|
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 |
Live Report: BOV forum6:29 p.m. | Diversity; Forum concludes: “Gateway is the most important program that has ever been initiated at this school,” Powell said. He said that the next president must continue the College’s diversity initiatives and guaranteed that he would try to fully fund the Gateway program. That statement ended the student forum. Students have dispersed and the BOV will now hold smaller group sessions with students. — Brian Mahoney 6:23 p.m. | Wardrobe Malfunction: Eric Newman ’10 is standing in the audience with his shirt held up, and red letters on his chest say “wardrobe malfunction.” The forum continues uninterrupted. — Brian Mahoney 6:12 p.m. | BOV transparency and staff representative: Thomas said that the board’s transparency during the review process was limited by Nichol’s lawful right to privacy. He also did not want any criticisms of Nichol’s presidency made public. “We didn’t mean to come out ripping this man apart, tearing him down. We wanted a smooth transition.” A graduate student said that she felt the board was patronizing the College community. “I found the tone of your language today and the tone of the language that have been sent our from the administration extremely patronizing,” she said. “I’ve heard enough – I don’t hear anything that’s convincing me that you had a just reason for.” She said she was voting no confidence on the board and encouraged others to do so. The comment was followed by some applause and boos. A student also asked Powell if he would support a non-voting staff representative on the BOV. Powell said that he would. — Brian Mahoney 6:03 p.m. | Transition Package : Powell was asked about the transition package offered to Nichol on Feb. 10, and if such packages are customary in higher education. According to Powell, the package offered Nichol one year paid faculty leave with benefits, use of university housing through the summer and a deferred compensation account which involved two deposits of $10,000 with a promise for a third deposit. He said that the package was contingent on Nichol serving the remainder of his term. “[The package] worked both ways — the president also doesn’t want us trashing him,” Powell said. “The mutual part was that we would also agree to protect his interests.” Nichol also asked the BOV to inform him of their decision as soon as possible. — Brian Mahoney 5:50 p.m. | BOV decision : Powell was asked about when the BOV made their final decision about Nichol’s contract. He said that the decision had been made on Feb. 7, before three BOV members went to Richmond to talk to Virginia delegates. Powell, Gerdelman, and Ukrop went to Nichol’s house on Feb. 10 to inform him of the board’s decision. — Brian Mahoney 5:50 p.m. | Weight of Student input : Matthews said that she and John Gerdelman read every student e-mail submitted to the BOV’s 360 degree review process. A student said he felt that the board “devalued” student input after describing the presidential review process as something that students only know 10 percent of the presidential review. Powell and Mathewson responded, saying that they never meant to devalue the input of students. “I suspect you don’t have much experience watching what’s going on at the fundraiser donor side,” Powell said. He also said that most students were probably not concerned with the College’s “strategical operating planning process.” A student asked why the BOV did not hold a forum six months ago to discuss Nichol’s contract. Powell said that he had met with many student groups in the past year, but expressed concern about holding a public referendum during the review process. — Brian Mahoney 5:30 p.m. | Evaluation Criteria : The second question asked about the criteria involved in evaluating the College’s president. Powell emphasized the importance of fundraising. “You can’t afford to be deficient on the fundraising front,” Powell said. Powell also said that — even though the College is public — the commonwealth of Virginia is not a reliable financial partner. He said that only 20 percent of the College’s operating expenses come from public funds. Powell also spoke about competition among other universities, and that the College is in danger of losing students to institutions that can offer a better value. He cited Stanford University’s recent program to give free tuition to all students whose families earn less than $100,000. A student asked Matthews if the BOV will hire a fundraiser for the next president. Matthews said that the new president muct have a “package of skills,” including the ability to fundraise. — Brian Mahoney 5:17 p.m. | Unanimous decision : Dukes has been given a list of eight prepared questions The first question asked about the non-renewal decision that Powell described as “unanimous.” Powell was asked to clarify his statements in the light of BOV member Robert Blair’s ’68 resignation e-mail last Wednesday, which said