|
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 |
Blair's e-mail to College communityRobert Blair ’68 will resign from the Board of Visitors today, a decision he announced yesterday in an e-mail addressed to the College community and sent to Student Assembly President Zach Pilchen ’09 and SA Vice President Valerie Hopkins ’09. Printed below is Blair’s e-mail. Dear Members of the William & Mary Community: After much soul searching, and input from my family and from alumni I respect, I will tender my resignation tomorrow from the Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary to the Honorable Timothy M. Kaine, Governor of Virginia. I was one of several members of the Board who argued forcefully for the renewal of Gene Nichol’s contract as President of the College. Although no vote was taken, one was not required if the contract was not to be renewed. Those for renewal were given ample opportunity to argue their points. We ultimately found ourselves in the minority. I fought for renewal because I am proud of the progress that Gene Nichol boldly brought to the College. I would say before proceeding, in praising Mr. Nichol I in no way seek to diminish the critical work and achievements of our former President Tim Sullivan. They are many. Some would try to drive a wedge between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Nichol, because Mr. Nichol takes credit (and is blamed) for progressive policies now in place, some of which I think built upon Mr. Sullivan’s work. I especially applaud President Nichol for making the College a more welcoming place for students, faculty and administrators of color, diverse ethnicities, and diverse religions. William and Mary is beginning to reflect more nearly the makeup of the citizenry of Virginia. President Nichol increased diversity without reducing the opportunities for others. Specifically, he achieved that without taking away from the rights of Caucasians or Christians, regardless of what vocal and forceful groups have alleged in attacking President Nichol, often in some of the most un-Christian language imaginable. William and Mary is not a private, religious school. It is a public university that must be open to all who qualify for admissions based upon academic achievement and other accomplishments. Virginia families of color, various ethnicities, and various! ! reli gions properly expect as tax-paying citizens of Virginia that the doors of the College will be as open and welcoming to their children as to children of other backgrounds. Gateway William and Mary has been particularly critical in moving the College forward. As is commonly known now, Gateway William and Mary is a program that furthers the goal of diversity by financially helping those worthy, successful applicants whose socio-economic status (regardless of color, ethnicity or religion) would preclude them from attending the College. I believe that Mr. Sullivan strongly wanted to provide access for those who were socio-economically disadvantaged. Mr. Nichol boldly created and gave Gateway William and Mary its name, funded it through the College’s budget process, and put the program in place. Now some detractors wish to belittle his achievement, and others claim wrongly that it is affirmative action in disguise. I have been assured that students benefiting from Gateway share one common denominator, socio-economic status. I could go on with specifics of President Nichol’s accomplishments, including playing a critical role in recruiting our wonderful Chancellor Sandra Day O’Connor. I will not. Suffice it to say that dozens of our incredibly talented students (and others) called me both before and after the Board’s decision, pouring out their hearts with love and admiration for President Nichol and the College. After President Nichol’s resignation, I was initially reassured by public statements of Board Rector Michael Powell and other members of the Board of Visitors that the Board would not change the policies put in place by Mr. Nichol, including that dealing with the Wren Chapel Cross. Based in good measure on such statements, I tried to calm the fears of President Nichol’s ardent supporters and assure them that while they mourn his loss, the important policies he put in place would remain. I strongly encouraged their continued commitment to the College. Why then am I resigning from the Board at this juncture? Because there has been an incipient effort by some members of the Board of Visitors to pick apart President Nichol’s accomplishments. To what end? They gained their stated objective. I have also seen mean-spirited communications that are not worthy of the professional deliberations of any managing board, but most especially not the Board of Visitors of William and Mary. Such communications call into question the real motivation for the initial decision not to renew the President’s contract. I know the reasoned reactions, as well as the emotional ones, of Board members are in response to the President’s message of February 12th to the William and Mary Community. Would I have refrained from some of what Mr. Nichol said? Certainly, but then I knew more than