James McGlothin ’62 J.D.’64 has rekindled negotiations to reinstate his donation to the Marshall-Wythe School of Law.
McGlothlin withdrew his $12 million donation after then College of William and Mary President Gene Nichol removed the Wren Chapel Cross from permanent display in spring 2008.
“[The withdrawn donation] was to be made at the time of my death and I haven’t died yet, so there is time to put it back,” McGlothlin said. “There was a principle behind [withdrawing my donation.] Something that was not made clear was that [the donation] was in negotiation, and I am in the process of putting it back, and it may even be bigger now … I have a great love for the College.”
During his time both as an undergraduate and law student at the College, McGlothlin waited tables at the King’s Arms Tavern and drove a bus to make ends meet. After graduating, he practiced law at Street, Street and McGlothlin in Grundy, Va.
He eventually bought a small coal company with several members of his practice. That company became The United Company, now one of the country’s largest coal exporters.
McGlothlin is currently the CEO of The United Company, which manages energy, financial and real estate companies.
McGlothlin was on campus this week to speak with business students in Alan B. Miller Hall, offering business advice to a small group of students in Miller Thursday.
“My faith in where we are going as a country and a people is reinforced by being with you [students],” McGlothlin said.
RSS Feeds
21 Comments
To echo what another alum
To echo what another alum has recently posted – for years my wife and I have contributed to the College. Not lots of cash, but annual gifts to the general fund and library. We aren’t in a position to donate the sort of money that Mr. McGlothlin can, which is fine. However, if we threatened to withhold our small monies, how would that help the College? For example, I had serious objections to the appointment of Henry Kissinger to the post of Chancellor. I still regard it as a terrible mistake. But my gifts didn’t stop. As a senior I wrote a terrific final paper for an English class and got a ‘B’, which I felt was unjustified. Did I therefore decide never to give? If I am independently wealthy one day will withhold a large donation until a Chancellor I approve of is appointed? Until my ‘B’ is changed? I’d like to hear a good argument about how constructive McGlothin’s tactic is. Should we all have a list of acceptable practices the College should engage in before we donate? I don’t give a damn what he does with his money. I think we’re heading down a dark road if every “objectionable” activity/lecture/performance is reason to withhold support.
Should you have a set of
Should you have a set of personal standards for the College before you give? Yes. You should.
Would you continue giving if the College announced it was painting the logo of a corporate sponsor on the fifty yard line of the foorball field? Or building a parking deck in Matoaka Woods? Or cutting Swem Library’s funding for 10%? Or 20%? What if it decided to cut the English department? What if the College decided to ban politically-themed student organizations? Would you continue donating money to the College if you found out that it was going to give an honorary doctorate to Robert Mugabe?
If it was going to demolish the Wren Building?
No? Why not?
Before you respond that somewhere along the way those example became over-the-top, my point is that it is just a matter of deciding what is important enough to YOU to do something about. If the removal of the Wren Cross is not a big deal to you, then continue giving money. That is your way of expressing support for the College. But don’t kid yourself that you would ALWAYS continue giving money no matter what. You just haven’t had the right buttons pushed.
You can finger point from the high horse since, to you, the justification for withholding money is still too low. But, other people see things differently and value different things differently. I would not withhold money because I once got the wrong change back from a vending machine in Washington Hall in 1991. But, to me, and apparently to a lot of others, moving the Wren Cross to a box was the tipping point.
How constructive is McGlothin’s tactic? If it makes him happy (or at least prevents his becoming unhappy by supporting things he opposes), then it is perfectly constructive.
It’s easy to see that you
It’s easy to see that you complainers are liberals. You have strong ideas of what should and should not be done with someone else’s money.
Leaving aside issues of how
Leaving aside issues of how his riches were accumulated, the precedent that will be set if the College accepts this donation now is that the college’s policies and management can be micromanaged by donors with deep pockets. Still ticked off at that history prof you thought was too liberal and gave you a D? Dangle a few million, then pull it back until they force the guy out. Irked because you didn’t get invited to sit at the President’s table at some banquet? Still resentful that you got bumped sophomore year? Want to get back at that fraternity that didn’t let you in? Want evolution to be stricken from the curriculum? Make the College your monkey with just a few million . . . that you won’t even let it have until you die!
No, if he really “loved the College” he would not have acted so petulantly in withdrawing the donation. He could have voiced his displeasure and let it be known he didn’t support the decision (or, even, President Nichol) but that he still supported the College by honoring his commitment.