that there was not a unanimous consensus among the board. “Credibility and integrity are about the most important things we teach here, and I owe you an answer,” Powell said. Powell said that he had discussed with board members about describing a consensus among the board. He said no board members opposed that decision. “I’m sorry if it came across as something less than candid or accurate,” Powell said. Devan Barber ’08 read the College honor code’s definition of lying. She asked the board if they misrepresented themselves in representing the decision as unanimous. Powell said that, if a vote had occurred, there would have been a second motion to make the decision unanimous. He said that, because the BOV did not take an official vote, the decision process was more ambiguous. Ukrop said that the deliberation process has taken months and has been very difficult for the board. “We feel your pain,” she said. — Brian Mahoney 5:02 p.m. | Reveley and BOV introduction : Dukes introduced Interim President Taylor Reveley. Reveley stood and received applause. After a short speech by Suzann Matthews, the board introduced itself. — Brian Mahoney 4:46 p.m. | Student Forum: Students have filled the auditorium as they wait for the forum to begin. Many are distributing yellow and green armbands, and a line to enter the auditorium extends to the UC’s front entrance. Student Assembly President Zach Pilchen ’09 and SA Vice President will introduce the event. Franklin Dukes of the University of Virginia will moderate. Powell has taken his seat and the forum has begun. — Brian Mahoney 4:30 p.m. | Faculty Forum Conclusion: The last faculty member to speak thanked the board for its efforts to explain the decision. Before that, a non-faculty member stood and said, even after being told that the last question should be reserved for a faculty member, that the BOV should read the College’s charter and see that it says that the College should work for the glory of God. A physics professor stood and loudly criticized many of the board’s decisions, saying that the board is isolated from the community and that he wishes the board would spend more time living with us than visiting us. Another professor asked why the BOV did not come to Nichol’s defense when newspapers and people were spreading public lies about him. “Some criticisms didn’t deserve our response because they were so absurd,” Poston said, to boos from the crowd. “Perhaps you’re right we didn’t do enough, loudly enough,” she then added. 4:15 p.m. | Calls for Powell’s Resignation: Sociology Professor Kate Slevin stood and publicly called for Powell’s resignation. “Our community is in turmoil and it has been for the past 10 days because of the failures in your leadership,” she said. “Right now the rector as the head of BOV has, and I’m speaking for myself and with regret, but he has compromised his legitimacy — to the point where I believe that in order to heal that, the rector has no option but to resign immediately.” Many board members came to Powell’s defense, saying that he has done a great job under the circumstances and that what he says speaks not for one person, but for the entire board. “I’ve never seen anybody work any hard, and since I graduated in ’61, I’ve known a lot of rectors here,” Barbara Ukrop said. “Michael Powell is one of the finest individuals I’ve ever known or gotten to work with in my life.” “There have been failures here but they are not the failures of Michael Powell,” Matthews said. “This was a board decision. This was not Michael Powell’s decision.” 4:07 p.m. | Presidential Search: A physics professor who said he has been at the College 45 years stood and stated that he hopes, to the possible anguish of one person in the room, that the board asks Taylor Reveley to stay on as interim president for at least two-and-a-half years. He said he thinks the state wants somebody to come in and run the school as a “tight ship,” and he hopes the board slows down and takes the time needed to find someone who won’t take that approach and who is worthy of the College. “We couldn’t agree with you more, we don’t have a timetable here,” Matthews said. “If we take our time, the best of William Mary is going to come back.” Powell added that there is no set time for finding a new president, so if they find the perfect president quickly, they would certainly hire him or her. 4:00 p.m. | Transition Package: English Professor Jacquelyn McLendon asked why the BOV offered Nichol a transition package stipulating that he make no statements about his departure without the board’s approval. “I have to tell you that that is the norm — it is not at all unusual to agree upon a mutually acceptable public statement,” Poston responded. “I was stunned and hurt by his statement that we were trying to buy his silence.” Powell said the only thing the board proposed was that they would work together to come up with a mutual explanation. He then read an e-mail that he sent to Nichol on the day before Nichol resigned. In the e-mail, Powell expresses his sympathy for Nichol and says that everything is flexible and that the board is willing to work with him to accomodate his concerns. Powell said the only response he received was Nichol’s call the next morning to announce his resignation. 