Maggie Lavoie

Here, Thomas Jefferson seems to separate morals and religion, in the sense that teaching morals does not require teaching religion. This dissociation reminds me of a discussion about morals and religious beliefs that I had in my Engagement. In my debating Islams Class, we compared and contrasted how three different Presidents (Clinton, Bush, and Obama) approached and addressed the religion of Islam during their Presidencies. Our in-class discussion led us to talking about how during Presidential campaigns, candidates will often state their religious affiliation despite our country’s basis of a separation of church and state. Why, we asked, would candidates do this? We came to the conclusion that there is an inherent implication of morals in holding religious beliefs that is obviously appealing for a candidate to portray about him/herself. So, in the context of ethics at the University, is it possible to completely separate the moral nature of religion from religion itself or, deep down, are they inherently linked?

Maggie Lavoie

I wanted to look more into what “Anglo-Saxon” meant, and especially in the context of a “Modern Language,” for I certainly consider it something of the distant past. The Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello website explains that while Anglo-Saxon is an ancestor of a modern English, it is more of a distinct language, for it has grammatical gender, declensions (the inflection of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, numerals, and articles to indicate number, case, and/or gender), conjugations, tense-forms, and case-endings (the suffix-like element which indicates a word's grammatical case, number, and gender). Most interestingly, the website explained Jefferson’s inclusion of Anglo-Saxon in his University’s curriculum. He placed it with the Modern Languages "because it is in fact that which we speak, in the earliest form in which we have knowledge of it." Jefferson was hopeful that Anglo-Saxon would "form the first link in the chain of an historical review of our language through all its successive changes to the present day.”

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/anglo-saxon-language

Maggie Lavoie. In my Education Policy class, we discuss different forms of innovation in our nation’s education system, and one discussion centered around the hiring and firing teachers, for necessary to a great education is a great teacher. Charter schools preach more autonomy for more accountability, often priding themselves on being bold enough to fire low-quality teachers and seeking out high-quality teachers. I highlighted this phrase because I’m curious how often professors were actually removed by this 2/3 vote and the nature of the search process for professors. UVA is of course a great institution, but I wonder how these words were put into practice in the early days of the institution, and likewise, if they’re put into action now. How are we assessing that professors are not only masters of their fiend, but also good educators?

Maggie Lavoie I’m currently in Debating Islams, and our lectures and discussions have centered around the construction of ideologies in relation to how groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, and ISIS adapt the religion of Islam for their political gains. Coming into the class, I didn’t understand what “ideology” meant even after reading its definition—the doctrine of thought. It seemed too general and not concrete. Other definitions helped provide more insight, like Merriam-Webster’s “visionary theorizing” and “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.” The many ways and contexts in which the word “ideology” itself can be defined serves as a testament to the value in studying ideology as a discipline. For, it opens student’s minds not only to one’s own theory or thought, but to how others’ theories and thoughts affect the culture of our society as a UVA community and as members of the larger world.