he. Several of us Board members are actually baffled by the surprise of other Board members regarding the content of the President’s message. President Nichol is a proud, intelligent and charismatic leader and visionary who demonstrated his love for the College in many ways while being under relentless, vicious attack since the Wren Cross decision. That he held his tongue for so long is remarkable. My conscience now tells me it is time to move on. And I am. I hope my leaving will give Rector Powell and the Board pause, and cause them to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice contained his letter to John Tyler in 1804: to open the doors of truth and test their necessary deliberations by reason. I hope the Board will conduct those deliberations in a professional and civil manner worthy of our venerable institution and will defend their decision (as they are being asked to do by the faculty and students for whom the College and the Board exist) in a similar fashion. I place my trust and hope for the future of the College in the hands of our incredible students and our esteemed faculty. Robert Blair (‘68) |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
“Because there has been an incipient effort by some members of the Board of Visitors to pick apart President Nichol’s accomplishments. To what end?”.....“Would I have refrained from some of what Mr. Nichol said? Certainly…” – Blair
Perhaps some BOV members, unlike you, were angered by Nichol’s assertion that he was fired for political reasons and then offered a bribe to keep silent about it. Most of the BOV has been able to graciously and courageously accept Nichol’s false accusations. You, however, seem to think it necessary to provide proof of your loyalty to Nichol’s ideology. As for Nichol “being under relentless, vicious attack since the Wren Cross decision”, that’s because he began that whole episode with a vicious, relentless sneak attack against his perceived enemies: Christians, conservatives and Republicans. The methodology was similar to his ambush of the BOV. Here’s a little life lesson that you should have learned by now: When you slap somebody in the face without warning, don’t be surprised if they instinctively slap back. Most of us learned that at about age seven. You’ve chosen to join the school-yard bully because you can’t stand not being thought of as liberal and enlightened. You weren’t selected for the BOV for that purpose. Grow up!
Nichol drew a line in the sand and demanded that everyone take sides. Most people, including the majority of the BOV, have ignored him. Some have caved and that’s to their discredit. Some gave the BOV the finger in black paint graffiti; you prefer a nasty email. Divisive till the end, Nichol has now damaged the College AND the BOV (the latter with your assistance). Hopefully the remaining BOV members show more back bone than you’ve been able to muster.
— et tu, brutus? Feb 20, 11:46 AM #
They’ve certainly showed more courage under fire than Mr. Blair!
— rogers&clark Feb 20, 12:26 PM #
“Most of the BOV has been able to graciously and courageously accept Nichol’s false accusations. You, however, seem to think it necessary to provide proof of your loyalty to Nichol’s ideology.”
True, but why? Blair resigning from the BOV is not going to bring Nichol back, so what is the purpose of showing allegiance to Nichol? I have a feeling that we have not heard the last from Nichol. Could Nichol be considering some type of legal action against the BOV and Blair doesn’t want to be a part of it?
— christine Feb 20, 12:32 PM #
Christine – Who knows? Maybe Blair just couldn’t take the responsibility to do what was right while under heavy criticism. Or maybe the BOV positions were traditionally thought of as do-nothing patronage positions handed out only for the honor & glory, both of which disappeared when it became evident they had to actually do real work. Whatever the reason, Blair was plainly inadequate for the task. And, like his hero Nichol, he chose to run away firing one last betraying salvo at the BOV by email. Small minds think alike, I guess. As to Nichol and legal action: that’d be right down his ACLU alley and a blessing from heaven for his enemies, just like his regsignation and nasty email. Proving he’s small-minded, selfish and wholly political is throwing them a gift they’ll accept with relish. Actually, by his shameful departure and unfounded attack on the BOV, Nichol has done EVERYONE a favor by proving he was not suited for the job of university president. Even Nichol’s supporters are bound to be having second thoughts by now, especially since the affects of the kool-aid must be wearing off.
— owens Feb 20, 01:01 PM #
Blair took the only action that an honest man could within a corrupt system. His resignation allows him to make his case public.
Bravo Blair!
http://bartoy.blogspot.com/2008/02/like-father-like-son.html
— Kevin Feb 20, 01:22 PM #
More fallacies from Blair:
1) “William & Mary is a ‘public’ school” Huh?
a. Less than 20% operating funds from Richmond.
b. ~35% of students from out-of-state.
c. Wren Building restored with private funds (Rockefeller, etc.).
