This is just one example of the author's exclusive use of male pronouns. While this was and still is considered standard practice in the English language, it is socially unacceptable. The appropriate practice in this day and age is to alternate gendered pronouns. This would be appropriate in an updated version. First and foremost, we want the University to be a welcoming place for potential students and as such we should modernize the text to reflect this desire for inclusion. Some people would argue that this would be an example of excessive change, but I would counter that this is a shortsighted argument. If not for the first reason, the University should amend the language because it no longer exclusively educates male students. The language of official documents should be amended if they are in fact being revised, as is the case here, to reflect this reality. Women now constitute a majority of the student body at the University and have done so for over three decades.

At the time, this term referenced white people, namely the landed aristocracy, whom the University sought to serve. Having said that, it is important to consider that the word citizen has evolved to encompass a variety of people from different walks of life. The mission of the University then should remain unchanged: it should seek to inform every citizen. This leads to the question of whether the University is truly making its best effort to do so, especially in the wake of the events from this past August. I, for one, would say that the University is a diverse place relative to other universities; however, its demographics fail to adequately represent the people of the marginalized demographics in the very Commonwealth it serves. I think that it is important that the administration acts prudently to ensure that student body more accurately reflects this reality in the near future.

The fact that the authors of the Rockfish Gap Report call for the organization of "districts" for the allocation of primary education is a bit surprising to me. The idea of having education allocated and provided by the municipalities or counties, as it currently is done, does not seem like a revolutionary idea. In fact, it seems like a matter of common sense that simply alluded the authors. It is not like the counties did not already exist; you only need to look as far as the proposition of locations for the University to see this.

Something that should strike everyone as peculiar is the absence of theology in the proposed curriculum. At the time, higher education was specifically tailored to the development of lawyers, doctors, and clergymen. Perhaps, this is tied to Thomas Jefferson's personal sentiments with regard to religion or a desire for the university to promote religious tolerance by not endorsing a particular religion.