The Flat Hat: Nichol resigns, ending shortest presidency since Civil War

The Flat Hat

The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911


NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive	Article Tools Share on Facebook Seed Newsvine Send Article Print Nichol resigns, ending shortest presidency since Civil War 12 February 2008 \| By Brian Mahoney, Flat Hat News Editor \| The Flat Hat » news Law School Dean Taylor Reveley to serve in interim After 16 months of controversy surrounding College President Gene Nichol’s presidency, the Board of Visitors has decided not to renew his contract. Nichol announced in an e-mail to the College community this morning that he would resign, effective immediately. Nichol said in his e-mail that the Michael Powell, the rector of the College’s Board of Visitors, informed him of the decision Sunday after the Charter Day celebrations. “Appropriately, serving the College in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining,” Nichol said. “I have advised the Rector, and announce today, effective immediately, my resignation as president of the College of William and Mary.” Nichol also said that he would return to the College’s law school to resume his career in teaching and writing. He attributed the controversy surrounding his tenure to four presidential decisions — his decision to remove the Wren cross, his refusal to ban the Sex Workers’ Art Show, his support of the College’s Gateway Program and his commitment to the College’s faculty diversity. Nichol also criticized the 16-month campaign against his presidency that has occurred since the removal of the Wren Cross. “A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful campaign — on the internet and in the press — has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters.” He added that the campaign against his tenure “has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.” Nichol also that the BOV offered his family “substantial economic incentives” if he agreed, in the words of the BOV, “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds.” In a written statement released this morning, Powell denied the implication that the College attempted to censor Nichol’s reaction to the non-renewal. “It is critical to explain that this decision was not in any way based on ideology or any single public controversy,” Powell said. “To suggest such a motivation for the Board is flatly wrong. Indeed, the Board has been repulsed by the personal attacks on the President and his family. The uncharitable personal assaults are unworthy of anyone who professes to care about the College and there should be no joy when things do not work out between good people.” Powell also announced that the College will immediately begin the search for a new president. He said that the BOV will appoint College Law School Dean W. Taylor Reveley as interim president. The simple fact that we have a BoV that resorts to bribes to keep themselves out of the line of fire is both sickening and representative of how ridiculous this whole fiasco has been. I support Nichol as strongly as I possibly can, and wish those on the Board of Visitors and the House of Delegates who supported this campaign against a great man, and all those who helped them, could be swept away in one fell swoop. It was only until Nichol refused to step in the way of change supported and a liberal, diverse education that those who found their oh-so-precious fundamentalist way of thinking challenged started this whole charade, and, much to what should be everyones’ disappointment, succeeded in preventing progress at William and Mary. Those who oppose new ideas and diversity don’t deserve to have a relationship to this university. For shame, BoV. For shame. — Ed Feb 12, 10:23 AM # The people who caused this to occur have done more damage to the College than has been done in generations. You are monsters. — Student Feb 12, 10:34 AM # I left the Charter Day ceremonies on Saturday with a renewed sense of inspiration and awe for my Alma Mater. Today I couldn’t be more ashamed and disappointed. I thought the Board would better employ the values of our College. Clearly they have lost sight of what’s really important. I hope the College can pull through. — James Evans Feb 12, 10:46 AM # The BOV caters to the whims and preferences of WHAT THEY THINK is the majority and what will quell contrived controversy the easiest, NOT what stands up in the light of reason. This catering to ideological whims and preferences is perhaps the grossest neglect of the BOV I have seen, and the BOV will suffer the most from this action through the support they will lose over the coming months and years. I do not have time to make my arguments here, but I will express my First Amendment right to its fullest: Go to hell, BOV. — Damn the BOV Feb 12, 10:48 AM # Just as some people refused to support the College when the cross was removed (and maybe rightfully so), I would challenge all of those who see Nichol’s departure as unfortunate and unnecessary (myself included) not to let this make them bitter at the College and cease their support. Doing so would be hypocritical and against everything that you argued over for the past sixteen or so months. — alum Feb 12, 10:48 AM # I am an alum of ’06 and worked with President Nichol as an aide. I have never met an individual that cared as much about the college or the students that attend my Alma Mater. I am sad that the College has lost a powerful resource in developing W&M as a premier institution. I am disappointed in the BoV. — Matthew Ingram Feb 12, 10:59 AM # It’s clear that Nichol came to the job with an agenda that he intended to impose without regard for anyone else, especially the well-being of the institution. Now that he’s a lame duck and can’t effectively impose that agenda anymore, he leaves the institution high and dry while they search for his successor. And, his parting e-mail, whether his allegations are true or not, further sullies the institution he should have protected and promoted. By conducting himself the way he has, without grace or dignity, he does a disservice to all the ideals that he supposedly espouses. — Ryan Feb 12, 11:03 AM # My only direct connection with W&M is through a grandson who was a recent graduate. But I have been an admirer of Gene Nichol since he arrived here. Both the college and the state will be the poorer for his leaving the presidency of W&M. His courage is incredible and much to be admired. — Elizabeth Gordon Feb 12, 11:11 AM # It is a sad day for WM. I am extremely proud of Gene Nichol for the integrity he has shown throughout this disheartening process. He remains an outstanding example to the students of the College, and I am proud to say he was my President. Hark upon the gale, Big Nick, hark upon the gale. — Alum Feb 12, 11:12 AM # I am DISGUSTED today with the actions of many in regards to President Nichol. Regardless of how I feel about some of his actions in the past, I believe he has ALWAYS supported W&M, her students, and her values. I encourage each of you to show your outrage by contacting the BoV (their contact is easily obtained on the college’s website or by calling the office of the president). More importantly, however, I encourage each of you to never lose sight of what is most important here: our Alma Mater. Please continue to support this wonderful place; now it is more important that ever. — Sarah Feb 12, 11:12 AM # There are many of us alumni who are thrilled that Nichol is going. I only hope that he has not permanently damaged the College. It concerns me greatly to see the venom which many student supporters of his are now spewing. The Board of Visitors, hardly a hot bed of fundamentalists and reactionaries, made the correct decision in not renewing the contract of a president whose chief claims to fame are divisiveness and controversy. — '86 alum Feb 12, 11:17 AM # Terrific News! Glad to see him go. — VA alum Feb 12, 11:17 AM # Ryan, What would you have done if you were constantly harassed over the past 16 months? I think this email is moderate compared to what I would have done… — Matt Feb 12, 11:19 AM # I am sorely disappointed in the decision made for the many by a powerful few. I charge our current student body to continue Nichol’s legacy, and to push for progress to advance WM socially, academically, and ethically. — alum1 Feb 12, 11:20 AM # This is ridiculous. Nichol tried to bring a diverse and liberal education to William & Mary and he was stopped by beatnicks (Tim Hugo) and the Board of Visitors who acquiesce to every demand like a needy kid craving praise from his mother. McGlothin took away his $12 million? Good riddance. If he had the College’s best interest at heart he would understand what Nichol was trying to do. We don’t need, nor do we want, donor’s like him. Once again W&M has been handicapped by the people who are supposed to have its best interest at heart. Tim Hugo is right about one thing: William & Mary IS becoming a joke; and it’s due to people like him. People who are against progress. People who do not want the school to move forward and to expand into the 21st Century. People who want to maintain the status quo and are fine with getting B’s. We at William & Mary always strive to be the best. Why do we allow the mediocre, in the form of the BOV, to represent us? Nichol is the president we need to move this college forward. In order to become a better school we MUST change. We can’t do everything the same and expect to be better. That is an illogical way of thinking and unfortunately is what is expected from fundamentalists like the Board of Visitors. W&M NEEDS progress. W&M NEEDS change. When people make the claim that Nichol “damaged the college” you must ask them what they mean by damage. After fumbling for a few minutes there answer can be summed up by, “he tried to change things”. Nichol was behind the College and supported William & Mary, not the asinine decisions of the Board of Visitors. As a result, he is gone. — Alum Feb 12, 11:22 AM # “Terrific News! Glad to see him go. —Va alum” How is this terrific news? I think the Board was justified in not renewing him, but the sacking and immediate resignation of a College president is NEVER terrific news. It will take William & Mary years to recover from this. How many of the bright young people of the Class of 2012 are going to accept their offer from William & Mary? How many donations are going to be lost? How long will we be without a president (or a Sam Sadler)? How long will William & Mary be headless, in a freefall? I’m no Nichol supporter and I think the College will ultimately be better without him. That being said, this is terrible news. As for an alum who would gloat in the worst sequence of events for W&M since the Civil War…sheesh. — Andy Feb 12, 11:27 AM # As a parent who actually once found Gene Nichol charming and engaging, and saw his many strengths, I can’t say now I’m unhappy by this. He totally failed as a president, to the point I did not feel I could give money to the school, save in the tuition bills I have to pay. What one good thing for the college did he do? What did he do to increase the prestige and value of my child’s degree there? What great new money did he bring in to help keep tuition down and programs at their best? All he cites are the cross, the sex show, and diversity. He thus makes his own case for the mediocrity (at best) of his tenure. He was an ideologue at heart, not a college president. There was hypocrisy in his inconsistent stands on cross and sex show—arguing that he couldn’t permit the cross to offend, but then saying whether the sex show was offensive