I know there is a budget crisis, but this is a test of core principles of academic freedom and self-determination. The College cannot afford to sell out for this guy’s crumbs.
An alum and parent of a current student
Really who are you meddle
Really who are you meddle around with what other people should and should not do with their own fortune.
If he really “loved the College….he could have voiced his displeasure….but still supported the college”. Where does this logic stop or does it not? Is this an unconditional love you speak of? There has to be some point where you would justify not giving money even if you loved the college to support some fundamental belief you hold to be true. Of course there is…it is just not the same as Mr. McG’s and since you seem to have a higher threshold….he is obviously in the wrong.
I think the problem is that
I think the problem is that he made his displeasure public, and gave the impression that the revocation was conditioned on the policies of the Nichol Administration. It’s one thing to privately support or decline to support the College, but McG’s actions were public and appeared to be ideologically motivated.
Same thing for the decision to start donating again; he should keep that to himself, in light of the original controversy.
Some of these comments seem
Some of these comments seem pretty naive. Of COURSE alumni give money when they are happy and withhold when they are displeased. If someone is unhappy with the direction of the school, why should he be expected to continue giving money? Alumni do not get a vote on the direction of the school, so cash is a very good proxy.
Geesh. Talk about a sense of entitlement. To complain that someone has not given a purely charitable gift is insane.
And, I, for one, hope that he continues to withhold his gift. Now don’t get me wrong. I’ll never be in a position to give $10,000,000+ to the school. But, I made increasingly large donations every year since graduation in the early 1990s. UNTIL, that is, the College put the Wren Cross in a box and folded on the logo. I place the blame for those two acts on Nichol. And, while he is (thankfully) gone, it was not HIM that I opposed, but his direction for the school. So, firing him but continuing his awful policies is not winning me back.
If all of these other alumni are thrilled by those actions, then the College will not have any trouble raising money. Just don’t count on mine.
I agree.
I agree.
Since when does W&M accept
Since when does W&M accept blood money from coal barons? He should donate it to victims of black lung disease.
Way to Go Uncle Leo, sticking it to the man!
How long? Since King
How long? Since King William and Queen Mary allocated a penny tax on exported tobacco and a duty on imported liquor to the College. Maybe we should just sell the whole school and donate the proceeds to people with lung cancer and alcoholism. Do you seriously expect the College to screen every donor and pass judgment on their personal history? What difference does it make where his money came from?
What’s the exact story
What’s the exact story here? McGlothlin’s comments make this issue seem far from black & white.
Without jumping on one side of the issue or the other, it seems as though the Wren Cross debacle may not have been the only factor involved, and that he may not have been fully committed to the gift before the controversy erupted. Either there’s been a great deal of confusion, or quite a bit of information has not been made public regarding this ordeal.
(Additionally, the cross is not exactly a relic from the past as one commenter here indicated. In fact, its presence in the chapel was highly incongruous with the Wren Chapel’s history — if anything, it belongs on display at the Bruton Parish Church in Colonial Williamsburg.)
I urge McGlothlin to send
I urge McGlothlin to send his money elsewhere. The College simply is not the great institution it once was. Today “political correctness” rules and real thought or debate is in hiding. They can’t even look at a cross in a chapel without being “offended” (which, by the way, was a totally fake bit of staged guerilla theatre designed to score political points). The majority of students, faculty and administration remained mired in the past, fruitlessly trying to relive the tie-dyed 60’s. There hasn’t been an original utterance at W&M in 30 years. They’re an odd mixture of a strait-laced sense of propriety (tinged with rigid intolerance) combined with the sad conviction that their old-fashioned liberal ideas are actually something new. Worse, they’re boring. Crushingly, mind-numblingly boring! Send the money to a REAL university. Someplace where they actually understand freedom and the challenges faced by America’s role in its defense. They won’t look for new solutions at W&M – they think they have all them all already.
Wrengate and BA, How easy
Wrengate and BA,
How easy it is to condemn Mr. McGlothlin, a true supporter of the College. Were either of you around when the news came out that he withdrew his pledge and how the former President and possibly former Rector lied about it? Mr. McGlothlin was not given the respect he deserved for considering such a large donation. Do the two of you plan to make donations? In light of the state of the economy and the dire straits of money for public institutions of higher learning in VA, you wnat the College to turn down the money? I certainly hope you or your parents are paying the full load of your tuition, etc. This has nothing to do with setting policy (although several alumni sit on the BOV and set policy and they are all political appointees) — this has to do with a man acting on his beliefs and the way he was (mis) treated by former College officials. Get your facts right.