3:45 p.m. | Outside Influence: Board member Kathy Hornsby, who was appointed to the board this year, said she lobbied to be on the board because she wanted to fight against the extreme conservative voices that she felt were trying to influence the school. She said that the board is not influenced by outside voices. A professor then said he is concerned that the state legislature and wealthy alumni are having too much power over the school. Board members maintained that they act in the best interests of the school and are not swayed by pressure. Powell said he thought the General Assembly trying to pressure the BOV was inappropriate. He said he voiced his opinion to the governor. “I think what they did at the end was hideous,” he said. “It was overreaching. It was inappropriate.” “We will not be pushed around,” Thomas said, adding that the GA will probably take credit for Nichol’s dismissal but that is not accurate. Professor Robert Archibald said he wanted to hear that Nichol’s message was not what got him fired. Powell then emphasized the importance of Gateway and again stated that the board continues to support the program. “Gateway is the best thing to come to this school in a long time,” Powell said. “It’s also not funded. It’s also in danger of collapsing on our kids.” “Our next president sure as hell must care about this thing,” he added. 3:30 p.m. | Future of the College: Anthropology professor Barbara King said, “We feel that the future of the College has been harmed,” and the crowd immediatly applauded. Powell said that the board factored the negative reaction that the decision would cause into the decision, but found that the need to replace Nichol outweighed potential costs. “Time will tell — we might be wrong,” Powell said. “But our judgement was that we were right.” 3:24 p.m. | Cross: In discussing the independent consulting firm’s conclusions about Nichol, board members said the consultant’s view was that the cross decision was not significant. 3:19 p.m. | Reasons: Powell discussed reasons for Nichol’s dismissal and said that the board was concerned with competitors offering better financial aid packages, did not think Nichol had made enough progress toward a billion-dollar fundraising initiative and thought Nichol was not spending enough time building relationships with the schools’s top donors. At one point, Powell referred, hypothetically, to a president seeking a job as chancellor of the University of North Carolina. Rumors have circulated that Nichol has been interviewing for that position, but they could not be confirmed. Nichol said he was on vacation at a beach in North Carolina earlier this week. Powell said that he has been criticized for “picking apart Nichol’s record,” but that it is hard not to criticize a person when trying to justify reasons for firing him. Powell also said that he was concerned about Nichol’s relationship with the General Assembly. “There’s much deplorable about the Virginia General Assembly,” he said. “But at the same time, we are a public school and managing that relationship is important and critical.” —Austin Wright 2:54 p.m. | Integrity: In wake of Robert Blair’s resignation e-mail in which he said he disagreed with the board’s decision, a professor asked Powell if, as an alumnus, his statement in The Flat Hat that the board’s decision was unanimous is consistent with the College’s honor code. “I’ll just be candid in explaining exactly what happened, and I’ll leave you to judge the integrity.” He said that after debate, the entire board appeared to be unified in its decision. Thomas said that Blair’s letter was “nasty” and that at the time, Blair seemed to agree with the board’s decision to speak with one voice. —Austin Wright 2:52 p.m. | On-campus reaction: American Studies professor Maureen Fitzgerald asked the BOV if they had anticipated the student reaction to the non-renewal decision. Powell said that the board had, and that on-campus reaction was the hardest part of their decision. — Brian Mahoney 2:50 p.m. | Review Process: Powell was asked if the faculty and staff were 2 of 11 constituents in the BOV review process. Powell said that there was no such division among constituents. Hornsby said that today was the first she had heard of an 11 point process. — Brian Mahoney 2:43 p.m. | Faculty Forum: Faculty have packed the auditorium, and some had to go to the overflow room in Chesapeake A. Faculty member and moderator Tom White gave the opening statement and acknowledged Interim President Taylor Reveley, who is in attendance. —Austin Wright 2:22 p.m. | Conclusion: The meeting concluded with closing remarks from Powell, followed by a large applause from