was of no moment. He didn’t give a damn about parents or alumni or the college’s supporters, and it showed. For a guy who found the cross necessary to shield from others, he sure takes to the cross today, in his pompous and self-congratulatory martyrdom statement. I actually felt a bit sorry for the guy until reading that. A guy who really cares about students doesn’t need to go on and one telling everyone so. It would be self evident. He manipulates students to his own benefit, and he showed that by attending the pep rally, which any decent professional would have avoided. If folks weren’t convinced of this guy’s egomania before reading that classless statement, they should be now. — W&M Parent Feb 12, 11:27 AM # It’s evident that the BOV is trying to do “what’s best for the College”—unfortunately, there is a huge disconnect between what the Board considers “best” and what the students/many alumni consider “best.” I am greatly saddened to lose Nichol as President of the College, and equally saddened to learn that there is apparently no place for progress at my alma mater. I would encourage everyone reading this to voice their opinions to the BOV—the contact information can be found here: http://www.wm.edu/bov/contact.php. Hopefully we can begin a dialogue that gives the BOV a greater understanding of the William and Mary community as a whole—both current students and alumni. — Jen McGovern Feb 12, 11:29 AM # What a shame that this old, great university attended by Pariots and men of great vision, will lose another great visionary. The college survived revolutionary times and needs more great progessive leaders to carry it forward. This event will go down in the history of the college as one of its sadder ones. — Jacqueline H. Dwyer '70 Feb 12, 11:29 AM # I cannot find words to express my truly deep disappointment in my dear alma mater. It is more than shameful that we lose such a devoted, progressive, inspirational and true leader of the College. I’m surprised that MY school would treat progress and equality in education—and everywhere—with such little respect. For my physical detachment from the campus, and the time since my attendance, I really am disappointed in my college… which I really hold in pretty high esteem and of which I am very proud generally. I wish I could have been a part of his William & Mary. — MSH, alumna Feb 12, 11:38 AM # I am so proud of the BoV. With all due respect to the alumnus, they aren’t here in Williamsburg on campus everyday dealing with the chaos Gene Nichol has caused. Though his decisions affected many people, he NEVER opened the decision making process up for students/faculty to participate in. He doggedly applied his political dogma. NOT the template for a great school leader. The school’s rankings and fundraising have suffered under him. He has been nothing but a mess for our school. — chris Feb 12, 11:38 AM # I cannot believe those of you that would simply brush it off with a “good news!” Think of the implication this has for the College. The next president will be a puppet of the General Assembly and the BOV, who have little or no connect with current students and will not hesitate to make decisions without regard for them. Alumni—this is and forever will be your college, but the college you rememeber from your years here is changing. William and Mary will always be steeped in tradition, but it also prides itself on a solid, diverse education that is now being threatened. Congratulations Alumni—we’re officially reverting back to 1693. — Sarah O Feb 12, 11:48 AM # I am appalled and outraged. I have been quite proud of the advances of my alma mater in recent years. The politization of Nichols term is sickening. I am disgusted with the Board. — an alum Feb 12, 11:57 AM # I am deeply troubled and angered by this news. There should never be a home for small minds at W&M but it appears the history of our distinguished forefathers has been lost – no longer do we lead boldly but cower to politics and the pressure of conformity for conformity’s sake alone. Are we no longer the birthplace of the leaders of democracy? Do we not respect, seek, encourage diversity, differences, ideas that are not our own in order to create the best environment in which to teach and learn? I am ashamed of the decision that has been made and more so the way W&M has handled the departure of an honorable, if controversal president. — W&M Parent and Alum Feb 12, 11:57 AM # I’m disgusted at the fanatic lynch mob that has persecuted President Nichol during his tenure. I can’t help but be reminded of the Salem Witch Trials. He is and has been a devoted public servant, alumni of the college, and role model for the students. These “controversies” are nothing but superficial obsessions of people who could not see past these ridiculous debates and recognize Nichol’s core devotion to making William and Mary the best university it can possibly be. I’m an alumnus of the college and a financial supporter (though I am reconsidering that after this debacle). Trust me, there are many others who have a similar stake in William and Mary who feel as I do now – angry and alienated. For the first time in my life, today I am ashamed and embarrased to call myself a member of the Tribe. I pray for a new president who can display even half the commitment that Nichol did. — P. c/o '02 Feb 12, 12:00 PM # Why doesn’t it surprise me that there was a bribe involved? That’s disgusting. — Mick Anderson Feb 12, 12:02 PM # Thank god I go to UVA, and our BoV are not as pathetic. It makes me sad because reading the comments — and I read every last one — and his speech in its entirety, it made me wish he was the president of my school. It seems like a very foolish decision to not renew his contract and to offer money for him to keep quiet. That’s shameful. — A UVA Student Feb 12, 12:05 PM # William and Mary has been know as a place of bright minds for quite some time. Bright minds stimulate progression and evolution. Progressive thoughts tend to inspire controvesy. If you ask me, Nichol did a great deal for the college. He immediately tried to implement strategies to open up the college to world, not only by creating more diversity, but through other methods as well. He did not just cater to the rich alumni but also to the college itself, the students. The interest of the students and young alumni should weigh heavier than the older alumni, no matter what amount of donation we can or will be able to afford. This is a sad day for William and Mary and it’s great legacy of creating and having visionary leaders. — Emily Benavides Feb 12, 12:05 PM # Just because we are the second oldest school in the nation doesn’t mean our values have to be stuck in the colonial period. The positive changes I saw at William and Mary in just the first year Nichol was there made it clear that he had breathed new life into the student body and the W&M community. It is appalling to me that at a university filled with some of the brightest minds in the nation the majority of the student body no longer has an influence on what happens on their campus because of a minority of archaic and antiquated thinkers who feel it is there duty to “protect” the traditions of W&M. Forgive me, but I was unaware that our traditions included conservative religious values and censorship. At a time in our nation where we are constantly faced with the horrible impact the actions of the powerful few can cause, it disgusts me to see this kind of sickly corruption trickle down to such a prestigious institution of higher learning. Shame on the Board of Visitors and shame on those who seek to tarnish the reputation of such an honorable man, who wanted nothing more than to see the College thrive as a community and university that is welcoming to all who pass through the doors of the Wren Chapel. I love my alma matter but I sure do hate those that seek to squash the ideals that my fellow alumnus, Thomas Jefferson, and his founding father-compatriots worked so hard to fight for. — Kristin Eliason Feb 12, 12:21 PM # The terrible divisiveness that you see on this webpage and have been seeing on campus for the past 16 months (pitting student against student, alumni against alumni, faculty against faculty, and every combination in between) is the real reason why Nichol’s resignation is a good thing today. His decisions, regardless of what you think of them, caused our TRIBE to become factionalized. I think we can now move on to someone who will unite us instead of divide us. — Student Feb 12, 12:27 PM # Before any of you moan too loudly about the “loss” of Gene Nichol and the “damage” done to William and Mary, I suggest you study the past. I know that is quite difficult for you liberals out there, but try it some time, as it might be quite instructive in avoiding another huge mistake like this one. I suspect neither the state of Colorado nor the former school he left behind in North Carolina weeps for Gene Nichol; neither will William and Mary. He was nothing but a divisive force from the beginning. Good riddance. — Robert S Meybohm Feb 12, 12:30 PM # oh wow… the campus libs have come out to whine about nichol getting the boot. OUR RANKINGS DROPPED UNDER HIM... THAT MEANS HE MUST GO… — john Feb 12, 12:32 PM # Nichol seems to me to make far too many waves [perhaps out of boredom?], and most certainly only considers his own opinions and political views when making decisions that effect the entire W&M community — and those decisions have [obviously] extended throughout the country. The astronomically extreme liberal perception among the W&M community is and always has been a joke and is not indicative of what the rest of academia thinks about “the issues.” The BoV is there for a reason, they are entitled to be there, and they have a right to this decision. The W&M community will never accept this, but that doesn’t surprise me. — K. Douglas Feb 12, 12:34 PM # One of the saddest parts of this whole fiasco is the seemingly massive disconnect between the BOV and some alums and the student body. As a recent alumnus, I still find it hard to reconcile my place along with those who seemed so out of touch when I was a student. I think President Nichol did a great job of representing the STUDENTS, whose lives are most affected by those who make decisions based on politics, use promises of donations as weapons and resort to bribery to cover it all up. I love William and Mary and always will – and I just want to let current students know that there are many members of the Young Guarde who support you completely and understand how you feel. — Jolly Feb 12, 12:36 PM # P. c/o ’02 – “I’m an alumnus of the college and a financial supporter (though I am reconsidering that after this debacle). Trust me, there are many others who have a similar stake in William and Mary who feel as I do now – angry and alienated”. How are your feelings right now any different than other peoples’ feelings when the cross was removed? They are not. You are just on the other side of the opinion. Those people felt alienated at the time as you do now. At the time, those people were ridiculed for halting any financial contributions to the school and blasted as trying to control people with their money….as you are considering doing at the present time. I didn’t fault those people and I certainly don’t fault you now for your feelings and your future giving to the College. Just try not to be a hypocrite. Don’t turn into the same person that you initially were so adamantly against before Nichol’s departure. — Samuel L. Jackson Feb 12, 12:37 PM # Chris and Kristen – Masc. sing. – alumnus Fem. sing – alumna Masc. pl. – alumni Fem. pl. – alumnae