2) “William & Mary has a poor record on diversity” What?
a. First to educate Amer-indians in the early 1700s.
b. First VA state university to integrate women in the early 1900s.
c. Early Catholic integration in the 1950s.
d. More diverse (non-white) than 54% of top 67 state universities (about as diverse as UNC & UVA; more diverse than VA Tech).
3) “The Wren Chapel isn’t a chapel” Really?
a. Establishment clause doesn’t apply (no official school religion).
b. Bishop Madison & Botetourt buried below chapel in crypt (consecrated ground).
c. School founded and financed by Anglicans/Episcopalians including Archbishop of Canterbury (James Blair and other W&M presidents were Anglican ministers).
d. All other Colonial Colleges have crosses in their chapels (Rutgers is state-supported) and most have interdenominational chapels in their student centers.
— MacSuile Feb 20, 02:26 PM #
“Blair took the only action that an honest man could within a corrupt system. His resignation allows him to make his case public.”
Pure crap. Blair himself states “I was confident at the time that most of those speaking for non-renewal based their positions on non-ideological grounds and without animus towards Mr. Nichol.” Now he wishes to change his mind and attack the BOV as heartless ideologues. What’s he looking for, a made-for-TV movie or a spot on Oprah? Nichol has attacked the BOV with little evidence hoping to spilt off a few of the more gullible of his liberal kin. With Blair he succeeded. All that proves is that Blair is gutless as well as ideology driven. As for the “incipient effort by some members of the Board of Visitors to pick apart President Nichol’s accomplishments”, more baloney. Powell specifically stated there’d be no going back on the cross or diversity issues. If they have tried to let a little air out of Nichol’s wind-bag email by reminding us that Nichol was not the originator of all those issues (and gave little thought to funding them), so what? SOMEBODY has to be an adult at the College. Nichol and Blair are plainly just spoiled, selfish children. Goor riddance to both.
The Nichol-Blair marriage is not worth wasting a handful of rice to celebrate. And the notion that the College can proceed into their vision of a brave new world in which all opposition has been marginalized or chased of campus is pure foolishness. The radical left is a tiny minority, not just in Virginia but across the country. The vast majority are in the middle and unlikely to be willing to fund foolish nonsense indefinitely.
As to Blair “Come, let’s away to prison; We two alone will sing like birds I’ th’ cage”. He can continue his Lear-like denial of reality but we are not impressed. His King was,and is, a fraud.
— bullcorn recognizer Feb 20, 02:37 PM #
Be still, my bleeding heart!
Those of us with no connection to the school (a rather enviable position to be in, at the moment)— but with an abiding interest in the culture war — watch in amazement and dismay as a once proud, colonial era college sacrifices itself on the altar of political correctness. These days, W&M seems to prefer ridicule over respect.
Comrade Blair joins Comrade Nichol in exile. Alas, W&M must slog along without them. But how long must the collectivist utopian dream be deferred?
Sic semper nincompoopis!
— Mike from Pittsburgh Feb 20, 03:44 PM #
Yes Kevin, I am going to respect the opinion of someone who has a blog called bar toy.
— anonymous Feb 20, 05:05 PM #
Briefly on MacSuile’s continued inaccuracies… One need not have an “official school religion” for an action (or inaction) to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court uses what’s called the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) to evaluate state actions and the establishment clause:
Violating any of these three principles means the state action violates the Lemon Test and is in violation of the establishment clause.
1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
And lest we forget, whether we like it or not, the College is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a state institution. No “ifs” or “buts” about it.
My favorite though, is the claim that, because WM “educated” native Americans in the 1700s, it means we have a good record on diversity. The forced Christianization and later eradication of the native population is probably the saddest activity the Founders of our College ever participated in.
— Dave S Feb 20, 05:35 PM #
#9 “Anonymous”
You might want to look a little further before you throw out that put down. “Bartoy” not “bar toy” is my surname.
But, thanks for not trusting me.
