The business of teaching
The title of Sheila Pell’s article “UVA Inc.” [March 18] was not only apt, but I believe sadly so. It is true that UVA, like other large state universities, have become “incubators” where ideas are initially forged into commercially viable technologies. It is also true that an enormous fraction of the University’s budget comes from extramural funding supporting basic and applied research. It has long been clear to university faculty that the focus of universities has gravitated toward research, and with it toward obtaining more, bigger and better grants and corporate sponsorship. What the article failed to address is whether this is a good thing.
I hold the obligation of a university to its students to be inviolable. But too often teaching is treated as secondary to academic research, the acquisition of extramural funds and personal advancement to imagined power or fame. Dedicated instructors suffer second-rate salaries, the disrespect of their research-centered peers, and attrition through research-biased promotion and tenure systems. Worse still is that all these trickle down to the students, who are given to wonder why their university so often retains its least skilled teachers.
Perhaps someday large research universities like UVA will recognize that they cannot out-compete each other and climb through the rankings simply by generating more extramural funding and hiring more faculty, while actively or passively discouraging excellence in teaching. However, this will continue to be the case until the faculty, the students and the public at large decide whether the most important product of the University is its young minds, or its big grants and patents.
William H. Guilford, Ph.D.
Charlottesville
Bigger’s not better
I appreciated the recent story on local sprawl issues and their effect on surrounding counties [“Growing pains,” Fishbowl, April 8]. I grew up in Fluvanna, and whenever I visit, I can see the subtle and not-so-subtle sprawl-like development that is creeping in. It would be my hope that the Fluvanna County Supervisors could take a more creative and proactive approach in attracting tax-revenue generating business that doesn’t negatively impact the environment.
I’m referring to the power plants here. In fact, one of the new power plants is less than two miles from the home in which I grew up. It looks like they’re building a football stadium over there, with their lights beaming into the sky at night. Except in this case, the raucous cheering of a crowd would be replaced with a low-grade hum.
The last few years of discussion on sprawl in the area has affected me so much that I am writing a screenplay about it. I know urban sprawl is not a “sexy” subject for a film but it will be when I’m done with it. And it is set in Virginia.
Jennifer Pullinger
Atlanta, Georgia
Have your cake
I am writing you in response the April 1 Read This First segment of C-VILLE Weekly. When I first read the article, I was shocked. I could not believe anyone would trivialize sexual intimacy in such a way as to even ask, “What’s the most fun you can have for free?” In reading further, my distaste for the article was increased further by the use of multiple slang terms for lovemaking.
It is precisely this sort of trivialization and commonality of sexual intimacy that adds to our society’s rape culture. Just ask any sexual assault or rape survivor. They will vehemently tell you there can be a very high price to pay for sex. Better yet, ask an HIV-positive person that bed-hopped for the thrill of it what price they had to pay.
As for the cover article “No sex please, we’re married,” I was pleased to note the article appeared to be pro-marriage or committed relationship. Additionally, I agree books that create the “disastrous myth that great sex is the basic requirement of a life-long commitment” are wrong. Our society has compartmentalized and idolized sex and sexuality to such a degree people have forgotten it is the icing on the cake of a relationship. Not the cake itself.
One vital point the article only hinted at in its rantings of “my life is so busy that my sex life sucks” is that something is missing in the relationship. I realize the tedium of working on a relationship is not nearly as exciting as the wide world of adult sex aids available in this sexually revolutionized society. Yet, I feel if the media really wants to help society improve their relationships, it is time to address the root cause of relationship issues.
Perhaps the real solution to these high-profile sexual problems really is to slow down and remember to meet intimate needs of the relationship, mental, emotional and spiritual. Is it so unthinkable that intimate time could be quiet “getting to know you again” conversations and a nap in each other’s arms? Perhaps it really isn’t the lack of sexual activity that has caused people to become so uptight. Perhaps it is lack of sleep and societal pressure to maintain a certain level of sexual activity. I agree with therapist Mart Klein: “Sometimes sex is great; sometimes sex is kind of so-so; sometimes you’d rather have ice cream and watch television.”
Sex isn’t always going to be fireworks and fanfare, and there is no magic number for how many times a year a couple should be having sex. It is long past the time for society to recognize sexual activities are unique from person to person and relationship to relationship. It is time to de-compartmentalize sex and take it down off its lofty pedestal and put it in proper perspective within a relationship. It is time to educate the public on just how a healthy, whole relationship will include a healthy sex life. Not the other way around.
Melissa McClure
Charlottesville
Sick leave
I’d like to respond to Carolyn Simpson’s letter [Mailbag, April 15] regarding the homeless in Charlottesville. She questions whether or not Lynn Wiber’s seizures prevent her from using her nursing degree. Perhaps Carolyn needs more information about seizures.
Intractable (untreatable) epilepsy can prevent driving or obtaining a license, swimming and bathing alone, and a whole host of other lifestyle changes. Depending on the type of epilepsy and the medication prescribed, short-term memory can be impaired. Fatigue is another common side effect of anti-convulsants. A lot of folks with epilepsy leave home and enter their adult working lives unaware of any potential problems seizures could cause at work. A relaxed school environment differs from a scheduled work environment. Sometimes it turns out that seizures are an intolerable disruption at work. Would you want your nurse to have a seizure during your heart attack?
