|
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 |
BOV Rector discusses Nichol's resignation with The Flat HatFlat Hat: What did you think of President Nichol’s e-mail? Powell: He begins his e-mail with three or four points that are about policy, not politics, and they are policy that the students care about, the faculty care about, but most importantly, so does the Board of Visitors. We are as deeply committed to the agenda on diversity as anybody, and we have no intention for those efforts to stall or not be advanced. We believe in civic engagement and internationalization in the Gateway program. I think we are even looking at putting it on stronger financial footing by coming up with an endowment for it. So a lot of the e-mail talks about progressive policies that I would say are College policies, not just the policies of one person. FH: So the three to four policies he listed had nothing to do with the decision? They did not have anything to do with our decision, and I think that is demonstrated by the fact that we are saying in our statement quite clearly that we actually embrace and commend him for them. We now need to continue to insist on and promote them. We never had a disagreement about the values of diversity at the College of William and Mary. The board itself developed the College’s first diversity statement last year. We’ve been celebrating and providing resources and support for the efforts to improve finding bigger pools of students of color and hiring more faculty. I personally have been involved at least one major decision about hiring somebody at this to improve our diversity base. It’s important for all of us—the students in particular—to understand that no one should expect any changes in those policies. I know that there are ideologically-based criticisms of the president. Some of them are quite despicable personal attacks, and I mean that word sincerely. And I know that there are also unflinching supporters. I’ve tried to make clear for the better part of this year that the board will not make decisions premised on those kinds of considerations. We don’t believe our decision was based on his ideology, and we don’t believe our decision was based on his policies. And we don’t believe that the board somehow, being threatened or pressured by any element, was the source of the decision. And we know because we were there for the deliberations that those were not the basis [of the decision]. So, to the extent that there’s a suggestion that that’s all that happened here, that sells to board a little short, and it would be wrong for our students and our direct family to think that what’s running the school is some sort of struggle over politics or ideological considerations. That’s not true. … FH: What was the board’s decision based on? P: It was based principally on an objective and very thorough review of performance as an executive. The job of chief executive of an institution as big as William and Mary has many, many facets, and that’s why it has taken us so long and been so thorough. I think President Nichol in certain aspects is the best I’ve ever seen. I think his energy and enthusiasm and his standing with the faculty are A-plus and extraordinary. But being a public advocator and intellectual or a visionary is only one of the subsets of the total job. It’s also a job where the train has to run, and all kind of other things have to happen for this school to be successful. Those were the areas we most focused on. Recognizing and giving him credit for strength in the one dimension, we looked at strengths in other dimensions…. We looked at the challenges for William and Mary. The challenges are severe financially…. We found that the weaknesses we found in executive skills were costing us and were continue to cost us, and the efforts to try to find ways around those issues, working with him and working on structure, but regrettably at the end of the day we felt that we couldn’t make enough progress without making a change. FH: What was the economic incentive Nichol referred to in his e-mail? P: I’m not going to give the details, but it’s completely customary for the board and the chief executive to offer a transition package as a way of recognizing their service as a way to make the transition easy, graceful and dignified. I think that the board, particularly because we care about him personally, tried to put together what we thought was a very generous and gracious package, and he alludes to that slightly. However that’s interpreted as something more than what it was, and I’m not really at liberty to publicly explain the specifics, but it was basically a package that would allow him to transition from the position and hopefully find really rewarding and great future employment, which he deserves. But he doesn’t have to take it, and he chose not to. FH: Do you think that he characterized it unfairly? FH: When did the board plan to release the decision? P: There was no specific timetable for that. We hoped that the best course was for him to remain president through the end of his term. FH: And you made the decision on Friday? P: We’ve been discussing this for months of course. We reached our final view about this over the course of the last week, and as soon as we did we felt an obligation to let him know. We did let him know a day or so ago, and had hoped that we’d work through it. FH: Was the BOV’s vote unanimous? P: I think it’s fair to say that it was unanimous, yes. FH: Why was Taylor Reveley chosen as the interim? P: As you recall, Taylor was a finalist for the presidency himself. He’s an extraordinarily gifted leader or he wouldn’t have been in the final three a few years ago. Taylor has a remarkable history of outstanding executive and managerial skills….He has run the law school beautifully, and he knows the place. We don’t think it’s a time where we need to have a lot of confusion. We need a smooth transition. We need