Hey, WM has been teaching latin from the very beginning – why stop now? ;) — Rachel, '06 Feb 12, 12:37 PM # I support President Nichol and always have. In fact, I think that this is an utter embarassment for an institute of “higher learning”. BOV and the racist/clasist conservative majority of W&M should be embarrassed. Glad I already graduated and any money I make after law school will sure as hell not kick back to the college- same for my mom, another embarassed alumna. — Peach Feb 12, 12:40 PM # W&M parent: Comparing the presence of a cross in a space regularly used for all-college events with the presence of an event that people could choose to go to, or not, without being excluded from the WM experience, is like comparing apples and oranges. As for whether Nichol cares about students, he’s the only college president I have ever heard of who went to student dormitories in the evenings to give students a chance to ask anything they wanted about the college and his presidency. By “pep rally” are you referring to last week’s student demonstration held outside the BOV meeting that Nichol attended as part of his professional responsibilities? To neglect the meeting because students were massed outside would have been unprofessional. To ignore several hundred students’ efforts to communicate would have been, well, what the BOV did. But I cannot understand how it’s unprofessional for him to have said thank you and proceed to the meeting. — Rachel Feb 12, 12:40 PM # I miss Timmy J! Please come out of retirement! — Emily Feb 12, 12:41 PM # This is embarrassing. Nichol’s email was awesome. The BOV et al can shove the wren cross up their ass for all I care. — alumunus 2006 Feb 12, 12:46 PM # It’s a shame it took so long to get him out. He left Colorado and UNC law schools in worse shape than when he got there, and he has done the same to W&M. The BOV did not do the damage—other than allowing him to be and stay the president for so long. I was embarrassed to admit I was a W&M alum, and instead have channeled my annual giving to my other alma mater, UVA, these past two years. I could not stomach donating money to a school that was an embarassment in the newspapers on a routine basis for the stuff Nichols was doing. Unless things change, I will strongly discourage my children from applying to W&M, and will not give another dollar to the place. — '85 Alum Feb 12, 12:49 PM # How interesting that Nichol makes no mention of the $12M pledge he “was confused about” and the Sullivan email that proved him a liar. How can the W&M community support a President who does not abide by the Honor Code. As for his statement, it revealed a lack of professionalism as he attacked all he could and whined throughout. Obviously, he did not get his degree from W&M — Alice Feb 12, 12:55 PM # “The terrible divisiveness that you see on this webpage and have been seeing on campus for the past 16 months” Since when is debate on a college campus a bad thing? I thought that was the whole point… — WM faculty member Feb 12, 01:06 PM # It is a sad day for W&M, although not surprising for a Virginia school, that the small minded bigots have managed to again topple progress. As a W&M alum (85) and a former faculty member at UVA, I can only say that I remain terribly glad that I now live apart from a state that has come to represent backwardness and a lack of progress. W&M under Nichols was a University moving forward. It was a place that was reconciling its history with its present concerns. The BOV, represented by a rector with little going for him beyond his arrogance and ideology, showed again its fear of change and progress — and its willingness to do anything that will protect its small minded goals of stagnancy and retreat from the world. W&M will survive, but without the support of alumni like myself. I cannot support a school that fails to treat its history and future as one — of diversity and progress. Instead, I will continue to share my donations with settings that prove deserving, that embrace the present and work to foster discussion across lines of thought. — SJH Feb 12, 01:11 PM # In response to Mr. Howell: But history repeast itself! And the conduct of Mr Nichol in his prior posts is entirely relevant to what happened at W&M, as the record of controversy and failure is an established pattern that dogs this man from institution to institution. A study of his past would have revealed this and would have caused some concern during the hiring process. I suspect you are being quite melodramatic about the after effects of this presidency which will be forgetten quite quickly. I see neither of the schools in NC or Colorado, or the state of Colorado mourning his absence, nor suffering from it. He contributed very litte in the way of positive change to W&M, but he did embroil the College in needless ACLU inspired controvery. He appears to be ethically challenged, or at a minimum, he has a faulty memory, and if you really want to get going. let’s start to have a conversation about the potential violations of the 1st amendment posed by his Orwellian speech monitoring program. God forbid that the College carries forward with that program now that he has been sacked. That program sounds like something that would be instituted in Russia, not on a US college campus. He was a bozo who turned W&M into a 3 ring circus during his short tenure; he created bitter divisions which is not the role of a college President. Like it or not he gets a failing grade, and that’s why he just got termninated for failing job performance. That’s how it works in the REAL WORLD. — Robert S Meybohm Feb 12, 01:18 PM # A prestigious university is supposed to be a bastion of inclusion and debate. How else do we learn other than by being challenged with different views? The BOV, under political and economic pressure, has decided to demote the academic and societal priorities of the College and voted to end the tenure of a College President who championed a diversity of views. A College President who welcomed the minority voice, even when they conflicted with his own personal views. This is a sad day, not only for William and Mary, but for the whole Commonwealth, as Virginia has shown it is a place of intolerance where centuries-old political will wins out over the education and betterment of our young citizens. William and Mary is a weaker institution than it was yesterday and I am shamed by the BOV’s decision. — WM faculty Feb 12, 01:18 PM # I thought “in loco parentis” left when Dr. Graves arrived in ’71. Guess not. — Jim Watts '73 Feb 12, 01:19 PM # Obviously W&M is no place for me, with all my ideas of diversity and intelligent discourse. I was proud of Nichol with regard to the Cross and his commitment to keeping an open mind. I guess it’s VCU for me next year! — Sacha Feb 12, 01:28 PM # I am sorry, Mr. Watts. It is clear that you did not have inspiring teachers when you were a student here over 30 years ago. In loco parentis has nothing to do with it. The faculty, as you might recall, have somewhat less than a 30 year separation from the College. They live here. They work here. They inspire here. — WM Senior Feb 12, 01:29 PM # I have no doubt that Nichol was a well-liked and principled college President. I have not doubt that he genuinely cared about the students. I have no doubt that he did some outstanding things for W&M. Unfortunately that his not enough. His Presidency was marred by controversy that he either created or lacked the wisdom or ability to stop. Under Nichol, W&M’s reputation and economics suffered. That is why he was not renewed. Being a champion for a cause can be an admirable thing. But when it gets in the way of you doing your job and hurts the institution you lead, it can be a bad thing. Nichol never leaned that distinction. — '05 Alum Feb 12, 01:32 PM # It’s unfortunate that this had to happen, but Nichol’s dismissal was the right call. The President of W&M is a figurehead for the college. The manner in which he made his decisions alienated too many people, bred controversy, and had the effect of taking momentum from the academic mission of W&M. The president of a college has to build bridges not only within the college but with alumni, businesses, and government so that the college can prosper. As a president, he was becoming less able to meet those job requirements as a consequence of his actions. Let’s just hope that any bridges that were damaged can be repaired in short order. — WM Alum Feb 12, 01:40 PM # Mr. Howell, You need to get some of your facts straight. The $488 million you claim Nichol helped raise was part of a campaign to raise $500 million and it was started long before Nichol was President. Therefore, he failed to achieve the goal established by his predicessors; a goal that, but for his actions, would have been achieved; and a goal that he lied about achieving. He also failed to meet his fundraising goal each of the past two years. The endowment grew, but nowhere near the rate of comparable, competing institutions. Applications rose, but nowhere near the rate of comparable, competing institutions. Did he stir some debate? Sure, but that’s not his job, it’s the job of the faculty and the debate he created harmed the school. — '05 Alum Feb 12, 01:48 PM # (ditto the parent in post #17 ) “Sic semper tyrannis.” The problem wasn’t his position, it was his posture of enlightened despot, King Gene. He was not interested in understanding the will of the community, but rather in attempting to civilize the unenlightened cretins (I personally loved his parting shots email, a final middle finger to everyone who dared to challenge his decisions). He came to W&M looking to stir things up. He came looking for trouble and he found it. He can be upset about it, but hardly surprised. The BOV should be wondering how someone this divisive and polarizing got through their selection process. — DP '93 Feb 12, 01:48 PM # Let me state where I stand on this so you can judge my later remarks in context: Do I support the BoV’s decision? Yes. Do I think his resignation is a good thing? No. Do I think polarizing debate is a good thing? No. Do I think constructive, civil debate is a good thing? Yes. It pains me that many of the points for or against Nichol’s tenure boil down to money. Tax-payer money to support the Sex Workers Show. Withdrawn donations from alumni. Increases to the College’s endowment. While money might empower some people and add “weight” to their opinions, it is NOT and SHOULD NOT be the focus of this debate. Instead, the focus should be on how Nichol, his supporters and detractors conducted themselves during this tragic period. Can anybody directly involved in this debate: Nichol himself, the BoV, students, alumni, parents, fanatics on either side, etc., step back, assess their behavior and conclude they conducted themselves responsibly and for the betterment of the College? Just because you are ABLE to say something doesn’t mean you SHOULD. With freedom of expression comes responsibility. Unfortunately, I see little responsiblity from any of the parties involved here. We now find ourselves mired in “he said/she said” press releases from Nichol and the BoV. It is irresponsible for Nichol to imply the BoV tried to silence him with money, whether or not it is true. Nichol’s press release, with its tone and implications, will do more than almost any other action to convince the community that the BoV’s decision was the correct one. It does not help, and furthers the perception of some kind of impropriety, that the reasoning behind the BoV’s decision was not more fully explained in their statement. Perhaps that’s the real reason I think Nichol was the wrong person to serve as President: his methods were irresponsible. Are some of his ideals worthy (debate, diversity, inclusion, etc.)