The intriguing part of this argument is the suggestion that education "improves what is in [the student's] nature." In the present day, education is conceived as a way to increase students' knowledge and in some cases endow them with practical skills, but it is not, as far as I have seen, regarded as a way to fundamentally change a person's nature or character. The suggestion that an increase in knowledge and skills can extend beyond their own scopes and penetrate the very nature of a person is a testament to the commissioners' reverence for knowledge and education.

The writers were ahead of their time as they seem to have reached a conclusion about motivation and discipline that modern psychologists have only recently began to establish. The passage contains an innate understanding that intrinsic motivation to behave well, described here as "pride of character, laudable ambition, & moral dispositions," is a more lasting form of motivation than extrinsic inducements such as the fear of "disgrace, [...] corporal punishments, and servile humiliations." Furthermore, there is an indication of understanding of developmental stages as well, since the writers only question whether fear is inappropriate "after a certain age," which aligns with the discovery that simple systems of rules and consequences are most effective when employed with children, not young adults.

Assuming that "dormitories" had the same meaning when this was written as it does today, it is heartening to see that the writers were conscious of the need to construct housing for scholars. It is reminiscent of the large growth of student housing over the last several decades. UVA has added new first-year dorms to accommodate the school's growing population, but as we have all undoubtedly noticed, the buildings are farther away from Central Grounds, raising concerns about students' equal access to classes, clubs, and other activities.

I just want to take a moment to appreciate this very concise summary of the Constitutional principles of freedom of religion, which seem especially relevant today. As members of the Christian right complain that preventing schools from requiring students to read the Bible or pray infringes on their "religious freedom," a reality check about the true meaning of religious freedom seems appropriate. It means that people are allowed to hold (or not hold) whatever religious beliefs they choose and to practice their religions in any way that does not break laws or prevent others from exercising their own rights, religious and otherwise. It does not mean that people of one religion should be free to impose their beliefs on others, since that would deny them the religious freedom of believing something else.