This is an interesting take on the relationship between an individual and an institution. The writers of the Rockfish Gap Report are saying that what an individual at the University wants to do with theirself is entirely up to that individual and the actions of that individual do not have any reflection upon the values or beliefs of the University as a whole. On one hand, this makes sense as individuals have free will to do as they please and an institution like a University shouldn't really compromise that. However, one could also see it that the University is a governing body responsible for its members and their consequent actions. Therefore, the University could be liable for the actions of its members. Either way, the University's job is to educate its members and should uphold a certain code of conduct - for decency's sake.

Many students here at the University have no idea why we refer to the grounds in the way we do, myself included. It just seems to be tradition. Here in the Rockfish Gap report, the term "grounds" appears a whopping 2 whole times! I assume that it's from this document that we derive our tradition of calling our university "grounds." It's crazy how something so small has become so engrained in our student culture.

It may be worth questioning as to whether or not this term invokes a sense of superiority and/or pretentiousness through its use both in the student body and in an outsider's view of the university.

Jedidiah Park

The way language was used back then gives a good index of what cultural views were back 200 years ago - especially on the subject of gender. It would be difficult to say whether or not the founders of the University were explicitly sexist based on the language used in the Rockfish Gap Report, but it we can conclude with a fair amount of certainty that men were typically seen as those who held positions of power.

Jedidiah Park

Although it may seem strikingly odd that a subject called "military architecture" would be put in a list with many other subjects we are used to seeing taught in a university, it actually is very fitting given the time period. America was a new country and a strong military was something seen as necessary to protect sovereignty. To this day, America puts a lot of emphasis on military strength and many branches of engineering put a focus on defense and military. So in a sense, military architecture is probably still taught, just under a different name and different conventions today.

Jedidiah Park