somebody who can go to work on day one, who could work with the students, the faculty, the vice presidents, the administration and the board. We had other possible candidates, but we ultimately believe he was the very, very best choice, and the fact is he’s somebody that can be more than just a caretaker—we don’t have the luxury at William and Mary to tread water. It’s a school that’s got challenges and needs to move forward…. FH: When will the search for a new president begin and how long will it take? P: It’s essentially begun. We will not waste one second in beginning to organize it….It will take as long as it takes to get a powerful and important leader for this school…. FH: If Nichol had not made the decision in 2006 to remove the Wren cross, do you think there still would have been controversy and do you think we’d still be facing his resignation right now? P: There have been other controversies. The cross doesn’t necessarily stand alone. Controversies are to be expected at any major university. The bigger question for executive leadership is when there are controversies, how do we get them handled? How do we get them quieted down and turned into positive energy and move the school forward? I would tell you that I think the pattern of things that concerned us would have been evident to us even if the cross had never happened because, even for a very long time, we have not thought the cross was a significant part of our concern. That’s why I tried to go out of my way in my statement to say that the compromise stands, and we are not entertaining [reversing] that decision. People can say [the cross] was the beginning of things, but a lot has happened in between, and I think even if it weren’t for the cross, this things would have come to a head a long time ago. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
Rector Powell would do well to ask himself the same questions he poses about moving forward from the Wren Cross and other incidents. He failed as a leader to recruit and retain a President worthy of the College, yet has the arrogance to imply that the blame for the huge leadership vacuum lays primarily with Nichol.
— Matt Feb 12, 03:06 PM #
To call Nichol’s departure a ‘resignation’ is a big stretch. In any unemployment hearing, he would win, because if an employers says that you’ll be fired if you don’t resign, and you resign, you’re still technically fired.
And I don’t believe this:
FH: Was the BOV’s vote unanimous?
P: I think it’s fair to say that it was unanimous, yes.
Anyway, good job FH for asking good questions and trying to get to the truth.
— Joe Towney Feb 12, 03:26 PM #
Powell played politics big time while at the FCC and he is playing them again. His answers are thinly veiled attempts to not address the serious issues raised by President Nichol. President Nichol embodies everything that W&M should be. As an alumnus, I am ashamed and dismayed at the decision made by the BOV. I will not be contributing to my alma mater until it can once again embody all of those things for which President Nichol stood.
— Kevin Feb 12, 03:31 PM #
Oh, by the way, if the FH wants to have some fun, look into life of the donor who threatened to pull funding over the Wren Cross episode, including the issues he had with past W&M president Verkuil. That donor has no right to be on a moral high-horse, I assure you.
— Joe Towney Feb 12, 03:45 PM #
I hope someone from the Flat Hat staff will see this post and give me some more information about this interview.
Joe Towney says “Good job FH for trying to get to the truth” – but I am looking at the editing marks & ellipses in this interview and thinking otherwise. First of all, after the interviewer asks Powell about the basis of the BOV’s decision, Powell praises Nichol’s srength in one aspect of his job, then presumably moves on to describe “all kind[s] of other things [that] have to happen for this school to be successful. Those were the areas we most focused on.” But shortly afterwards the interview fades out until Powell starts talking about finances. Does this mean Powell didn’t give any more good reasons for the BOV’s decision, or does the FH simply not consider these reasons important enough to include in the interview? Also, when asked about the policies Nichol mentioned in his parting email, Powell responds that “it would be wrong for our students and our direct family to think that what’s running the school is some sort of struggle over politics or ideological considerations. That’s not true…” and again, the interview fades out. Again, I wonder if Powell did not say anything else important on this issue, or if he in fact went on to make an explanation that was edited out by the FH.
The Flat Hat is asking the right questions, but why are the answers edited like this? Last fall I spent weeks reading articles in the Flat Hat that praised Nichol’s character and values while heavily criticizing the “vocal minority” of Nichol detractors who claimed that he knew about the lost $12 million pledge. Suddenly, it was revealed that Nichol had lied about the pledge all along, and now I’ve become a little more suspicious of things I read in the FH. How do I know that FH reporters are really invested in giving us the truth about Nichol, and aren’t giving a skewed version to satisfy our school’s blindly Nichol-supportive student body? I used to support him, too, and I still support his ideas. But after opening my mind and learning a little more about Nichol, I see some definite problems with his people skills and management of the school. As president of W&M, he was a representative of the College to everyone outside the campus community, but instead of winning friendships and loyalty he lost respect for the College and antagonized friends of our institution. I hope other students and the FH can avoid being blinded by Nichol’s favorable ideologies, and look beyond his beliefs to see that he was a poor administrator.