Your math skills might need
Your math skills might need a tune-up. Having graduated in four years 2008, I was in Williamsburg for the last year of the Sullivan presidency and the entire duration of the Nichol presidency. I have to admit that unlike Wrengate, I have not made any donations to the college since I graduated although I have been supporting the college as a Virginia taxpayer. The BOV’s decision not to renew Nichol’s contract is the primary reason why I have not made any donations.
By rescinding his donation on the basis of his belief system, implicit in which is a bald hostility to non-Christian members of the College community (such as myself), McGlothlin was attempting, ultimately successfully, to influence policy. The question of his beliefs and his desire to influence policy are not separate questions. Our beliefs, all of our beliefs, inform what policies we view as ideal.
Right-wing alumni might make the most noise on this issue, but they are by no means in the majority of alumni. Nichol made me proud to be a member of the College community when he struck a blow for the separation of church and state and the U.S. Constitution by removing the cross. I only wish in hindsight that he would have done a better job of explaining his correct action to the community and in the media.
Bald hostility? Are you
Bald hostility? Are you kidding? What was hostile about a policy which said that anyone could ask to have the Wren Cross removed for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all?
Either the Cross has to be present, with the burden on thin-skinned objectors to ask to have it removed or it has to be removed with the burden on the majority to ask to have it returned. The burden has to fall somewhere. It cannot be equally allocated.
So, as long as SOMEONE will be offended, why not let the minority complainers carry the burden?
I was in fact around at the
I was in fact around at the college when McG withdrew his pledge. And yes, I’ve already made donations to the college, and will continue to do so.
And as I mentioned in my previous post: the money McG was donating was going to the endowment, which is a fund of which the college cannot touch the principal but only draw from the interest. The money McG would be donating would pay off over a long period of time and would therefore not have a significant impact on the college during this recession.
The money would not have a
The money would not have a significant impact on the College during the recession? Assuming a 5% annual return on $12 million (and endowments are not taxed), that’s $600k a year. How much do you donate?
More importantly, while your mind is on current budget problems, a gift to the endowment has a long term benefit much more significant than a short term cash infusion. You are wrong to try to trivialize McGlothlin’s generosity.
As a student, I find this
As a student, I find this article to be extraordinarily troubling. If the College were to accept this donation, it would be a very clear admission that donors, which are vital to the college’s existence and make up a surprisingly large portion of its budget, are able to make policy decisions if they give the right amount. And McGlothlin is giving a substantial amount: his $12+ million dollars is roughly equal to the total money donated by the BOV each year. And McGlothlin, as a former BOV member himself, probably feels entitled by this to make such decisions. But we cannot forget that policy is determined by the president, the provost, and the BOV. Not by rich donors.
To further qualify all this, McG’s money isn’t going into direct use. It was intended to be a portion of the College’s endowment (last time I checked it was near $500 million, but that was before the “great recession.” With McG’s contribution, the actual amount of change seen each year by the College will not be very substantial, comparatively. We simply don’t need to accept his donation if it means we are obligated to fulfill his wishes for the college.
Furthermore, the previous commenter is right: The money is dirty. The FH seems to be leaving out now, but has published in the past, details regarding McGlothlin’s affair with a college administrator’s wife during his tenure on the BOV. Is this the kind of example we’re really trying to set at the college? And doesn’t this make his disapproval of the Wren Cross-in-a-box affair extremely ironic?
Just some thoughts.
Wrengate.
Does Mr. McGlothlin realize
Does Mr. McGlothlin realize that the cross is confined to a glass box like a relic of some long-forgotten past?
values where your mouth is.
values where your mouth is. Mr. Mc knows what it takes to insure continued success. it’s his money and we sure need it now. just like when you were home under your parents authority and needy of their support, you had to follow their rules. don’t behave and you get something taken away. money, freedom whatever. it matters not what the teenager at home thinks about their parents’ rules and whether they are stupid. what matters is who has the conviction to stick by their values. don’t like the rules, don’t take the money. move out and set your own rules. To the cake and eat too gang: you can’t make the rules with someone else’s money.
keep on the tweeking of the alumni nose with insults to tradition and you can all pay more in tuition or find your seat at the best college in the state taken by an out of state student who will pay more. anyone else got the money? then shut up and behave.
Principle! I guess that in
Principle! I guess that in some bizarro universe the desire to shred the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution could be construed to be a sort of a principle. He should keep his dirty money or, better yet, give it to Bob Marshall or some other clown.