? Of course. It’s too bad his radical methods overshadowed what could’ve been, and still could be, worthwhile debate on worthy concepts. I hope everyone that reads this can put aside their anger and venon, whatever your perspective, and work with each other to advance worthy ideals at W&M. THIS is the true way to advance the cause of the College. I’m hoping that Nichol, the BoV and every person who cares about W&M can elevate this debate above the irresponsible mud-slinging that has characterized it for more than a year. If every experience has a lesson to be learned, this is it. — Ryan Feb 12, 01:59 PM # I cannot begin to recall the number of WM alums that have said to me, “I am so glad we graduated when we did.” This debacle—all parties bear some fault here—further solidifies that sentiment. It does nothing but tarnish the reputation of a bastion of higher education and question the credibility of this wonderful school’s educational stature. I am frankly embarrassed by the entire situation. While debate is healthy and should be welcomed, was this last year really a debate? Or people merely shouting ideological platitudes at each other? I fear it is the latter. I hope that William and Mary can move forward from this turbulent period with a renewed sense of purpose. Go Tribe! — Alum '05 Feb 12, 02:01 PM # The president of a university is supposed to be the campus community’s liaison with the outside world. Professors should stir up debate and discussion among the students, to foster intellectual growth and the spread of ideas. But the college president should not be a divisive factor – he is the diplomat who represents our campus to the broader community, and as such Nichol should have made better decisions and avoided antagonizing our friends from outside the campus community. Also, I cannot respect or trust him. He lied about the McGlothlin pledge and I think he’s twisting the words of the BOV to give the story a spin in his favor. He should have stayed until the end of the semester instead of deserting the people whom he supposedly cares about so deeply…Once again, he’s stirring up controversy at the expense of the College. — Student '09 Feb 12, 02:04 PM # “There was hypocrisy in his inconsistent stands on cross and sex show—arguing that he couldn’t permit the cross to offend, but then saying whether the sex show was offensive was of no moment.” I’m sorry, but President Nichols’ stances on the sex show and the cross were perfectly consistent. During a time in our country’s history when the lines between church and state, free speech and government scruntiny all in the name of “freedom” are becoming increasingly blurred, President Nichols had the courage to stand up and say no, this is NOT what our founding fathers envisioned. The First Amendment protects ALL speech—including speech that may offend others. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this. The show may not have been appropriate in your view, but others clearly had a different opinion. My experience at William & Mary was not one of censorship in the name of propriety but exploring thoughts and ideas from many different people and places. Second, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. As a public institution, William & Mary is part of the government. The display of a cross in the Wren Chapel may be perceived by some (as it was by me as a prospective student, although that didn’t stop me) as an endorsement of Christianity over other religions. Some could say that the display of the cross was a violation of their First Amendment rights. As a recent graduate of a law school associated with the Roman Catholic Church, every day, I sat in a classroom with a crucifix hanging on the wall and walked by a chapel where mass was said every day at 12:15. At a Catholic school, I would expect nothing less. Following the same reasoning, at a public school, I expect religion not be a part of the curriculum unless I chose to make it part of my own; nor would I expect religion to be on display in the halls or even in the Wren Chapel. President Nichols’ positions on these issues was perfectly consistent. It was his responsibility, as a public servant, to uphold the Constitution. This he did, in the face of ignorance and small-mindedness. It says something about President Nichols’ integrity that he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles and accept the Board’s hush money. William & Mary should have been proud that they had such a man of integrity in President Nichols. And the value of your child’s degree depends not at all on President Nichols’ stances on free speech and religion. That rests in the hands of the excellent faculty of William & Mary. My diploma hangs proudly my wall. Your child’s will too. — Katherine '02 Feb 12, 02:09 PM # As a graduate who has maintained close ties with W&M, I am deeply disappointed in not only the BOV, but the climate of intolerance that fostered their decision. William and Mary has a long, distinguished history which has been tarnished today. Nichols demonstrated courage, intellect and a passion for fresh ideas that this university is clearly in desperate need of both now and in the future. — Allison Jacoby Feb 12, 02:11 PM # I am so sad today, for both President Nichol and William & Mary. We have allowed the vocal radical right minority to force the ouster of an enthusiastic, committed, and inspiring leader whose only fault was to attempt to propel this institution into the 21st century. We should all be ashamed. — Mary Beth Feb 12, 02:14 PM # “Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.” This is a sad day for the College and the Commonwealth of Virginia, but something like this was bound to happen sooner or later when the BOV is lead by Michael Powell. As head of the FCC Powell tried to increase censorship of the media in this country while catering to the interests of the superrich by making further media consolidation easier. The attempt to bribe Nichol into silence is just further evidence of how deeply unprincipled some members of the BOV are. By all accounts, Nichol was trying to bring W&M into the 21st century by increasing diversity and making the college more welcoming to everyone. If this “stirs debate” then I guess there are still some pretty backward people on our campus. Their shouldn’t be anything debatable about tolerance and accommodation of other people. Some say that he failed to raise enough money, but surely less than two years is not enough time to judge his fund raising ability. Once the right wing minority moved on to bitching about some other perceived injustice, I’m sure he’d have an easier time of it. He deserved a few more years, at least. — Reed '95 Feb 12, 02:20 PM # Suddenly the College is weaker and poorer. Gene Nichol is a good egg. Shame on the board, shame on the myopic pinheads in Richmond. — Scott E. Stowe Feb 12, 02:20 PM # What a great day! This is the best news that I have heard in a long while. We have great places to go from here! — student Feb 12, 02:22 PM # How did Timmy J stay around so long while this BOV moved so quickly to get rid of Nichol? One disengaged, often drunk-in-public president vs. one who values progress, debate and the advancement of what could be a great institution. Even if you didn’t always agree with Nichol, his actions made evident how much he cared for W&M and how he wanted to make it a truly great institution— something this BOV has hindered time and time again. Anyone else think it’s time for the BOV to resign? How can we continue to have such a conservative, backward-thinking board represent the idealism, optimism and progress that this institution has stood for across generations? This BOV is far too conservative, far too politically rooted and connected and far too unrepresentative to continue to make decisions that will determine the future of our great alma mater. Rather than represent the greatest minds in liberal thinking across the arts, their bios suggest that it is money, capitalism and finance that drive the appointments to the BOV. It is time we have deserving leaders who fight to make W&M a world-class institution. Let’s move past this and get a BOV that doesn’t allow itself to be distracted by petty disagreements and politically motivated pressure from Richmond (and those who appointed them). — 06 Alumnus Feb 12, 02:23 PM # Gene Nichol, whatever his flaws, was unfairly maligned by the religious right from the very start of the Wren Cross controversy. Something that should have been a non-issue, or at least an issue that was handled quickly, efficiently and entirely within the bounds of the College community, became a media spectacle that is the entirety of what some people know about the College of William & Mary. This is a shame. Do I think it was Nichol’s fault? Not entirely. Do I think he was treated fairly by the media or the vocal minority who attacked him every day? Not by a long shot. Gene Nichol is an intelligent, kind and articulate man. He was a devoted and well-meaning president. He will be missed. — Kirsten '06 Feb 12, 02:26 PM # Good riddance. I am sure there is a position at the Virginia chapter of the ACLU for you… — Ben Dover Feb 12, 02:37 PM # Today, I am utterly embarrased by my alma mater. Every member of the BOV who voted to terminate President Nichol’s contract is both a coward and an absolute disgrace to the college. The future of William and Mary is dim as long as these philistines are in charge. — Gaetan Sgro '04 Feb 12, 02:37 PM # While I believe that President Nichol acted hastily at times, his actions were positively motivated, and always in the best interest of The College. To dismiss him after a year is truly a shame for W&M. It makes me ashamed to say that I am an alum of a school that does not embrace change and fails to see all sides of its president’s actions. — J.H. Feb 12, 02:49 PM # As an alum, I am now very concerned about what type of process the BOV will use to select the next president. How much lattitude with any new president have to make decisions? Very little, I suspect. I fear the BOV will practice CYA and hire a lap dog, to the demise of the College. Of course, the students involved in bringing the sex workers show should own up to their responsibility of throwing a bananna peel in front of a man who already had one foot in the grave. I applaud Nichol for standing up or the students right to do so, but it’s like a drunken buddy that picks a losing fight, you feel obligated to protect them but at the same time are pretty angry that you had to be drawn into their petty battles. Those funds could have been used to host a dialogue about the role of religion in public universities, to conduct extensive dialogue about the wars we are fighting, or other relevant topics but instead went to fund the presentation of a trivial issue like a sex show. Considering that we’re at war and in the middle of a critical presidential election, his being forced to defend the show may have been the last straw for the BOV. It’s regretable that the students didn’t appreciate the precarious position they were putting Nichol into. Nevertheless, the most troubling thing for me is that Nichol’s wife and daughters were targeted, an action that I find beyond comprehension. It makes me deeply suspicious of his opponents who claim to have the best interest of the college in mind but who’s “ends justify the means” approach should send chills down any free-thinking community. Simply disgusting. Once the national media gets a hold of