The statement that the relationship between a student and his teacher should reflect that of a son and his father is powerful. In reflecting what a father/son relationship looked like in the early 1800’s, this statement implies that the student is expected to respect, honor, and obey his professor. However, it also adds the expectation that every student/teacher relationship is meant to be personal and "affectionate." This statement quickly follows the expectation that “[students] should be lodged in dormitories, making a part of the general system of buildings.” In looking at the way the original dormitories surrounding the lawn were located directly beneath the professor’s houses, it is clear that the university’s founders were determined to help develop this relationship. Not only did they likely believe that this personal relationship would benefit the students’ learning, but the use of "affectionate" also reveals that they wanted students and teachers to support and encourage each other.

Clarissa Shelley

In the construction of the Rockfish Gap Report, Jefferson and those participating in its creation expect the continual advancement and improvement of the school. This improvement is set up with practical implications, as Jefferson even recognizes that these advancements will come as a result of continuous “private donations.” This is consistent with the structure of the school today, as UVA still depends on private donations to continue to “establish beginnings.” It is also interesting, however, to see how the school’s dependence on private donors manifests itself in positive and negative ways. For example, in one of my engagements, we compared President Sullivan’s letters to the student body and to UVA alum in response to the protest regarding the Jefferson statue that occurred early this semester. She likely sent such controversial letters in order to present herself as one working on behalf of the alum’s wishes and concerns to secure these “private donations,” even though her promises within this letter contradicted what she promised to students.

Clarissa Shelley

Hearing Jefferson discuss the potential to create a “new man…into qualities of virtue and social worth,” despite whatever “wild & uncultivated tree” he might originally appear to be, reminds me of his contrasting words from Notes on the State of Virginia (1785). In the context of contrasting the natural state of white men and black, he states, “…the difference is fixed in nature…and this difference is of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races?” and then later, “It is not their condition, then, but nature, which has produced the distinction” (Query 14). Though Jefferson claims to firmly believe that no man is fixed in his state of being, it cannot be overlooked that Jefferson’s belief was qualified by his own words. Though he is remembered as a believer in the potential “social worth” of each individual, he always fell short in grasping this idea completely; he never reached beyond the thinking that this was not the case for “those of colour.”