I believe that this quote sets apart Jefferson from many of his colleagues regarding secularization and separation of church and state. If the University of Virginia is to be public and funded by the state, it is obligatory that it shall be unaffiliated with any religion. However, Jefferson still considers those who practice religion by calling for the construction of a building for religious practice. He does not ask for regulation of the practice of any particular religion, but he asks for ground rules for all religious communities to follow while using the chapel. I think that Jefferson handled this matter very maturely and righteously, as religious matters are always of debate. However, I am curious to know why he presumably chose to have this building built in the center of grounds.

This term appears frequently throughout the text of the Rockfish Gap Report, yet I am still unsure as to what it entails. Who benefits from the literary fund- the students, the professors, or the school administration? Is it treated like a block grant, where its recipients choose to do with it what they want (i.e. it could be used for construction of buildings or for teacher's salaries). The vague term "literary" in the year it was used could serve multiple meanings, so a clarification of the fund could be helpful in understanding money matters.

I agree with your statement and it is interesting to see the parallels between this document and the U.S. Constitution- the two documents are left very open-ended. As there was significant purpose for creating the Constitution this way, the same likely goes for this document: Thomas Jefferson was intelligent and wise in that he acknowledged his own ignorance and inability to solve every situation. I think that the part of this section that I highlighted is interesting... I am almost sure that we do not do this practice of "appointing" professors and removing them by 2/3rds vote anymore (although I'm really not sure). If we don't, then is there any purpose in calling our campus "grounds" and our students "[first-fourth] years?" To me, being appointed sounds a lot more honoring than being hired, and the same most certainly goes for being fired. I am wondering why we don't do this practice but continue to use other euphemisms.

I find this phrase so ironic... Jefferson explains how attending the University will render virtuous behavior and internal happiness, but what defines virtuous behavior? I understand that the perception of the role of women during this time was completely distorted and undeveloped, but was denying women an education righteous? This lack of promotion of social progression disturbs me, especially when reading all the benefits of attending the University.

I'm having trouble understanding how this benefit correlates to two-person dormitories. It seems as if his extravagant taste would request single-person rooms, for his explanations favor independent study. On the flip-side, how are two-person rooms more advantageous to morals than three-person rooms? I don't understand his reasoning here, and if I can make sense of it, it should be reworded.