the audience. The meeting with faculty begins in about 10 minutes. Faculty members are lined up from the doors of the Commonwealth Auditorium to the front of the UC. —Austin Wright 2:20 p.m. | President Nichol’s Weaknesses: Powell was asked why Nichol’s tenure did not “fit” the College. Powell said that, in Nichol, he had “never seen a better visionary” and a President who had such close relationships with faculty, staff and students. Powell said that the BOV had concerns about operation planning and the Nichol’s tendency to avoid consulting the board about executive decisions. “You can’t wake up one day and find out you just got an $80 million bill for Gateway,” he said. Powell also had issues with Nichol’s “internal management” and said that the former president was “not on the road enough with donors.” According to Powell, the board wanted to hire a chief operating officer to better handle those management issues, but could not come to an agreement with Nichol about the new hire. Powell said that the BOV wanted to have a $1 billion fundraising goal. — Brian Mahoney 2:05 p.m. | The State and the BOV: Hornsby talked about the Virginia General Assembly calling her and other BOV members to Richmond during the BOV meetings in February. She said they were never asked about Nichol’s presidency. “We were asked a variety of questions for 90 minutes. I was never asked specifcally ‘what are you going to do about President Nichol?’ They had no influence whatsoever.” Herget agreed. “Theres been zero pressure, and I don’t think any influence, at all by the legislator or the governor’s office around this decision.” Powell said that “the greatest trick of a legislature is to see something happen and pretend to take credit for it.” — Brian Mahoney 1:56 p.m. | Sex Workers’ Art Show: Powell said that while he supports students’ rights to choose what activities and entertainment come to campus, he has been advised by the College’s legal counsel that there may be some complications to allowing students to have complete control. He said, though, that he believes students have a right to bring the Sex Workers’ Art Show to campus. —Austin Wright 1:56 p.m. | Delayed Notification: A staff member asked why the board delayed notifying the College community about its decision on Nichol’s contract. Powell replied that Nichol asked the board to tell him as soon as possible whether he would be renewed so that he would have time to make arrangements. Powell said they told Nichol after the February board meeting and that the board would not be renewing his contract, but that the board hoped Nichol would remain as president through June. “We all failed to have that happen successfully,” Powell said. “I think it’s unfortunate.” —Austin Wright 1:42 p.m. | General Assembly: In response to a question about the College’s perception, Powell said that the efforts of some of Nichol’s critics and the General Assembly to influence the board’s decision have been reprehensible. The crowd erupted in applause. —Austin Wright 1:38 p.m. | Herget: Board member Philip Herget has arrived and is now sitting in the front with the other board members. —Austin Wright 1:36 p.m. | Staff Representation: Asked about the process of evaluating Nichol, Powell said the board reviews the president every year, but that this year’s review took on an increased importance because Nichol’s contract expires in June. He said that for the independent review of Nichol, 40-some people were interviewed, selected categorically by virtue of position. He said that the findings of the independent consulting firm were only one element of the total review. “A lot of campus employees are reviewed just this way,” he said. He added that over 1,000 public comments were submitted to the e-mail account that the board set up and that each comment was read and evaluated. “We’ve delibereated long and hard, and it has not been easy,” Ukrop said. Powell also said a commitment to diversity was a requirement for the next president. Powell addressed the Gateway Program, saying it needs a stable funding source and that the board is working to secure one. “Money’s going to talk on that program,” Powell said. “In terms of its aspirations and its philosophy, we’re as deeply committed to that program as anything else.” A staff member asked why there is no staff representative to the board. Powell replied that faculty and students have only recently received representation on the board, and that the board’s processes are always evolving. He implied that he is open to making a change. —Austin Wright 1:24 p.m. | Second Question: A staff member said that Powell failed to address the staff in his communications with the College community. “We just want to be heard, and we’re hoping that you guys will be sure to include us,” she said. Powell expressed his gratitude for the staff and said they would be included in future decision-making. “Our ears are open,” Matthews said, adding that staff members were included