— Student '09 Feb 12, 04:18 PM #
Joe, you’re way off on the employment issue. He’s not “at will,” he has a contract. I don’t know the terms of that contract, but he would most certainly lose in an unemployment hearing.
I, for one, am glad to see him go. William and Mary is about nothing if not tradition and he has flown in the face of that from day one. I wonder why no one is mentioning the NCAA issues. We should have fought that. I’ve been saddened the past few years to see my school going further downhill and I’m glad the BOV had the presence of mind to make the decision they did in the face of what appears to be a very vocal minority supporting Nichol. I feel badly for those of you who never experienced the presidency of Tim Sullivan, I really thought a lot of him and I just don’t think Nichol measures up.
— Nina '03 Feb 12, 04:47 PM #
Joe,
You would be right if Pres. Nichol was told to resign or be fired. As you probably know from all the stories in the FH, that was not the case. He was told his contract would not be renewed. His contract was to expire on 30 June, 2008.
— Mike '92 Feb 12, 05:08 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! You are to be ashamed and should submit your resignations!
— Kevin C Feb 12, 05:47 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, 06:21 PM #
“those who want W&M to remain the same parochial, predominantly-white, Southern school that it was when blah blah blah…”
Yer durn tootin’, Jonnie boy. Why, jes the udder day Ellie-May and I wuz on our way to Hicksville to visit the Sterotype family, when it oh-curred to uz kinda sudden like that there’d ben way to much border pushin since thet Nichel fellar had arrived. So we got us a posey o’ rednecks and jus a threatened those Bov’s till theys a started doin hour biddin. Ya should been der! But you don’t deal in no sterotypes no more, do’s ya, seein’ how you got all thet edu-macation and all, right?
— tribe fan Feb 12, 06:36 PM #
tribe fan… thank you. I was at William and Mary only 5 years ago and it was far from the bigoted hyper-conservative institution so many people seemed to view it as. No, we’re not going to be hyper-liberal, if you want that, you should go somewhere else. Nor are we hyper conservative. There’s nothing wrong with tradition.
— Nina '03 Feb 12, 06:42 PM #
Lemme tell you bout dem philosophy profs, Davies and Harris. They says they’s “a the hist”, wadever that be, but can they ever knock back and let howl! Cause ever blessed cuss who went ‘agin old man Nickle wuz a redneck, thru and thru, Jonnie boy. You done hit thet nail on the haid.
— tribe fan Feb 12, 06:47 PM #
As a parent I have been impressed by Gene Nichol — his ideals and goals for the college. I am appalled by the action of the BOV and Mr. Powell. The only vote I can cast will be with my wallet—and a negative response to appeals for money to support a college which should be ashamed of itself.
— Tamson Feb 12, 07:31 PM #
I’m ashamed I’m attending a school that would do this. A horrible, closed, alienating decision making process was made worse by a surprise announcement sprung on us months away from the next BOV meeting. Suffice it to say, students are going to remember this next time. Any lawy students here? Can we do a FOIA request to find out what criteria the BOV really used? Powell didn’t mention one specific administrative failing — just conclusory language. Without more to go on than this, I can only assume the BOV surrendered dedication to academic freedom and the 1st Amendment in favor of political popularity. If I were applying here now, or if I were a prospective professor or president, I’d think twice to have a BOV as a protector that (1) is weak or (2) opaque in its decision making.
— Disappointed Feb 12, 07:37 PM #
Tribefan: Do you deny that W&M was until the past couple of decades a predominately white school with a predominantly Southern student body? If it was (and I believe that going through some yearbooks from the 1950s-80s would be illustrative of my point – James McGlothlin graduated in 1962 when Virginia and much of the South was far from accommodating towards minorities), then my statement is factually correct. But thanks for your stereotype of hill-billy speech—it contributed greatly to the discussion here.
— Jon A. '06 Feb 12, 08:15 PM #
Unanimity is a binary system. Either something is unanimous or it is not unanimous. What the hell does “I think it’s fair to say that it was unanimous” mean?