— Kevin Feb 20, 06:38 PM #
Dave S—
The Supreme Court appears to have discarded the Lemon test. You’ll recall that the Court ruled several years ago that taxpayer funded tuition vouchers do not violate the Establishment Clause, even where said vouchers are redeemed at religious elementary and seconday schools. The ’70s era Lemon precedent was virtually ignored in that opinion.
But assuming arguendo that Lemon were still good law today, one might have a colorable claim that Nichol’s anti-cross crusade violated the second part of the test (i.e., by “inhibiting” religion).
In any event, Nichol (who is styled in some quarters as a consitutional scholar) needn’t have concerned himself with the Lemon test. Because it was his fate, evidently, to take — and pass, repeatedly — the Knucklehead test.
Sic semper nincompoopis.
— Mike from Pittsburgh Feb 20, 07:47 PM #
“As for Nichol “being under relentless, vicious attack since the Wren Cross decision”, that’s because he began that whole episode with a vicious, relentless sneak attack against his perceived enemies: Christians, conservatives and Republicans. The methodology was similar to his ambush of the BOV. Here’s a little life lesson that you should have learned by now: When you slap somebody in the face without warning, don’t be surprised if they instinctively slap back. Most of us learned that at about age seven. You’ve chosen to join the school-yard bully because you can’t stand not being thought of as liberal and enlightened. You weren’t selected for the BOV for that purpose. Grow up!”
“Blair was plainly inadequate for the task. And, like his hero Nichol, he chose to run away firing one last betraying salvo at the BOV by email. Small minds think alike, I guess. As to Nichol and legal action: that’d be right down his ACLU alley and a blessing from heaven for his enemies, just like his regsignation and nasty email. Proving he’s small-minded, selfish and wholly political is throwing them a gift they’ll accept with relish. Actually, by his shameful departure and unfounded attack on the BOV, Nichol has done EVERYONE a favor by proving he was not suited for the job of university president. Even Nichol’s supporters are bound to be having second thoughts by now, especially since the affects of the kool-aid must be wearing off.”
“Now he wishes to change his mind and attack the BOV as heartless ideologues. What’s he looking for, a made-for-TV movie or a spot on Oprah? Nichol has attacked the BOV with little evidence hoping to spilt off a few of the more gullible of his liberal kin. With Blair he succeeded. All that proves is that Blair is gutless as well as ideology driven. ... Nichol and Blair are plainly just spoiled, selfish children. Goor riddance to both.”
“These days, W&M seems to prefer ridicule over respect.
Comrade Blair joins Comrade Nichol in exile. Alas, W&M must slog along without them. But how long must the collectivist utopian dream be deferred?
Sic semper nincompoopis!”
“Yes Kevin, I am going to respect the opinion of someone who has a blog called bar toy.”
Do the people who posted these comments think they are productive or enlightening? How could Nichol ever be expected to succeed in an atmosphere in which everything he said or did was insulted and degraded by anyone with internet access and a passing interest in the College? This is vicious, insulting rhetoric that destroys any possibility of establishing a dialogue. It’s sad that so much of the criticism against Nichol—particularly on these boards—takes the form of hateful sound bites or condescension. I wonder if anyone could have done a good job dealing with this atmosphere, and I worry that by ‘swiftboating Nichol’ bloggers and pundits have created an atmosphere no sane—let alone competent, creative—leader would want to step into.
— Alex Danvers Feb 20, 09:39 PM #
Mike —
The salience of the test nonwithstanding, the test doesn’t consider the cessation of religious speech by the state to be inhibiting religion. Indeed, if the decision allowed the cross’ use for religious ceremonies or upon any request, which it explicitly did, there would be no practical inhibition.
Dave S
— Dave Solimini Feb 21, 11:37 AM #
To Alex Danvers: “When you slap somebody in the face without warning, don’t be surprised if they instinctively slap back.” – You need to put your thinking cap on and give this one another review. It’s basic common sense. Why do liberals have such a hard time comprehending the difference between the attacker and the victim? What had anyone done to Nichol before he began his pogrom? Answer: nothing. Except to hold their breath and wonder what a former ACLU lawyer was going to bring. And lo & behold: chaos, false charges of being “offensive” and undeserved enmity, and right quick too.
— robert Feb 22, 11:59 AM #