in the last presidential search and would be included in the search to replace Nichol. —Austin Wright 1:20 p.m. | First Question: At the start of the first of today’s three sessions, BOV members Jeffrey McWaters, Barbara Ukrop, John Charles Thomas, Michael Powell, Suzann Matthews, Anita Poston and Kathy Hornsby introduced themselves to the crowd of College staff who fill the auditorium. Powell took the first question, from a staff member who asked why the decision was characterized as unanimous, and he said that board members agreed that they would represent the decision as unanimous, even though several board members had expressed that they disagreed with the decision. “It was an error — it was done out of honest misunderstanding,” Powell said. In interviews with The Flat Hat on the day of the decision, Powell characterized the decision as unanimous. But this week, Robert Blair resigned from the board and said that he wanted the board to renew Nichol’s contract. —Austin Wright 1:08 p.m. | BOV Entrance: BOV members, including John Charles Thomas and Suzann Matthews, have begun trickling into the UC and toward the Commonwealth Auditorium. As members pass the student protestors outside the UC, students continue chanting slogans like, “What do we want? Honesty.” —Austin Wright 1:03 p.m. | Student Protest: About 30 students are standing outside the University Center awaiting the Board of Visitors, who are set to enter any moment. Students are chanting about solidarity and the “power of the people” and standing behind a poster that says, “BOV: Lead by example.” “We are hoping to get our voices heard by the BOV,” protestor Grace Sherman ’09 said. “They are welcome on this campus — we are grateful and excited and determined.” —Austin Wright |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
I’m so glad Grace feels like the BOV is ‘welcome’ on campus. Hilarious
— Joe Towney Feb 22, 01:23 PM #
Interesting that Devan says the BOV violated the Honor Code regarding the “unanimous vote” not to renew Nichol’s contract. Nothing is said about Nichol’s disregard of the Honor Code when he lied about when he knew the McGlothlin pledge was revoked
— Alice'73 Feb 22, 06:03 PM #
Alice-I thought the same thing. This entire episode has given me a new appreciation of irony.
— '06 Alum Feb 22, 07:50 PM #
Alice, did the Honor Code include something about two wrongs making a right in 1973?
— Joe C. '05 Feb 22, 08:12 PM #
“Devan Barber ’08 read the College honor code’s definition of lying. She asked the board if they lied in representing the decision as unanimous.”
Interesting that today’s students are taught that the world is a complex place, that there are almost no black & white issues (Hitler’s the only exception), and that one size does not fit all. Still, Ms Barber clearly thinks the BOV lied and was happy to tell them so. (That’s called the “Nichol” method of human interaction – sure to win friends and influence people!) Just in case they were dunderheads, she even read them the applicable Honor Code passage. And her view of that definition emcompasses ALL situtations, including the difficult one the BOV found themselves in with regard to evaluating a President. Because as we all know there are no complexities, subtleties or nuances to be considered in such a simple, straight-foreward and B&W issue. There are no differing constituencies to be considered, no political problems, no long-term implications, no privacy or fairness issues, etc. It’s a good thing Ms Barber had that little mental box with her, complete with a one-size-fits-all code, in order to insure she did not think outside of it! And, of course, the Honor Code, as we all know, is applied in an open forum, by surprise, with one person passing judgment for all.
There’s nothing like a closed-minded liberal delivering the verdict and then listening to the evidence afterwards. Give me a conservative with a healthy dose of self-doubt! At least then there’d be a prayer of justice (assuming Ms Barber doesn’t go nuts over the prayer part). Some day in the far off future Ms Barber, and others, may realize they met with a group of honest, concerned citizens doing a difficult job and called them liars to their faces with very little in the way of facts to justify that venom. To quote the Bard: “My salad days, When I was green in judgment, cold in blood, To say as I said then!” For their sakes I hope they are not too hard on themselves. Youthful errors under the heat of passion are easily forgiven. What impresses me is that the BOV has shown considerable grace and tolerance under such unwarranted attacks.
— robert Feb 23, 12:05 PM #
Devan did not accuse the BOV of lying and she did not seek to deliver judgment. She cited a portion of the honor code and asked if, according to the standards to which all William and Mary students are held, the Board may have been misleading. Also, anyone who has ever met Devan or heard her speak knows that she is nothing if not open-minded.