I want to hear how this decision was made, Powell. Spit it out.
The FLAT HAT should seriously consider submitting a FOIA request to the Board of Visitors in order to ascertain the details of last week’s decision-making process. The BOV is really into those.
— Michael Blaakman Feb 12, 08:45 PM #
I realiZe the man was popular. But we’ve got a unanimous decision by the BOV. Powell was very vocal in his criticism of the slanderous attacks that some (not all) alumni made. But it’s disappointing to see Nichol’s supporters resort to the same tactics (personal attacks, strikes, threats of gift revocation, etc.) in less than 6 hours. I, for one, want to move on. Give Revele our support and stop fighting. A unanimous BOV decision isn’t going to be reversed.
— WJS Feb 12, 09:19 PM #
I feel a bit sad saying this, as I have agreed with Nichol’s stance on every single one of the policies that he outlined in his email to the College community, and when I heard that he was leaving I was disappointed in and angry at the BoV.
But I think that Nichol’s sending the email that he did—choosing to wrap himself in the mantle of martyrdom and inflate rather than defuse the controversy that was bound to come about—is an action that I cannot condone. No, it is not Nichol’s responsibility to lie down and accept an unjust decision meekly. But as the President, his primary duty is to the college. If he loves the college and cares about the students—as I believe he sincerely does—surely a communication that smacks so strongly of anger and bitterness, and that makes some fairly serious insinuations about the BoV, was not the most appropriate response at this time.
Nichol signed a contract to represent the college to the best of his ability. The fact that he even has all of our email addresses is a sign of the trust that was given him. I believe that he has upheld that trust admirably for the past 16 months, and I am disappointed to find him letting us down now.
— Mary Davenport '07 Feb 12, 09:25 PM #
As a parent of a junior, I too am voting with my wallet. I have tried to respond to every fundraising request that I have received from the University. At this point, I am ashamed for them. Gene Nichol is a principled man who took many principled stands that were not always popular, even with me. But the Wm&Mary community is definitely the worse off tonight. (Of course the BOV still has their jobs…they know which side their bread is buttered on…shame on them, particularly Michael Powell who is way out of his league here).
— Nancy Feb 12, 09:42 PM #
Below was my note to Michael Powell. The politics run deep here! Someone should look further into this.
Michael,
Obviously your email sent in September of 2007 was not reflective of an objective Board seeking to honestly evaluate its President. On the contrary, in light of President Nichol’s resignation today it confirms my original suspicion that the BOV was commissioned by the “establishment” to return William & Mary to its conservative, narrow-minded roots.
It is truly a dark day for the College of William and Mary when a few powerful people can thwart the progress and enormous potential of an entire institution. President Nichol led the College with passion and most importantly with a progressive vision that has been absent for so many years prior to his tenure.
The Board’s decision is beyond disappointing and I believe that it reflects the antithesis of everything that William & Mary should represent. Through its decision, the BOV has made a statement that it rejects diversity, progressiveness and a vibrant environment for learning in favor of the conservative values of a select few.
The BOV should take the time to evaluate itself and the enormity of its mistake in not renewing President Nichol’s contract. In this process, I would hope that the BOV makes future decisions in the best interest of the entire William and Mary community.
— Brian Feb 12, 11:13 PM #
This is such bullshit. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BOV tries to recruit Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwel as our new president.
— A.B. Feb 12, 11:30 PM #
One thing that has become glaringly apparent as this situation unfolds is the extent to which the Board of Visitors is either grossly out of step with the views of the current body of students and faculty, or, worse, deliberately unsympathetic. Either way, I look at the masterful equivocation of Mr. Powell above as evidence of a body that has fully recognized the impropriety of serving the interests of the governed in the absence of any incentives to the contrary. Appointed by and accountable solely to the Governor, members of the Board have no need to listen to the members of the College community most directly affected by their decisions. This strikes me as mildly inappropriate and eerily familiar.
The coming days will, undoubtedly, bear witness to the expression of impassioned sentiments running the gamut from thoughtful to downright foolish, but the biggest harm we could possibly do is let that be the end. We have the ability, and therefore, a duty, to remedy the situation by disallowing the Board’s continuing neglect of our presence. We need to be vigilant in our monitoring of the Board’s future activities and vocal and organized in our expression of opinion. We must, in the spirit of Gene Nichol, engage ourselves in the process and secure our rightful place within the governance of this institution.
