The Commissioners make reference to more egalitarian education, if only in passing. It is unclear whether or not they are mentioning a real or hypothetical act of legislation for the "primary instruction of poor children." This statement shows that these men believed that all (white male) children deserve education, not simply boys with wealthy parents. The ostensibly American values of equality and social mobility are displayed here; the Commissioners' intention was not to simply create a finishing school for upper-class boys. Somewhat progressive for the era, perhaps. -vw4be

The Commissioners acknowledge that the funding for the university must come from somewhere - it mentions, but is not limited to the the elusive "literary fund" which could perhaps be some sort of state-wide or governmental fund. The author seems to be aware that the issue of funding could influence the location and other details about the university, although they insist that any funding they will receive will not impact their choice. I find this a rather optimistic, if not misleading, statement. In the case of private donors, rarely do wealthy individuals (perhaps investors in this case) donate money without some guarantee of returns or benefit to themselves. The Koch brothers' multi-million dollar donations to universities like George Mason in Northern Virginia are a modern day example of this phenomenon. In exchange for their donations, the Koch brothers are given power to control the college curriculum, hiring and firing of faculty and staff, and more. I wonder how original donors or investors (or the origins of the initial endowment more broadly) impacted the university's beginnings, and consequently, its legacy.

-vw4be

This argument, beyond being perhaps the most flagrantly racist excerpt from the entire text, gives further nuance to the authors' understanding of education. While education is important for instilling values and the other reasons mentioned elsewhere in the text, it is primarily valuable insofar as it generates innovations, which impact technology and living standards. The focus on progress is a very Western and especially American cultural ideal. Education becomes more like progress institutionalized and less like studying for the sake of learning from this perspective. The attitude espoused here still exists, to a lesser degree, in modern American discourse (ie. "developed" vs. "developing" nations, etc.). Also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/territorial-acknowledgements-indigenous-1.4175136 An interesting perspective on calling Native Americans "neighbours."

-vw4be

Considering that Chemistry was listed above to be taught specifically for the purpose of "[comprehending] the theory of agriculture," it is unclear how the document regards the praedial (land-based) labor mentioned. Public access to education didn't exist at this time, and it is progressive of the founders to consider the importance of extending educational opportunities to more young men, but the document also seems to devalue occupations that require physical labor. This is interesting considering that Jefferson is a proponent of agrarian society, which is associated with supporting farmers and laboring people. Ideally, everyone would have access to higher education, and one's education level and occupation would be (1) a choice and (2) respected irregardless. In the absence of these circumstances (then or now), this dismissive attitude reflects an undercurrent of classism which, unfortunately, still exists today to some extent in American society.

vw4be