Former Board of Visitors member James McGlothlin, ’62, J.D. ’64, a major donor to the College, has withdrawn future donations because of College President Gene Nichol’s decision last October to remove the Wren Chapel cross from permanent display.
“[Nichol’s decision to remove the cross] has been so disturbing to me that I have decided to withhold any future contributions to the College,” McGlothlin wrote in his e-mail to another former BOV member, which was also sent to current Board members. “Unless a change in direction takes place, it will be difficult for me to provide future financial support to our wonderful school.”
McGlothlin said that his contribution had been planned in cooperation with former College President Timothy J. Sullivan.
Director of University Relations Michael Connolly confirmed that a donor recently revoked a $12 million pledge to the Campaign for William and Mary, but Connolly would not verify the donor’s identity.
“I assume the two things go together,” Board of Visitors Rector Michael Powell, ’85, said in a telephone interview. “As rector, nobody has told me about any second pledge of that kind of volume.”
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday that McGlothlin was, in fact, the donor who rescinded his future $12 million donation.
The loss of funding puts the Campaign for William and Mary below its $500 million goal. Connolly still expects the campaign to meet the goal before its June 30 closing date, adding that since Charter Day the Campaign has raised an additional $3 million.
In a written statement, Nichol said he felt “heartsick” over the decision, which he called a “serious setback to the College.”
“While I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students,” he wrote. “The core values of the College cannot be for sale.”
He said that while the Wren cross controversy has led some to stop donating, others have renewed or even increased their support.
“The College continues to thrive, with applications and contributions above where they were a year ago,” he wrote.
Two residents at the Williamsburg Landing, a local retirement home, have started a fundraising campaign of their own to try to replace the $12 million.
Tom Mikula, ’48, and Marilyn Entwisle, ’44, both pledged $12,000 to the College, and they are asking others to do the same in hopes that 1,000 people will join them to make up the lost donation.
“When I heard about [the lost $12 million], I was so incensed that someone with money would try to change things that are so important to the College,” Mikula said, adding that so far at least eight people have decided to contribute $12,000.
Powell said he thinks the Wren cross controversy — which quickly escalated into a nationally debated issue — will have an overall negative financial effect on the College.
“How much is yet to be determined,” he said. “$12 million is a lot of money.”
He said that the administration, along with a number of people affiliated with the College who know McGlothlin, will contact him about reversing his decision to no longer financially support the College.
“From my perspective, it’s always unfortunate if any alumni chooses not to give, even in small amounts,” Powell said, adding that he hopes McGlothlin will see the value in returning his contribution.
McGlothlin, for whom McGlothlin-Street Hall is co-named, is the founder and former CEO of the United Coal Company. According to the Daily Press, the company donated $3 million to the College in 1997.
RSS Feeds
14 Comments
Test
While the loss of 12 million dollars from a donor is regretful the attitude of the donor is more so. I for one fully support President Nichol’s decision to make the cross available upon request, it is a win win situation for the students that attend and the alumni that cherish William and Mary. How did a move to embrace religious tolerance, lead to the vilification of our President and those who support his views?
It was apparent at the BOV meeting, that as long as the cash was flowing in, no real action would be taken regarding President Nichol’s “solution” to a problem that didn’t exist. Now, maybe, the BOV will get serious about this self destructive action.
Next on the President’s agenda: Removing beef/pork from our dinning halls to make them more welcoming to all students. Following this course of action, we will no longer acknowledge Thomas Jefferson as our most famous alumni since he owned slaves. This will surely make our college more welcoming to the masses.
AC, let’s leave our absurd slippery slopes back in middle school, can we?