this, the cross issue will once again be front-and-center, so I hope the college is willing to endure the criticism it deserves for apparently selecting a president they didn’t do much research on, and to explain their feeble attempt to bribe/gag Nichol from discussing the ideological issues that drove this case. I’m most curious about the actual BOV vote. I know several of the BOV members and they are great people who supported Nichol and were deeply concerned about the negative attention his removal would bring to the college. Is the BOV voting available through a FOIA request? — Joe Towney Feb 12, 03:00 PM # Wasn’t this decision on whether or not to renew his contract supposed to be made in public session of the BOV this past Friday? The timing of this seems quite questionable. If the BOV truly believes in and stands behind their decision, a public statement (more than an EMAIL!) is called for. What was the final vote? Who voted each way? When did this vote take place? President Nichol should never have had to be the one to break the news. — involved community member Feb 12, 03:04 PM # As the parent of a recent W & M graduate I am deeply saddened and worried by the recent actions of the BOV. Gene Nichol stood up and took the heat for the very things this college was founded upon. I wonder if the future will show reduced contributions from past graduates due to the impetuous decision of the BOV. As for the “economic incentives” offered President Nichol for his “appropriate” response…what WOULD Thomas Jefferson say?? We will always support W & M for what it has stood for in the PAST and hope those responsible hear the outrage from their actions. — Christie Nixon Feb 12, 03:28 PM # Methinks the prez doth protest too much! How childish his parting shot. How selfish his refusal to complete his term. How egotistic. That kind of behavior should not be applauded. In fact, I am embarrassed for him, for who would hire him now? The College is not a place for political statements or grandstanding. Let it be a bastion of education, for the sake of learning, rather than for breaking new political ground. Let us, as graduates armed with our big W&M brains, make the statements and break the barriers, and face the consequences of those actions, apart from the College. The College should be a place of sober discussion and debate, not public controversy. I echo ‘good riddance.’ — George Buckley '90 Feb 12, 03:30 PM # To answer the involved community member – It seems as though Nichol jumped the gun on the announcement himself. Their Email was a response to his. I imagine if he had not written the first Email, things would have been handled very differently – i.e. formal press release. — '05 Alum Feb 12, 03:52 PM # As a recent graduate I had the unique experience of spending half of time with Timmy J. Sullivan and the other half with Gene Nichol. Both had different leadership styles and personalities, but the thing they had most in common was a love for the students and the College as a whole. Time will tell if their decisions and tenure affected the College positively or negatively, but I truly believe that their intentions were in the right place. I can’t say that I always agreed with President Nichol’s decisions/policies, in fact I’ll say I disagreed with him a lot but when you look at the main criticisms (political views aside) it often came down to a matter of input and time. Arguably you could say that the cross issue could have been discussed more and concerned students/faculty should have had more say in the result and this could be said about other issues as well, which leads me to my point. The Board of Visitors acted much too quickly and should have done a better job of visibly courting student/faculty/alumni opinion, but they didn’t, they made their decision in the same hasty manner that they criticized President Nichol for and that’s wrong. I’ll miss Big Nic and I have no doubt that if he had been allowed to continue the College would have been fine. To all of you on campus, agree or disagree with what happened, put down the books, beers, and video games and go make your voices heard, because otherwise history will repeat itself. — PK West '07 Feb 12, 03:53 PM # As an alumna, I am deeply saddened and angered by this decision. By giving in to political pressure from a minority of alumni and individuals with no connection to the College at all, the Board has alienated many of the current students and recent alumni who are the donors of the future. Furthermore, I am concerned about the precedent the Board is setting. Who will dare to speak up for the College’s principles of intellectual freedom, pluralism, and student self-governance in the future? — Nora, class of '98 Feb 12, 04:20 PM # What a sad day for William and Mary. Gene Nichol embodied intellectual, educational, and democratic ideals that made me very proud. I wish the BOV had given him more support. — Carly Van Orman Feb 12, 04:22 PM # As an alumnus with much vested in the College, but little involvement in this debate, I have to say that both sides of the discussion seem way over the edge. Folks who were worked up over the cross decided to stop donating their money (which is their right), and those on the side of Pres. Nichol decried that decision. Those who took issue with Nichol at the head of the College engaged in personal attacks against him (are we really so base as to comment on the man’s weight?) Now that Pres. Nichol has been forced out, those who sided with him are calling those with whom they have a disagreement ‘closed-minded bigots’, ‘right-wing nut-jobs’, and wish them eternal damnation (are they really on the same level as Mussolini?). At the bottom of this seems to be the fact that Pres. Nichol’s tenure divided us. Our community of students, faculty, and alumni has engaged in an embarrassing discourse. The College has had equally liberal presidents, but all have been revered with near unanimity. Pres. Nichol was the exception. I really do not know what went into the decisions Pres. Nichol made. He seems to be a decent fellow who cares deeply about his beliefs and our school. However, the net result was a division that was unacceptable, and I think our beloved institution suffered for it. Because of the deep schisms formed over the last couple of years, I don’t know that the BOV had any choice but to hold Pres. Nichol accountable for the results he has produced. His letter today, parting shots included, make me confident the BOV made the right decision. I hope our next leader can heal the wounds which formed over the last 16 months. — Mike '92 Feb 12, 04:27 PM # “often drunk-in-public president vs. one who values progress, debate and the advancement of what could be a great institution” – 06 Alumnus Goodess! It seems the personal attacks have been from BOTH sides, and both are disgraceful. I was no Nichol fan but each and every time I saw a post criticizing his weight or whatever, I posted against that kind of attack. Calling Sullivan a drunk is beneath contempt. — tribe fan Feb 12, 04:32 PM # I remember when President Sullivan came to our Ludwell apartment building to chat in ’95. Sounds like President Nichol did the same thing. I hope that the next president does the same and keeps in touch. — Pat '98 Feb 12, 04:43 PM # I, for one, am glad to see this miserable stretch of history end at W&M. Regardless of controversy or politics, Nichol was a terrible leader. Leadership extends far beyond personal agendas and ideology, which Nichol failed to realize. He needed to be a consensus builder in order to enact change at the school. However, he chose to maintain his personal agenda in the face of adversity affecting the school rather than work in the best interest of the College as a whole (all stakeholders included). Furthermore, strong leadership often requires a sense of humility and self reflection – something I believe Nichol has failed to exhibit throughout his tenure and highlighted by his e-mail/statement this morning. As an alumnus, I was dismayed by the consistent negative press regarding the College, the drop in national rankings, and the shortfall in endowment fundraising. These events should have been more of a concern to Nichol than pursing his personal agenda. Instead, he continued to divide the campus in order to drive his personal goals. Finally, his statement this morning was nothing but self-serving and childish. Once again, effective leaders do not point fingers, burn bridges, and act to create further divide. As a minority, out of state, non-religious alum, I am glad to see that such a poorly-performing leader has been removed. — Adam '00 Feb 12, 04:57 PM # Sad to see William and Mary fail this test for the basic tenets the university was founded upon. Those who focused on this politically will rue the day for their “win” will prove to be a “loss.” The rationale about moving the cross was not PC politics gone amok but it was simply the right thing to do. Like many in the Tidewater, I was raised in a USA military family, and our chapels were devoid of the cross for many sober and celebratory events and the plain Protestant Cross, the Jewish Star and more ornamental Catholic cross came and went from the altar depending on the events at hand. Virginia is a very diverse state and the Wm and Mary student will meet students of many faiths. Truly shocked and disappointed. Wonder if my son will “skip” applying to Wm and Mary if we not only have to contend with inadequate funding but we must also deal with stupid politicians and misguided alum. — Parent of next year's freshmen class Feb 12, 05:14 PM # Parent…. your military chapels weren’t 300 years old. The inadequate funding you speak of is due to Nichol’s presidency. — Nina '03 Feb 12, 05:20 PM # Um, the Wren chapel cross wasn’t 300 years old either; an authentically furnished seventeenth-century Anglican chapel would not have displayed such an artifact at all. This has been your random moment of early modern pedantry. We return to the regularly scheduled outrage. — Nora, class of '98 Feb 12, 05:35 PM # What saddens me the most about this situation is the hateful way in which people are reacting to it. Whether you agree with Nichol’s decisions or not, he was acting out of concern for the College and its students. Bringing economic and racial diversity to an institution that has never been particularly diverse is an admirable and necessary action, and I can only hope that the next president of William and Mary will continue Nichol’s work in increasing diversity on campus. I worry though that the involvement of the state legislature, which seems to be incredibly out of touch with the student body and their needs, will retain control of the College and take it backwards rather than forwards. Even if Nichol was not the best leader that the College has ever seen, what is truly appalling is that the legislature believes they should be the ones making decisions about what happens on campus. Finally, I am currently attending graduate school at an institution where I have never seen the president of the university in person. In fact, I did not even know his name until half way through my first semester. No one here feels connected to him, no one feels that he is their advocate, and similar situations prevail at universities all across the country. William and Mary students and alumni should count themselves lucky to have a history of presidents who are involved and committed. I can only hope the next president is as dedicated to the student body as Gene Nichol was. — Alumna '05 Feb 12, 05:38 PM # All hail the forces of intolerance and Christian bigotry. I do not lightly say that I am ashamed