I am not defending homelessness, I am speaking on behalf of Lynn Wiber in particular. Give her a bit of credit. Nobody wants to have an incurable illness!
Kirstin Skaar-Fendig
Charlottesville
Joint venture
John Borgmeyer has again in your pages provided the public a well-rounded view of the failure of medical marijuana policy [“Weed whackers,” April 8]. Our thanks to you. We would like to clarify a few points in the side bar in which we were quoted.
Virginia is one of about three dozen states that have laws allowing the prescription of therapeutic cannabis. The allowed uses in Virginia are for chemotherapy treatment symptoms and glaucoma. The “catch” is that were a physician to write such a prescription he/she would be in violation of Federal law and their medical license would be voided. Wisely, no Virginia physician has ever written such an order. There are nine states, not including Virginia, and the District of Columbia that have passed laws that allow for a physician to write a “recommendation” for the use of cannabis, thereby going around the Federal law. The states then recognize and act on this recommendation with various modalities.
Marinol, correctly identified as only one of the many compounds found in cannabis, is a synthetic THC, and now placed in Schedule III, meaning a physician can write a prescription for Marinol “off label.” Medicines placed in Schedule III can be prescribed for any health problem a doctor feels is appropriate for the patient and the symptoms. This includes all Virginia physicians.
Our cohort, Jon Gettman, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at George Mason University. The petition, initiated by him in cooperation with Patients Out of Time requesting the DEA to reschedule cannabis to schedules III, IV or V was formally accepted on April 3, 2003. The DEA is now required to read the science presented in the document and all references listed (17 single-spaced pages that add up to tens of thousands of pages documenting cannabis research across the world) and reply to the request in “a reasonable period of time.”
“Anybody know what time it is? Does anybody really care?” the song goes. It would be helpful if patients and those that care about them would ask their elected Federal representatives and senators to check on this petition’s progress and demand the request be granted.
Al Byrne
Mary Lynn Mathre, RN
Co-founders, Patients Out of Time
Howardsville
Search deeper
Jon Sutz [“Search and destroy,” AfterThought, April 8] apparently agrees with the Bush administration. For example, he states that the recent Iraq war was/is essentially about disarming Iraq of “weapons of mass destruction.” However, if indeed weapons are the major issue, when they are gone (have any been found yet?), and Saddam is replaced, then the U.S. should vacate Iraq. When this doesn’t happen, might Mr. Sutz then entertain the notion that a more reasonable explanation for U.S./U.K. “interest” in Iraq is oil?
As reported by the BBC on Jan 29, 2001, this administration differs from its predecessors in that three officials in addition to George W. Bush have strong ties to the same industry—oil. They are Vice-President Dick Cheney (Haliburton), Commerce Secretary Don Evans (Tom Brown Energy) and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (Chevron Oil).
If we are attempting to understand U.S./U.K. actions in Iraq, would Mr. Sutz not agree that it defies common sense to exclude “oil” from the discussion?
Mr. Sutz writes, “Ours is a very, very dangerous world where sometimes free nations must defend themselves from butchering dictators like Saddam Hussein.” However, what of the responsibility of the United States for this state of affairs? There is no doubt that the United States has had a long history of warm relations with many “butchering dictators” around the world and Saddam Hussein is no exception. For example, there exists much evidence that in the 1980s, during George H.W. Bush’s reign as President, the U.S. government covertly armed Iraq. As pointed out by Russ Baker in the Columbia Journalism Review (March/April 1993) “Iraqgate” was a huge scandal largely ignored and suppressed by the U.S. media.
The United States intervened in Iraq to create the monster that is Saddam. Then, following a decade of deadly U.S.-inspired economic sanctions against Iraq, fraudulent charges were trumped up at the U.N. in a vain attempt to justify an invasion of Iraq. In defiance of international law the U.S. embarked on a war of aggression, including savage bombing of crowded Iraqi marketplaces and residential areas resulting in many civilian deaths and total chaos. Considering this, and disregarding Bush administration propaganda, perhaps Mr. Sutz will appreciate that the U.S. bears heavy responsibility for creating its own enemies around the world, that the U.S. is currently widely hated and that this country is viewed universally as the major threat to world peace.
Rob Pates
Charlottesville
Going pro
I was very pleased and surprised to see the Jon Sutz letter supporting our President and our war effort in the C-VILLE. I wish the essay could have been longer. I appreciated his comments, viewpoint, clarity and calmness. Each time I read something written by a Bush and Iraq war supporter I learn even more about why our action with England regarding Iraq is right on the money and a very important and essential thing for our country to have undertaken. The list of pro-reasons continues to grow.
I also appreciate the full-page ad you carried called “Don’t buy Bush’s war.” It gave a helpful list of pro-war organizations I want to support actively. I will not boycott the anti-war organizations listed as they have a right to their opinion. I have yet to see a list of things the anti-war people have done to encourage Saddam Hussein to behave more humanely toward his people. Absent that, I can only assume they wish for him to continue his killing, maiming, torture and oppression.
Please continue to carry letters like that from Mr. Sutz. It is very refreshing.
William J. Nesbit, Jr.
Charlottesville