Yes, 12 million dollars is a lot of money, but Jose is absolutely right that the most regretful part of this situation is the attitude of the donor. I don’t think I want the donation of someone who isn’t donating out of a desire to help the school and it’s students anyway, but is instead using his donation as leverage to get what he wants. It’s really rather childish. The lack of a donation may hurt Nichols’ feelings, but only because the man really cares about what’s best for the students here. The donor, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t care as much about the students as he does having a cross in the chapel. The ex-donor is only hurting the student body. The student body who had nothing to do with the decision to remove the cross. It’s the equivalent of someone saying “I’m not giving you your Christmas present this year, because your daddy did something that pissed me off.” Nothing short of childish and crude.
I certainly agree with Jeff: If your loyalty to your alma matter, everything she has given you boils down to a two-foot gold cross, then maybe its time to re-think why you donate in the first place. It would be one thing if this were a reaction to a. An opt-out system just makes sense. With regard to cafeteria analogy, you can opt-out of eating the meat because there are vegetarian products regularly available. In the previous system of the cross, you would have to go to a chef and ask them to make you something vegetarian. This whole situation now qualifies as being blown entirely out of proportion and it appears as if we’re debating for the sake of debate at this point. The system is there, Nichol hasn’t backed down and it doesn’t look as if he intends to. There’s nothing like a waste of good political capitol…
I don’t get it. It’s his money, not Nichol’s, not Powells. Why can’t a private individual decide that he doesn’t want to fund a college that no longer represents what he feels are his priorities? Nichol decided to change what kind of school W&M will be, McGlothlin doesn’t agree – he has the freedom to take his money elsewhere. Where did Nichol get this sense of entitlement?
This is called freedom of speech, one of the values that our forefathers were fighting for.
Todd, exactly where did you get the idea that Nichol felt any sense of entitlement to the money? Did you and I not read the same article? And Chris, where did you get the idea that anyone expressed a lack of freedom on the donor’s part to choose what to do with his money?
Todd, did Nichol really change what kind of school W&M is by removing a two foot cross from the chapel? And don’t you find it a little silly that someone would place the permanent presence of a two foot cross higher on their list of priorities than helping the college continue to grow and educate brilliant students effectively, and make students of differing faiths feel welcome to enjoy our campus? Does the removal of a two foot cross really mark the going-down-the-toilet of our school’s values? Is it even symbolic of that at all?
I would ask Jeff the same
I would ask Jeff the same thing: Aren’t you being silly putting a greater priority on not having a two foot cross in a chapel than helping the College grow and educate brilliant students and making differing faiths feel welcome to enjoy our campus?
It is a matter of perspective. Someone is going to be offended: either the people who liked having it there or the people who want it removed. Why should the minority’s hurt feelings be given greater priority than the majority’s?
Is it any harder for those close-minded minority students with such delicate sensibilities to have asked for it to be removed every now and again than it is for the majority of students to ask to have it returned?
He’s holding The College hostage unless it does his will. That’s not a donor, that’s a meddler.
Gene Nichol was a troublemaker at the U. of Colorado law school as well. Whether aggressive affirmative action programs, feuding with Pres. Albino or picking political fights with his fellow liberal Democrats (which he lost – US Senate and US House), the man is the very embodiment of an activist ACLU liberal academic.
Jeff – what I think about Nichol’s changes don’t matter. I don’t have $12 million laying around. But McGlothin obviously didn’t like what he saw. That much is clear. And my point stands – McGlothin has every right to do what he wants with his money. It’s unfair for Nichol to accuse him of “hurting students” by revoking money they haven’t yet received. It’s Law 101 – you can’t prove damages.
Todd- It is true that McGlothlin has the right to do what he wants with his money, but this announcement was timed just after the college had announced that it had passed its $500 million goal. It seems to me that he tried to hit when it hurt the most. What he is forgetting is that because William and Mary is a public college receiving money from the federal government, its chapels are non-denominational by definition. If a large number of people have a problem with the cross having the special privilege of being there until asked to be removed, then the cross must be treated just like every other religious symbol. And I also think that you can prove damages. You can look at how the $12 million would have been spent and see how that affects our (me being a student) lives. McGlothlin has the right to remove the donation but he IS hurting the students more than President Nichol