— '08 Feb 23, 03:26 PM #
The FH first chose to characterize it otherwise: Their original post was “She asked the board if they lied” (cut & paste from their report). It’s been changed to: “She asked the board if they misrepresented themselves”. [Ah… to have a friend in the Press!] Still, that combined with reading the Honor Code definition of lying amounts to an accusation of lying, and none too subtle either.
How’s this: “Let me read you simple-minded folks the definition of lying. Now, having heard that, are you now misrepresenting yourselves?” While not exactly “When did you quit beating your wife?”, it’s damn close. How about this: “Ms Barber, did you use your influence as a reporter for the Flat Hat to have the BOV Formum post changed to something less damaging to yourself?” I’m not accusing her of censorship, but just in case she needs a little refresher, here’s a definition: “an official who examines books…NEWS REPORTS, radio programs, letters…etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on… political…or other grounds.”
Stinks, doesn’t it Ms Barber?
— robert Feb 24, 04:13 PM #
“Also, anyone who has ever met Devan or heard her speak knows that she is nothing if not open-minded.” 08
She’s obviously intelligent and writes well too. As to “open minded”, she’s been schooled in the PC variety: “We, the Enlightened, having seen TRUTH and embraced Liberalism in Body, Mind and Spirit, are hearby designated Now and Forever as Certifiably OPEN MINDED. Furthermore, we need not apply base, ordinary open mindedness to selfish conservatives, Christians nutjobs or vile Republicans, as they deserve nothing but our comtempt. We let them live and that’s more than enough. So say we all, so help us Lord Nichol. Amen.”
— robert Feb 24, 04:30 PM #
Robert, were you at the BOV forum? I was, and if the Flat Hat needed to correct itself, it is most likely because they were trying to update this article as expediently as possible. I am glad that you are so open-minded as to imply that the only reason this article may have been edited to to make someone look better.
I also find it very interesting that Devan has come under such attack in this comment section. Her question at the forum was among the most articulate and polite, yet she has been criticized despite avoiding disrespect and emotionality.
— '08 Feb 24, 05:29 PM #
Robert,
Please note that I write opinions columns for the Flat Hat on a semi-weekly basis. I have never been a Flat Hat “reporter,” nor do I communicate regularly with anyone on the Flat Hat staff, nor do I even attend their meetings. Your allegations are quite ridiculous.
Devan
— Devan Barber Feb 24, 05:39 PM #
The faculty, not just the students, are very concerned about the disconnect between Rector Michael Powell’s statements to the press and public and principles of the Honor Code, which many of us consider pretty basic to personal integrity in general and the operation of the academic community in particular. I refuse to regard something as important as the Honor Code as an immature “black and white” “one size fits all code” that our campus leaders can ignore whenever the going gets tough and when “truthiness” becomes more politically expedient for them than truthfulness, as one commentator seems to feel. Caring and intelligent people can disagree over whether Nichol should have been renewed or not; the fact that three members of the BOV who had access to all the facts and private personnel files that the public is not allowed to see argued in favor of Nichol’s renewal is an important one that lends credence to the claim that there was a case to retain Nichol, despite his various failings. Still, as is proper, the majority view held the day. Nichol’s presidency is over, and for me, at least, his own personal failings are now beside the point. Why, as we try to collectively move forward , and rebuild trust in this community, did the BOV feel the need to cover up what they claim to be own sincere and serious deliberations in the ultimately deceptive cloak of a “unanimous decision”? This false claim disrespects the intelligence of the College community and undermines the ability of faculty and students to have trust in the BOV as we move forward. I would have had a lot more respect for the BOV and its leader, Rector Michael Powell, had they been upfront about the “painful” decision they made to the point that they admitted that there was even disagreement among Board Memebers themselves about Nichol’s non-renewal. Powell’s deceptive statements about Board’s unanimity makes it hard for me to have firm credence in anything else he says these days—I always have to wonder whether he’s distorting the facts again or engaging in another misleading half-truth because it’s politically expedient for him. This is not a good feeling to have about the head of one’s university, and I think Rector Powell needs to understand the extent to which his ability to lead William & Mary forward in a constructive manner has been compromised by his own misleading public statements and mismanagement of the aftermath of Nichol’s resignation. That’s why a number faculty publicly demanded he resign on Friday; judging from the applause these statments got, it appears that a sizeable number of faculty feels the same way. I would not be surprised to read that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences votes in favor of a motion indicating it presently has no confidence in Rector Powell’s leadership by a sizeable margin when it meets later this week.