of my alma mater this day. — Stephen Carley '06 Feb 12, 05:40 PM # Starting with the Wren cross “kerfuffle,” was this really going to end any other way? — Steve Eubank '87 Feb 12, 05:41 PM # Ugh. I can’t claim to be an expert on these issues, but it seems that the BOV was planning this for months (according to their own statement), which means they barely gave Nichol a chance to figure it out and work through the issues. Though I can’t say I’m shocked… the W&M I remember was not the progressive, socially forward place everyone would like to think it was or is. Anybody remember the controversy over the W&M Theatre production of “Angels in America?” I mean, really people…just down the block in CW they are re-enacting slavery like it was a jolly old time. Nevertheless, W&M will strive onwards. Every great university has controversies. The phoenix will rise again! — 00 alumna Feb 12, 05:55 PM # I would like to thank the Board of Visitors for indicating that yet again they stand for entrenched interests, putting their best foot forward to cave to political pressure from the House of Delegates and working their hardest to ensure that the traditions of W&M never expand beyond the comfort-levels of multi-millionaire alumni. It is hilarious to hear Mr. Powell state that the decision was made without regard to politics and that the Board endorses and supports the values embodied by Mr. Nichol — are we really to believe that the Board failed to renew Nichol’s contract because of bureaucratic failings? Because of operational inefficiencies? Perhaps if the Board spent more time working to ensure W&M received adequate funding from the House of Delegates (instead of groveling at their feet for reappointments), W&M wouldn’t be so hard-pressed for resources. W&M will never be able to stand for these values the Board purportedly endorses when the Board chooses to cave to those who oppose the liberalization of the College as they did this past Friday. The decision by the Board of Visitors simply indicates that they will stand up for those who want W&M to remain the same parochial, predominantly-white, Southern school that it was when Mr. McGlothlin attended. It’s a shame, really, because W&M has such great potential to become a place where borders are pushed and students excel while broadening their horizons. It appears as though Newt Gingrich, the Drudge Report, and the assorted conservative agitators have won out, however. The real losers? Gene Nichol, the College of William & Mary, and all of the College’s students, past, present, and future. — Jon A. '06 Feb 12, 05:57 PM # The circumstances that surrounded Nichol’s resignation are unfortunate as many have pointed out, but I cannot say that Nichol accomplished very much while he was here. What did he do to increase the national value and prestige of a William and Mary degree? Aside from the business school, our university has slipped amongst its peers in terms of academic reputation, and not all of us want to join the Peace Corps or Teach for America. — Chris Feb 12, 06:06 PM # As a parent, I am furious with the board for not standing behind President Nichol in the face of prejudice and hatred aimed at him. The president has been a staunch defender of principle and has, in the face of every controversy, welcomed and considered all views. He will always have my support although I will not say the same for the week-kneed board that crumbled to narrow-mindedness. This decision by the board will be remembered every time I receive a letter or call from the Parents Association, Alumni Association, or any other group hoping to get anything more than tuition or room and board. Never again! BOV-You are to be ashamed and should submit YOUR resignations! — Kevin C Feb 12, 06:21 PM # This is preposterous…as a Christian who understands how the law works, I am utterly disappointed with the BOV actions and succumbing to VA politicking…I only hope the winds of change (as evinced in the national politics) will sweep away the arrogance of those who presume to speak for all of W&M (by that I mean the VA politicians who apparently put additional pressure on W&M BOV)... M’01 — M Feb 12, 06:29 PM # I am elated that Nichol is done. This is the best news the college has seen in the last 2 years. Future W&M students will be better off for it. Nichol was a partisan controversialist and nothing more – he did not have the college’s best interests in mind. The small minded jabs being tossed by left wingers are utterly meaningless. This happened for pure reasons – Nichol had no idea how to run a college. — John R. Kennedy Feb 12, 06:31 PM # Kevin, baby, get over it. To Chris, you are correct some of us actually aspire to be , gasp, investment bankers and CEOs. Ugh! ns 69 — ns '69 Feb 12, 06:34 PM # “Goodess! It seems the personal attacks have been from BOTH sides, and both are disgraceful. I was no Nichol fan but each and every time I saw a post criticizing his weight or whatever, I posted against that kind of attack. Calling Sullivan a drunk is beneath contempt.” I agree that that comment should not have been made; it was a non-starter and a distraction from the real issue at hand. I do not mean this to be disingenuous and want to be sure both sides are held to a higher level of discourse. While a certain past president may have used WMPD as a transportation service while intoxicated (which should not be read as “a drunk”), this was a non sequitur. The real argument that should have been made—and perhaps I would have made had I not been caught up by my initial disgust with the situation— was to draw the distinction between two very different presidents whom I observed during my time at W&M. I witnessed one president that, to me, appeared relatively disengaged with the student body, lacked enthusiasm and an energy to reinvigorate the great institution that is W&M. The other appeared much more engaged, enthusiastic and brought an energy to W&M that I hadn’t witnessed on the campus previously. While his methods may not have pleased everyone, I hope that we can all agree that someone who shares his enthusiasm for our alma mater was refreshing and invogorating. I think it’s time we set higher expectations for our school and our community and stop settling in our aspirations. While the above observations are my own and may not be shared by others, I hope this helps get this portion of the debate back on track. My apologies. — 06 Alumnus Feb 12, 06:35 PM # “While a certain past president may have used WMPD as a transportation service while intoxicated (which should not be read as “a drunk”), this was a non sequitur.” I think you should just shut the hell up. You have absolutely no proof of that accusation, which makes the rest of your comments suspect. Rector Powell rightfully deplored the personal attacks on Nichol and his family. By what I can only assume is an oversight, he neglected to deplore similar (sometimes even worse) attacks by Nichol’s supporters. Although I disapprove of his presidency, I have no doubt that Nichol is a decent man in his personal life (which is also none of my business). And I’ve about had it with being accused of being a Nazi, redneck, fascist, religious nut, and now, apparently, we’re drunks as well (or is that only Tim Sullivan?). I don’t go to church (unless someone dies or gets married), don’t own a pickup, don’t hun’t, don’t live in the south, and think Nazis & fascist should be hunted down till there are no more left on the planet. I don’t mind sarcasm, lampooning or the occasional smart-ass remark. What you and others of your ilk are doing is something entirely different and it stinks. — tribe fan Feb 12, 07:14 PM # When it comes down to it, yes Nichol was a jolly fellow who interacted well with students, but this gregarious personality has absolutely no correlation to his ability to run a national university. Nichol’s initiatives sound great on paper and nobody questions the fact that his heart is in the right place, but the #1 priority of the College should be to remain competitive and turn out the most skilled graduates possible. This clearly was not at the forefront of Nichol’s policy initiatives, as evidenced by our slip in the national rankings and the failure of our application rate to keep up with peer schools. It may seem like a harsh sentiment, but the academic prestige and repuation of the school is far more important than its accessibility. — Chris Feb 12, 08:05 PM # For the first time since I graduated from W&M, I’m disappointed and ashamed to call myself an alumni of this College. — RV, '07 Feb 12, 08:51 PM # Regardless of the politics of the situation, there is one simple, unavoidable reality that will come from this: The College of William and Mary will no longer possess the same degree of draw and prestige that has permeated it throughout its history. As a currently enrolled student originally from California, I’ve received innumerable inquiries as to how and why I chose W&M. I’ve never given the same answer…sometimes I cite its history, sometimes the beautiful campus, and of course, the quality of the academics. But in reality, it all comes down to that indefinable feeling that I get whenever I step on campus, born of the knowledge that I’m in a place I’m meant to be. I can say with complete conviction that I no longer feel that way. Any institution that can fire its president with such indignity and disgrace can only deserve to be the laughingstock of the nation. Any institution that can ignore the will of its students and give in to the pressures of outside, alien forces should not deserve the eminent privilege of shaping those same students’ lives. Any institution that can’t claim to be the stable, welcoming home that all prospective students search for as they embrace the next, most important phase of their lives won’t deserve their full attention and won’t earn it. I will always and forever do my best to support future students of W&M. I will never give a dime to any persons or people that had a hand in this abomination, the beginning of decline for my beloved College. — Ryan B. Feb 12, 08:56 PM # A couple of ideas that don’t seem to have been addressed yet: 1) Education—yes, even higher education—is neither an ideal nor a crusade, but an industry. After teaching at an independent school for a year, I still believe that the life of the mind is a fine and noble and essential thing, and I still plan to spend my life in schools and universities. But the bottom line is, schools run on money and they have to bring in money to function. Our intellectual ideals are made possible by the (grossly inadequate) funding we receive from the state, by tuition bills, and (most significantly) by the money brought in through faculty grants and the Development offices. The inescapable, if vaguely distasteful, need for money, though, doesn’t really make the problem much easier. Nichol lost the school $12 million. Okay. But he also built an incredible base of support from current students, whose money W+M will be relying on in twenty years, and who may be permanently disaffected. (There’s also the sheer cheek of the folks in Richmond telling W+M how to run itself when they’re not giving it enough funding to run it properly…) All I’m saying is, money is important, and it’s naïve or disingenuous of us to pretend that it’s not. 2) This seems fairly obvious to me, but I think it’s also important to remember that we’re not getting the whole story. Most of us don’t know what Nichol is like to work with on a day-to-day basis, and I suspect that most of us who do have that experience are only getting to see his public persona. There is no mistaking his personability or