia until the 1850s, and it was not compulsory until 1870. Thus, the original concept of the university excluded the poorer population, as they would not have the required knowledge to even begin at the university. Even if they had access to schooling, without it being mandatory, many people would favor time spent farming, or another job to earn money. The Legislature mentioned in this passage mentions this, but puts it off for later, as to them, this is not a primary concern

I believe that this may be the most important sentiment of the document: the idea that the future will inevitably bring change. When creating something, especially a long lasting institution, it is imperative that this is addressed, as rigid laws will become obsolete. If there is no option to change and adapt as citizens of the future, then these obsolete laws will become a burden. I am glad that this line is included; without it the university would probably be a different place now.

Even through simple word choices, we can view the opinions and regulations of a different time. In this passage, the fact that "every parent" is later substituted with the male pronoun "his," illuminates past ideas about gender. It is clear that only men (the "son[s]") will be attending the university, but in the case of the parents, the authors are disregarding the mothers of the students.