— wmfacultymember Feb 25, 08:35 AM #
Didn’t Nichol violate the honor code when he lied(sorry, mislead) about the disappearing $12 milliom gift? The students and the faculty need to get over it and get back to work. You lost your liberal. Go work or go to school somewhere else if you don’t like it.
— Bruce Feb 25, 09:39 AM #
Bruce, Alice ’73, etc.,
In case you haven’t noticed the job performance of President Nichol was not the discussion topic of the forum.
Instead, our concern is with how the BOV handled the situation so that future issues will not arise in the same mold.
The point that Devan (who is probably the most open minded activist that I’ve met on this issue) addressed in her question is meant to help us better understand the BOV’s actions. In the wake of the resignation the Rector stated that one could say the decision was unanimous.
Unless liberals and conservatives have their own definition of the word, the last time I checked, unanimous meant “without opposition”.
That is why the discrepancy between Powell’s and Blair’s positions is so disconcerting.
So, please refrain from trying to excuse the Board’s actions simply because you personally agree with their non-decision.
— Dave Johnson Feb 25, 10:34 AM #
“Your allegations are quite ridiculous.” – Devin B.
Of course they are! As was your heavy-handed implication that the BOV lied. I fully realize that the FH reporting was being updated as the BOV meeting progressed. Perhaps at some point the FH reporter thought better of using the word “lied” and changed it to “misrepresenting yourselves” (as in lying-lite?). And even if you did suggest the correction (and I’m not saying you did) that’s fine too. You have a right to suggest that you’ve been misquoted or mischaracterized. The FH reporter has a right to change his initial impression, even if it was a valid one. I just thought you might like to see how it feels to be unfairly accused in public. Thus the last sentence in which I acknowledge my example accusation “stinks”. So did your real one – and you meant it to. Perhaps now you’ve also felt some of the frustration of trying to relate a complex set of rapidly changing circumstances in an other-than-face-to-face setting. Oh, I don’t know…kind of like the way the BOV found themselves after Nichol took his ball, cried “bribery” and ran away crying that bullies were mean to him?
The FH reporter also provided a timeline. It clearly shows that your accusation came early in the session, well before the BOV had a chance to present much of their argument (less than 15 minutes into a meeting that lasted almost 1 1/2 hours). Glad to see you let them speak a bit before calling them liars. I suppose even your fabled open-mindedness comes with a time limit. Try expanding it gradually. Next time go for 1/2 hour before you explode into self-righteousness.
You can continue along this vein of feigned innocence if you like. However, most people view reading someone a definition of lying and then asking if they “misrepresented themselves” as what it plainly is: a barely concealed accusation of lying. Your fig leaf of believability is so small Annie Oakley would ban it from her show! Perhaps you should use some of your famed open-mindedness and try and see it as almost everyone who’s honest does. My suggestion is an apology accompanied by an excuse: youthful over-enthusiasm for your cause. I think the BOV, who’ve shown tons of class, will accept that graciously. (I’ve already chalked it up to that myself – which I’m sure has you much relieved.) You’re a good writer and I enjoy your columns (agree with almost none of them). But open-mindedness is not something we acquire once early in life and it stays with us forever, like riding a bicycle. It’s a constant struggle against our internal prejudices (liberal, conservative or in-between) and our overwhelming desire to just slap the Be-Jesus out of the other fellow, even if only metaphorically. What you did was succumb to that temptation. Rage and the desire to wound overcame reason and civility.