his remarkable rhetorical gifts. It is a pleasure to meet him and to hear him speak. But in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience in the working world, charm and eloquence and large-scale public decisions are not the only things that make a good leader; tact, humor, the ability to work in the real world without abandoning one’s ideals, and a willingness to accept that other people’s viewpoints are as important to them as yours are to you—in other words, humility—are incredibly important and incredibly difficult to see from a distance. PLEASE don’t read that last sentence and think that I’m accusing Nichol of lacking any of these qualities. My point is only that we have NO IDEA whether he actually has any of them. And I think it’s possible to strongly disapprove of the BoV’s decision while still qualifying our disapprobation with the knowledge that there are almost certainly issues at hand that are not public knowledge. — Mary Davenport '07 Feb 12, 09:01 PM # This is a tragedy. It saddens me to think that the BoV will try to exert so much control over a campus they are so far removed from. What kind of president would want to step in here? One who doesn’t want to change anything and is perfectly content to sit back and be controlled by others without doing anything for the College. Any good candidate who would promote change and forward progress for the College would think twice before putting himself in a position where his every decision would be questioned and battled. I fear for the direction W&M will head after this. — Alia '06 Feb 12, 09:03 PM # I don’t live in Virginia any more and don’t know what it’s like on campus these days, but as someone observing this situation from afar, my impression is that President Nichol did not perform the requisite glad-handing and keeping up of genteel appearances that come with his political position – by accounts he strikes me as one without enough appetite for BS. The inability to lap it up by the plateload and lick the spoon afterward probably doomed him in dealing with all the powerful parties he had to. Still, though you could argue he didn’t have the constitution for all the political niceties, I admire ones like him – he was a true change agent. Good for him too, for revealing the bribe attempt. In addition to letters, protests, and appeals, there should also be an investigation and perhaps some resignations. Some seem to make the corporate middle-manager/junior VP argument – he wasn’t enough of a team player, wasn’t “professional” enough. To them I say, don’t worry, the powers that be will ensure that you’ll soon get your longed-for conformist. I think how US News and World Report ranks the College is a totally meaningless metric for performance, and doubly so when you’re considering only the prior 16 months. Colleges don’t turn on a dime. The application rate is more worrisome, but you can’t just throw that out and expect intelligent people to nod their heads – should discuss trends, demographics, etc. Finally, I don’t think having WM known as a place where a “War on Christmas”-style campaign removed a president as he tried to increase diversity is going to boost applications. — James '00 Feb 12, 09:46 PM # Mr.W&M Senior- I had great instructors, which is why I know “in loco parentis” has absolutely nothing to do with the faculty. — Jim Watts '73 Feb 12, 10:04 PM # I honestly believe that because most of those who dislike Nichol are alumni or are unaffiliated it is lack of knowledge on the matter that they celebrate this day. Many of Nichol’s massive achievements are noticed in favor of the contentious events that he has cited in his resignation letter. In a post 9/11 world, muslim students felt comfortable being on this campus because Nichol looked after their right to free practice of religion. Low income minority families sent their first child to college with the promise of no debt. The College raised more money, worked toward the expansion of the College, and gained the highest number of applicants ever under Nichol. If the College was any poorer it was because of a few in the Virginia House of Delegates who threatened a cut to the funding of William and Mary if the Board of Visitors did not fire Nichol. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, this man did nothing but good things for the College and it was only by shady and underhanded dealings that he was forced into the present position. — Jay Feb 12, 10:07 PM # I am just flat out embarrassed to see the kind of events our university has gone through in the last year and a half. The Wren Cross fiasco was a bad decision (I believe it should have stayed permanently the whole time), and Nichol should have thought about what the consequences would be, but the firing of President Nichol, and his response to it by pointing fingers back at the board was even more embarrassing. At least in his farewell email, he should made it short and classy. If he had anything to say about the Board of Visitors, it should have been at a later time. Yet what I find most disturbing is what Nichol said about the board, even though he didn’t say it at the right time. If Nichol truly was a bad college president and if they had good reason not to renew his contract, why should the Board of Visitors bribe him to stay quiet? Maybe there are deeper issues between Nichol and the Board or General Assembly than what we know about already… — Albert Lee '06 Feb 12, 10:08 PM # Gene Nichol should have concerned himself with academic excellence. Instead, he focused on politics. And his brand of politics — liberal in the extreme — rendered W&M a laughing stock. One hopes that the agenda Gene Nichols embraced — political correctness, moral relativism, anti-Americanism, deconstructionism, etc. — will fade away along with Nichols and his ACLU ilk. The sooner the better! — Mike from Pittsburgh Feb 12, 10:31 PM # Right or wrong, our “adios” ex-president showed poor taste in exiting so quickly and in expressing such a vehement reaction. The responsible and gentlemanly thing to have done, particularly as (according to many) he cares so much for my alma mater, would have been to have seen through his contract. I am surprised that he thinks his teaching at W&M will work out, and moreso that he actually wants to stick around the area. My guess? The teaching will be his “bread and butter” until he can secure the next job. Then it’ll be “adios” all over again. Becca Eubank ’92 — Rebecca Eubank Feb 12, 10:54 PM # Mike, deconstruction (no “ism”) is a school of literary criticism that was never even fully defined by its founder. What’s funny about deconstruction is how it has pervaded culture, albeit in a sharply simplified form. You’re actually engaging in a pidgin form of deconstruction yourself as you question the political context of what you perceive as the dominant narrative, and thereby reveal through your recontextualization the contingent nature of the signifiers and signification present in that narrative. — James '00 Feb 12, 10:57 PM # The fact that Nichol can create this much controversy provides a clear indication that the BOV made the correct decision. — Matt Feb 12, 11:10 PM # dear mike from pittsburgh, while you speak of academic excellence, you mock the very things that President Nichol has done to improve our campus as an educational institution. you speak of a lack of morals and of anti-americanism as faults of the president, yet you are the one undeniably espouses these principles. if you do not recall, freedom of speech is one of the rights that the U.S. holds near and dear to its heart, often citing it as part of its foundation that also seeks liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness for all. on the note of equality and equal opportunity, president nichol has done more on our campus than any other to create a more diverse student population and has decreased the hostility towards minority students. since when are any of these actions considered anti-americanist or immoral? yes, perhaps he has eroded away traditions that are rooted in socio-cultural prejudices against minorities, whether they be a different class, color or religion. but, like the systemic tradition of slavery, this is one American tradition that i am proud of eroding, along with that of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. it never ceases to surprise me that despite the level of education available in such a country, there are still so many people such as yourself who believe in such narrow-minded concepts. if you want to speak of americanism, do yourself, and your country, a favor and open your mind and your heart. i do not know what your idea of academic excellence is; but i do know that it is not us who have been rendered a laughingstock. — A.R., 2009 Feb 12, 11:17 PM # W&M needs a uniter, not a divider. I am extremely disappointed in Gene Nichol’s statement as I believe his sole purpose was to create chaos. He wanted to rile up his supporters and he has done so. His statement showed no class, and if he TRULY loved this school and its students, he would want what was best for the future. Instead, he chose to give the College another black eye, and show us all that his own ego remains his number one priority. I was not one of those who wanted him ousted, although I have not been happy about all the controversy at W&M lately. I don’t believe that it was the controversy that led the BOV to their decision, but how Nichol handled that controversy that mattered the most. His statement today shows that the BOV did make the right decision. I am very disappointed in you, Mr. Nichol. May W&M find someone to bring honor to the College and restore it to its rightful place. — wmparent Feb 12, 11:26 PM # Gene Nichol always put the students first and devoted himself 100% to the betterment of the College. Anyone who ever met him or saw the volume of campus events he attended and supported knows that. He will be missed. My first thought on hearing the news was to vow never to donate to the school, as certain people have done in the wake of unpopular decisions. However, just as Nichol always wanted to improve the College, I do too. I will still make donations, because I believe, as Nichol does, in the power of idealism and education. Today is a sad day, and W&M has lost a great leader. Christine Class of ’08 (January) — Christine Bobal Feb 12, 11:42 PM # James DoubleZero: You have persuaded me that the death of classical liberal education at W&M preceded Nichol’s tenure. AR’09: Your powers of argumentation underwhelm me. Everyone: Before the age of political correctness, it was universally understood that the object of the academic enterprise was the pursuit of truth. Nowadays we have Nichols and his band of radical brethren, for whom truth is passe, and diversity is the be-all and end-all of higher education. Nevermind that no one has ever adduced any scientific evidence that proves, in any way, that racial/ethnic diversity promotes learning or advances knowledge. Yet it is, for the race/class/gender crowd, the great received wisdom of the age. Let’s face it. Nichol was an embarrassment to W&M, and a poster boy for all that is wrong in higher education. In ten or twelve years, W&M will get over the bad publicity he engendered. Now, if only some group would get after that spineless president at Duke, Mr. Broadhead. — Mike from Pittsburgh Feb 13, 12:00 AM # Sam Sadler for President! — Alum03 Feb 13, 12:00 AM # Regardless of one’s political views, the personal attacks on President Nichol (and his family) and how the BOV handled the situation are disgraceful and have negatively impacted the College, its current