— Nick Bahnsen Feb 12, 11:36 PM #
It seems to me that the BOV has been exceedingly patient with Nichol. Even now, Powell is reluctant to criticize Nichol for using the presidency of W&M to promote radical left politics — at the expense of his fiduciary duties.
Nichol got the kids to like him because he himself acted like a kid.
But when Nichol’s actions rendered W&M a national laughingstock, the grown ups had to take charge. Amazing it took them so long. Even more amazing that they hired such a crackpot in the first place.
— Mike from Pittsburgh Feb 13, 09:48 AM #
Just a note from the Virginia House of Delegates:
“This is a great victory for Conservatives around the state, and a special THANKS needs to be made to Delegate Mark Cole, the Privileges and Elections Committee, and the entire Republican Caucus.”
It is official comments like this that show is the decision had everything to do with a particular ugly sort of politics. A politics that is chilling and a threat to the University. A politics that is far reaching in its destruction.
Powell and the rest of the BOV have horribly failed in their stewardship of the University. This will have extremely damaging repercussions for a long time to come.
Nichol’s successor will have a hard time gaining respect and an even more difficult time being effective as he or she must cower as the lap dog of Christofacist in Richmond.
Remember, the BOV allowed the vicious attacks on the president and his family. Their voices should never have been acknowledged. But they were not only acknowledged, but listened to by Powell and the rest of the BOV.
As Nichols stated, victory will be claimed. In reality, however, that the likes of GOP Delegate Mark Cole in Richmond are able to successfully intimidate the BOV of this University, tell us how weak and spineless the BOV is.
Nichols may not have been perfect. Who is? But we know why his is gone (It has nothing to do with administrative skills) and the spirit of the forces that removed him. We know of the ineptitude and weakness of the BOV — all of whom should be removed.
I am a parent. W&M will never again receive funds from our family.
— Ellen Feb 13, 09:49 AM #
Am I hearing some suggest that we should censor the voices on the right? Academia has long been a repository of mostly liberal ideology, which is healthy as long as other voices are allowed.
I agree that the General Assembly had no business being involved in an internal W&M matter, but that shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that anything a conservative says should be discarded.
I agree that it’s time to focus attention on how the BOV will select the next president, because the very process could be part of the problem. I am sure that there are many great leaders out there who have experience dealing with controversy, that would love to come to W&M and who will do a great job.
— Joe Towney Feb 13, 10:00 AM #
I don’t understand why everyone is assuming that Nichol’s contract was not renewed because he supported diversity initiatives. Just because people don’t support Nichol does not mean that they are racist hicks with no desire to move forward in the world. I trust the board of visitors to make an informed decision and I believe Powell when he says that many factors were considered in the decision not to renew Nichol’s contract. If the school is dropping substantially and rather quickly in national rankings that is a big factor to consider. As nice a man as Nichol might have been the record of the school shows that his performance as president was not a good one. Can anyone tell me anything that he accomplished aside from the gateway program? Personally, I believe that as President for almost two years there should be a list of accomplishments with more than 1 thing on it. However, if you look at the list of things that caused controversy it far surpasses any possible accomplishments. How about not fighting to keep our feathers for one? I think that is a very important symbol for our school and a decision to just sit down and take it does not reflect well on his supposed ‘great love’ for the school.
I just don’t think that the decision not to renew his contract has anything to do with diversity at WM. That was never something that incited controversy against him. I think that it is time for a new president and at the same time I think the increased diversity at WM is also great. These two items are not mutually exclusive.
— M.L. '07 Feb 13, 10:14 AM #
The climate created here will cause any successor President to continually look over their shoulder in fear of offense to some inferred by wealth, power and the mountebank delegates in the General Assembly, whose higher education did not include reason and critical thought. The BOV has empowered these and the affect on the College will be suffocating to First Amendment Freedoms, equal opportunity, diversity and the belief in the higher purpose of higher education.
— EP Feb 13, 10:16 AM #
“The climate created here will cause any successor President to continually look over their shoulder in fear blah blah blah…”
No, the climate will force the next President to look beyond his own tiny circle of like-minded political allies and consider all points of view. And maybe to also not invent “offended” persons which even a FOIA request could not find. And the ability to read a simple email. And the ability to not see enemies behind a small, removed-on-demand for ANY reason, cross. Or the ability to not blame one’s poor leadership skills on everyone but the night janitor. Or the ability to actually have some minimal familiarity with diplomacy, statesmanship and concensus building.
