IF THE University administration wants to find the best way to initiate its plans for a slew of new structures across Central Grounds, they can take a cue from Stonewall Jackson.
The larger-than-life statue of Confederate general Stonewall Jackson occupies a prominent position next to the historic Albemarle County Courthouse in downtown Charlottesville. Sitting upon his majestic steed above a pedestal flanked by a pair of pacific angels, Stonewall Jackson looks very much like the hero that early 20th century white Charlottesville residents probably imagined him to be.
Despite Jackson's imposing visage, today the statue is more of a mockery than a memorial. While the white Charlottesville residents of 1909 -- the year the statue was completed -- may have viewed Jackson as a martyr for the lost cause, local opinion of the Confederate cause has undergone a radical transformation in the past century. If someone were to try to place a statue of a Confederate general by the court house in this day and age the liberal residents of Charlottesville, would be much more likely to greet the benefactor with protest.
Leaving aside the prickly subject of dismantling outdated historical monuments, Stonewall Jackson's statue offers a reminder that the structures we erect to reflect our contemporary values can become outdated offenses to the values of future generations. With the Capital Campaign spurring the University toward a building spree, it is now more important than ever that the University carefully consider what sort of legacy these structures will leave for posterity. In considering this legacy, administrators must more fully engage the University community in a dialogue about these structures so that the values they embody can more fully represent the range of viewpoints at the University, and reflect the University's democratic values.
According to University spokesperson Carol Wood, "The [student] input varies depending on the type of project. Medical Education building, the South Lawn Project and Student Affairs-related projects have the highest student participation." Wood also notes that a student supervisor sits on the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Visitors, and that the University's Arboretum and Landscape Committee contains student and faculty representation.
Beyond the community's formal representation on these boards, the first signs of debate over the University's architectural future during the fall of 2005 controversy over the designs being used in the construction of new buildings and in the refurbishment of older structures. The controversy began when 24 architecture professors signed a letter to the Board Of Visitors protesting designs that they viewed as "belittling" the University's Jeffersonian architectural heritage. As the controversy escalated, scores of letters about the subject appeared on The Cavalier Daily Opinion page, and the New York Times magazine published a feature length article covering the fallout.
For all the healthy rancor of the architecture debate, it was, unfortunately, little understood by students outside the A-school. Fortunately, student leaders and University administrators have already taken steps towards encouraging transparency and community input.
Brian Poulson, the co-chair of the Building and Grounds Committee of Student Council, notes that his committee is responsible for "representing the students' voice in building and Grounds." Poulson adds that the Building and Grounds Committee has conducted a survey of CIO leaders concerning function at Newcomb Hall and that the administration worked with students and resident advisors in designing aspects of the buildings currently under construction in the new dorms complex.
While these initiatives are positive steps toward encouraging transparency and dialogue, the administration must go further to engage the University community. In order to reach students and community members beyond the small group of student leaders with whom they usually converse, the administration should work with student organization to publicize and promote community forums on important issues such as"green building" techniques.
Moreover, student leaders could assist the process of democratizing the construction process by supporting efforts to include referendums concerning issues relating to thedesign process. Not only would such referendums gauge student opinion on architectural issues, but they would also generate interest, and provide a reference point for dialogue about issues relating to structural design.
Through these means and others, University administrators have the opportunity to make the process of remaking the architectural face of the University more democratic. In this way, we can select designs which more fully reflect the enduring values of the University community.
Adam Keith's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at akeith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
