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.

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.