Finally, he might also be able to reign in his supporters when they begin to call others Nazis, fascist, racist, hicks and mountebanks. (I do like that last one though…I appreciate literate insults.)
— ribald for no reason Feb 13, 10:51 AM #
“Do you deny that W&M was until the past couple of decades a predominately white school with a predominantly Southern student body?” – Jon A. ’06
No, I do not. I applaud the progress that’s been made, as I’m sure you do too. Inserting race into this issue is pointless. Nichol would like you all to believe we’re all racist, hicks, KKK, Nazis and fascist. And he’d like you to believe the Christians on campus were using the cross to be “offensive” and establish their dominance. Poppycock! I think the political term for what he’s doing (with your help) is “demonization”. We’re not racist, religious nuts or Nazis. One of my children is in a mixed-race marriage, which I approve 100%. Why would I want W&M to go backwards? It hasn’t and it won’t, and your theory is over-the-top BS. I’ve about had it with the insults of Nichol’s mob of hooligans, including you.
— tribe fan Feb 13, 12:07 PM #
Joe, (25) you are reading something into the post that is not there.
ALL respectful voices must be heard, with an open hear, mind and mutual human respect. That is the point.
Instead it was the baying of , as Powell stated, “quite despicable personal attacks” that was the predominant voice and tone, and to which the BOV cowered — and played the henchman for the so-called Conservatives of the Virginia House of Delegates.
These guys are not conservatives, but ideologues of the same sort that called for the closing a a Danish publisher for a cartoon that offended symbolism of another religion.
Same arguments around a symbol, same vicious attacks, same intolerance. Same results. Repression under ideology that must be imposed on all.
Ideologically based agendas of any sort do not belong controlling any University of stature.
The BOV allowed that to happen.
They have failed.
— Ellen Feb 13, 12:26 PM #
tribe fan and ribald have their points. But race and fear mongering were not introduced into this debate by Nichol’s advocacy of freedoms, diversity and equal treatment. He, like all of us is a lawed, imperfect person, and in his wish to advance important human rights he would undoubtedly offend some. But his legacy is important. The so-called “alma mater of the nation” will, because of his ideals, produce future leaders, some of whom will ensure that Senators Obama and Clinton are not the first and last of their kind. Nichol’s ideals keep W&M’s claim of leadership alive and diverse. Even Rector Powell should acknowledge the debt owed to people in our past who shared and defended the beliefs advocated by Gene Nichol. From that comes the freedom to be a conservative, a progressive, a person of faith, or a non-believer. We should respect and honor that.
— EP Feb 13, 01:58 PM #
I love the implicit racism in the proposition that any school made up predominately of white people is bad and even racist. Is there any objective evidence to support the idea that diversity materially improves education? Does it raise MCAT, GRE, or GMAT scores?
— line Feb 13, 06:26 PM #
It is absurd that at no point in this interview did the Flat Hat, the “student” newspaper of the College, ever ask Mr. Powell what weight, if any, the BOV gave to student opinion or input when making this critical decision. A tremendous opportunity was missed to make Mr. Powell either give specific examples of how the BOV sought out student input on this decision and how that input was considered or admit that, once again, the BOV acted without considering the thoughts of those most likely to be impacted by their decision, the students of William & Mary. Sadly, I think this fact does not distinguish this decision by the BOV from many of its other actions.
— Jason '05 Feb 13, 06:56 PM #
“The extent to which the Board of Visitors is either grossly out of step with the views of the current body of students and faculty…”
Let me suggest something radical here. There are many new colleges without history or tradition. W&M is not one of them: it is a colonia college which exists today due the sacrifice and love of many from many generations.
Therefore, the only issue is not the CURRENT students or faculty. W&M is not the play thing of any one generation with their narrow perspective.
Nichol wanted to make the institution over into his own image: that’s not his job. He doesn’t own the school, nor does the current students/faculty.
As for donations, it looks like we’ll finally donate: we were not interested in supporting the destruction of a centuries old institution.
— W&M Parent Feb 13, 09:34 PM #
Jason, I think it’s likely that as a condition of Michael Powell’s interview he had to approve what was being printed. Therefore, it’s entirely possible the Flat Hat did ask plenty of questions that were not included, perhaps because Michael Powell did not answer, or would not allow the answer to be published.