students and alumni. The BOV has a responsibility to protect the reputation and good standing of the College and their actions have resulted in the opposite. After meeting President Nichol during his visit to our alumni group out here in the West, we immediately wrote a large check to the College. I was inspired by President Nichol’s vision and clear love for the College. I was excited by the prospect of a President who had specific ideas for increasing the inclusiveness of the College and ensuring that the College create an environment for the rigorous debate of ideas. Isn’t that one of the basic tenets of a liberal arts education? When I graduated from W&M 20 years ago and went to graduate school at a large Ivy, I realized that there were some gaps in my undergraduate education due to the College’s focus (at that time) on Western history, art and languages. I was thrilled when I saw W&M expand its curriculum and programs over the year and offer students courses and opportunities that I did not have. As a result, I have been loyal to the College and have given substantially. The BOV has put the support of alums such as myself at risk today. — Class of 88 Feb 13, 12:02 AM # W&M champions its “liberal arts” education as promoting well-rounded, insightful leaders. What part of “liberal” does the BOV not understand? The founding fathers of the College and this Nation possessed a philosophical enlightenment that appears to have evaporated in the ether of the ultra conservative’s assault on reason. My worst fears concerning Michael Powell’s appointment have been realized. Too bad Gene Nichol’s father can’t find another job for his son. — TJ's Ghost Feb 13, 12:51 AM # I think that we need to change our name to “The College of Alumnus and Rich People” because regardless of how the students feel, the alums will voice their fickle, unwanted opinions. Frankly, no one cares what you think. You do’t go here anymore. Stop living in the past, you ass holes. Half of the board of visitors didn’t even go here. What do they care. They meet four FUCKING times a year. They don’t have to live with the consequences. And don;t you just love that the “rector”, whatever the hell he does day to day since he certainly isn’t interacting with students, has sent out two emails this year, all covering up aomething or taunting students. Does he really wonder why students hate him so much when he sends out these shallow and frankly vommited emails out to cover up the legs of the BOV on their hoigh little horses. I keep forgetting that W&M has some higher purpose than fostering a positive learning environment for young people. How foolish of me… — i actually currently go here... Feb 13, 02:32 AM # we pay your tuition, jerk — trip Feb 13, 08:39 AM # Nichol was charismatic and enthusiastic. He brought great thoughts to the College. His job as president also involved the need for executive leadership in planning, administration, fundraising, and cultivating influence on behalf of William and Mary and its community. He had many relationships to grow and cultivate with students, faculty, parents, alumni, legislators, and the governor. He needed to walk a fine line with all aspects of his duties in order to represent the College and her best interests. His full speed ahead tactics were problematic. The college dropped in rankings, lost money from donors, and lost some credibility with the legislature. This is a state run school. We depend on the state legislature for funding. If Nichol was the head of a company his performance would not warrant a contract renewal plan and simple. I would also like to point out that Nichol was not fired. His contract was not renewed. He chose to not fulfill his initial contract when he resigned. Also the “bribe” you all speak of is a simple severance package. Many companies offer a severance package. It is standard. Nichol’s chosen description as nothing short of hush money was his barking. It is s severance package Mr. Nichol. Swallow your pride and stop name calling and accusing. For all of you that believe it is hush money use your intelligence and research standard severance packages and maybe you will better understand. — Proud alum Feb 13, 08:43 AM # The question we should all be asking ourselves now is “what next?” We are all hurting, some of us are hurting because of Nichols tenure and some of us are hurting because of the loss of it. However upset we may be I think we should try and move forward with the future of William and Mary together, because what happens next impacts us all. What do we want? It sounds like this: - We want to not be scared that conservatives in politics are going to start to micromanage our university and enforce policies on us. We want to be reassured by the board of visitors that this will be so. - We want to maintain a close relationship between our students, faculty and administration. - We want to engage in intelligent debate without being horribly divided. Maybe we can start thinking about how we can achieve these things and start to heal. Our college will be defined by what we decide to do. Will we allow this to destroy us or can we overcome our hurt and anger, whatever has caused it, to put everything toward moving forward without loosing this school that we love? — C. Johnson '07 Feb 13, 09:16 AM # A CURRENT STUDENT POSTED THIS ABOVE: “I think that we need to change our name to “The College of Alumnus and Rich People” because regardless of how the students feel, the alums will voice their fickle, unwanted opinions. Frankly, no one cares what you think. You do’t go here anymore. Stop living in the past, you ass holes. Half of the board of visitors didn’t even go here. What do they care. They meet four FUCKING times a year.” AND ALSO THIS BEAUTY “And don;t you just love that the “rector”, whatever the hell he does day to day since he certainly isn’t interacting with students, has sent out two emails this year, all covering up aomething or taunting students. Does he really wonder why students hate him so much when he sends out these shallow and frankly vommited emails out to cover up the legs of the BOV on their hoigh little horses.” DISGUSTING! Is this the kind of “excellence” Nichol fostered? Rector Powell has been mearsured and calm in his public statements, favoring neither side of this debate. He rightly criticized those who made personal attacks against Nichol and his family. The only thing he neglected to mention was the volume of pure hate and venom coming from Nichol’s supporters. There’s been quite enough cursing and name calling. But I suppose this is the “welcoming” and “inclusiveness” that Nichol promised he’d bring to campus. — tribe fan Feb 13, 09:29 AM # I think Mr. Nichol had passion but lack discretion and the ability to play with others. He acted precipitously rather than by consensus. His resignation fits that pattern. I have no problems with the final results of many of his decisions, but his managerial style was his undoing. A President needs to lead a team to where they need to go, not just go there and say come over here. — Lawguy'79 Feb 13, 10:06 AM # I agree with almost everything C. Johnson said above except this: “We want to not be scared that conservatives in politics are going to start to micromanage our university and enforce policies on us. “ If there was ever any political “micro-managing” being done, it was by Nichol. The cross fiasco was an entirely unnecessary slap in the face. There was already in place a policy to remove the cross on demand, no questions asked. Furthermore, the notion that the cross was “offensive” or there to assert Christian dominance over the campus is laughable. Finally, despite a Freedom of Information Act request (and the FOIA is a LIBERAL creation!), Nichol provided not one iota of proof that there actually ever were any real “offended” persons. Given his ACLU past it was entirely reasonable for conservatives and Christians (who are not one and the same) to see this as a sham done only to make a POLITICAL statement. I don’t go to church. I support the idea of the chapel being available to all faiths (which it was even before Nichol). However, the notion that Christians were somehow impeding the worship of others or offending gratuitously is totally unfair. Had Nichol ask Christian groups on campus to come forward with ideas to make the chapel more universal, he (and you) probably would have been surprised by the positive reaction. Instead, he went on the attack, making unfounded accusations and pretending that Christianity was the College’s enemy. Believe it or not, people don’t respond kindly to being defamed and abused, especially when the entire motivation appears to be to score political points. There were a lot of things that could have been done differently. For example, the policy of removing the cross could have been publicized more broadly. Volunteers could have been sought to make sure there the delay between request and action is minimized. [By the way, are you aware of the impediments Nichol placed in the way of having the cross temporarily put back on the alter for individual prayer or other reasons?] I bet a lot of Christians on campus would have come forward to aid this effort. Finally, Bruton Parish and/or Colonial Williamsburg could have been brought in as outside consultants. If it could be established that the cross was not present in the early 1700’s (which I think is the case), it could have been placed aside (without the idiotic Jesus-ray impenetrable plexi-glass case) based on that. There would have been NO need to go the defamatory route of calling it “offensive” or implying Christians were engaged in a cabal aimed at dominating the campus. The failure to explore, or even see, the various less strident alternatives is what made Nichol a pathetically bad and divisive leader. (For all I know there may have been other less divisive solutions.) Not to mention the fact that he proceeded initially without consulting ANYBODY on either side. I don’t believe he’s so blind he could not forsee the reaction to his unilateral action. I think he’s so self-righteous he just didn’t care! His whole attitude was “I need to hit them by surprise and hit them so hard they can’t get back up.” That’s a good strategy…if you’re a General at war. But for a university president it’s haughty, lame and just plain ignorant. — ribald for no reason Feb 13, 10:06 AM # My friends from nearly 40yrs ago would have been delighted to have had such a dynamic President at the helm when we were undergrads. At least Gene Nichol proved that it was possible. But now the guttersnipes have won. W&M’s next president will be one that Roman Hruska could embrace. All applicants will be required to hum the old minstrel song “Children, keep in the middle of the road” Ryan, #57, maintains it is IRRESPONSIBLE of Nichol to maintain that the BoV tried to silence him with money, [EVEN IF] it is true. What lunacy! Parent, #83: I was raised around military families, but not in one. Thank you for pointing that out re. military chapels. I wish that kind of insight had been more widely broadcast a year ago. Nora #85: Thank you! Mike: Not all of us in Pittsburgh are afraid to use out last names. — John Hempel '71 Feb 13, 10:21 AM # “But now the guttersnipes have won” Are you one of Nichol’s advisors? At the very least, you must be his public relations guy. As I wrote above, the cross could have been removed WITHOUT the disgusting hyperbole and name calling. But some people like that more than trying to work with others in a civil manner. Thanks for proving my point. — ribald for no reason Feb 13, 10:28 AM # #112: There speaks an intelligent parent. — H