— W&M '05 alum Feb 13, 09:40 PM #
“we were not interested in supporting the destruction of a centuries old institution.”
Destruction of this institution is exactly what has already happened with the BOV’s recent decision. And it’s what will continue to happen when they appoint an uber-conservative president who will send us backwards a few decades.
I have always been proud to be a W&M grad until now. What the BOV did to Gene Nichol and the community here is disgusting. They need to be held accountable for their actions, and face the W&M community and give us an HONEST explanation. They owe all of us at least that.
— concerned alum Feb 13, 09:49 PM #
As an employer of William and Mary students and graduates —I applaud the decision of the Board of Visitors. When the actions of an individual impede the performance and financial standing of the institution — it is only fair that their contract is not renewed. This happens in the business world all the time. It is unprofessional for Mr. Nichols to send a letter to the students re. the fact that his contract was not renewed. He is attempting to deflect attention away from his performance in hopes that the general public will believe that his ideology sunk his ship. I would encourage students to look closely at the facts and what Mr. Nichols is trying to do with his mainstream appeal. It is perhaps a fine ticket to a book contract, TV pundit slot or his next position. It has little to do with the BOV or W&M and much to do with ego. Where are today’s servant leaders?
— Monica Bijoux Feb 13, 10:02 PM #
Without waxing poetic, I think the degree of civic engagement and public discourse on campus is something to be lauded (whether pro or con). That said, I endorse the campaigns on campus pushing for increased transparency, recorded votes, and further investigation into allegations of G.A. intervention (House Priveges and Elections Committee)—particularly in the wake of Bob McDonnel’s virtual gag order. Like it or not, I think Nichol’s resignation is raising serious issues on campus (and in the state legislature) that merit attention.
— anon. Feb 14, 04:46 AM #
I am a parent of a W & M student and I think that William Powell’s answer to the question about the Board’s reasons for it’s decision was revealing. He acknowledges Nichol’s superb vision and standing among faculty but seems to focus on how Nichol’s actions resulted in the loss of donations. He says,“We looked at the challenges for William and Mary. The challenges are severe financially…. We found that the weaknesses we found in executive skills were costing us and were continue to cost us…” It saddens me that my son and the entire W & M community has lost such an inspirational leader for such a reason especially since the opinions of faculty and students (and their parents) were not seriously taken into account. I am afraid that many potential presidential candidates will notice that ideals, values, vision and academic leadership takes a back seat to maintaining the status quo and fund-raising in terms of the selection process. This is the Hidden Curriculum being now taught at William & Mary.
— James Tobin Feb 15, 09:57 AM #
James – You have it all wrong. Values don’t take a backseat to fundraising – they are co-equals. Suppose Nichol had another decade as president. Its very likely we would be in so much trouble financially that we would have to cancel the Gateway program. Values can be expensive (hence the word “valuable”) so its ESSENTIAL that we have a president with vision that can also properly manage the college. Values are necessary, but not sufficient, to be a college president.
Was your child at William and Mary when President Sullivan was here? That was a president who could raise money and had a bright vision of the College’s future. Among other things, he also cared very deeply about making the campus more diverse. We need someone like Sullivan – that can satisfy both needs, rather than someone like Nichol – who is severely lacking in one of them.
— D Kuehn Feb 15, 10:04 AM #
Ellen is right on target: we need to be very concerned about the role of the General Assembly. I quote a response to my query to a delegate on the Privileges and Elections Committee:
“Thanks for the note, I’d recommend you contact your Delegate to express your frustrations. We have had heard from literally hundreds of our constituents who have expressed their gratitude that Mr. Nichol will no longer be serving at William & Mary. Through his lack of judgement, he has brought embarrassment to what many consider the crown jewel of the Commonwealth. Lastly, it appears you may want to take out your frustrations on the Board of Visitors who are the ones that chose not to renew Mr. Nichol’s contract. “ — Office of Del. Frederick
Please tell me that the House of Delegates was not on a crusade to oust Mr. Nichol. It was not about donor money — it was all about ideology in the minds of the Privileges and Elections Committee.
I think the BOV had a tough choice and may have made the correct choice. But I am very worried about the future of William and Mary when the General Assembly feels that it can control the puppet strings.
— Ann - parent of 2003 grad Feb 15, 10:47 AM #