People who surrender to that impulse come in only two forms: those that have and those that will (I’m both!). That doesn’t make you a bad person and you’ve not lost your card-carrying liberal credentials (look in your wallet – registered Dem, MoveOn.org blood donor, Michael Moore Fan Club – they’re still there). It makes you human just like the BOV members. Have they done everything perfectly? No, even they do not make that claim. But they’ve done a pretty good job under extremely difficult circumstances. The majority of them, sadly, are liberal like you. They’ll continue to keep the cross in its radioactive-proof plexiglass case so the ignorant can feel smug about their religious intolerance and remain clueless as to religion’s role in freedom’s progress. They’ll continue to allow the titty show to waste College funds, time and facilities that could be used for 10,000 more worthy causes. They’ll probably even bend some other rules of common sense and propriety (and waste more tax dollars) to make the left happy. So cheer up! All is not lost.
“Robert, were you at the BOV forum?” – 08
Yaaawwwnnn! What is it with W&M students and their insistence that all knowledge must be first-hand to be valid? I’ve never been to the moon either but I’m willing to accept the astronaut’s report that it is NOT made of green cheese. Otherwise the FH and the English department should just close up shop, since there’s no possibility of their every communicating anything to anybody that they can count on. That’s a pity, as I thought that learning to write and communicate was something W&M students were still taught. Apparently they’re being told it’s essentially futile.
— robert Feb 25, 12:22 PM #
“Unless liberals and conservatives have their own definition of the word, the last time I checked, unanimous meant “without opposition”. That is why the discrepancy between Powell’s and Blair’s positions is so disconcerting.” – DJ
I agree it’s “disconcerting”, but that doesn’t mean they conspired to lie as has been suggested. Powell believed he was conveying the board had agreed not to renew, not that there was never any dissent. It’s one thing to agree, for the sake of the overall good, to present a united front. It’s another to say you accept not only the outcome (non-renewal) but the rationale behind it. I think Powell believed he had their assent to make the first claim and remain mute on the second. It would not be unusual for a group whose primary purpose is NOT political to agree to such a thing. Apparently a vote was not taken as it was not required by their rules. That may have been a mistake.
Blair obviously feels that Powell went beyond what was agreed upon and that the claim of unanimity encompassed not only non-renewal but also that there was no internal dissent. As there was no vote and no agreed upon statement, that’s hard to prove one way or the other. It appears the Board was expecting to work with Nichol on a something mutually agreed upon. If that had happened perhaps these points would have been clarified. Nichol, clever politician that he is, saw an opportunity take them by surprise and possibly split the Board into warring factions. Thankfully, only one took the bait.
Nichol departed in much the same way he ran his office: by trying to drag everything into the realm of politics. The Board has tried to do what they are tasked to do and avoid politics as much as possible. Despite the fact that nine of the 17 are Democratic donors, we are expected to believe Nichol was fired for his liberal beliefs. The board, with one vascillating exception, says otherwise. I believe the Board.
— robert Feb 25, 01:13 PM #
“Devan (who is probably the most open minded activist that I’ve met…)” – DJ
More definitions for those who love them! –
Activism: “The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.”
Open-minded: “Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.”
Oxymoron: “A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a ‘deafening silence’ and a ‘mournful optimist’ and an ‘open-minded activist’.”
Okay, I cheated on that last one. It’s kinda like changing “lied” to “misrepresent”. Sue me.
— owens Feb 25, 01:37 PM #
Owens,
According to your use of definitions, an open minded person cannot form their own opinion on anything. I will not spend any more precious time trying to explain this complex idea to you.
Robert,
There were several reports published in multiple locations that immediately after Nichol’s resignation e-mail, Powell told some people that “it would be fair to say the decision was unanimous”. Owens, think you could use your web dictionary skills to explain “unanimous” for robert? Thanks.
Oh robert, by the way, the last time I checked Gene Nichol never went on The O’Reilly Factor to call his opponents pinheads, nor did he visit the floor of the General Assembly to tell lies about those who disagree with his politics. Though if by “drag everything into the realm of politics” you mean to say, “respect the Constitutional rights of students”, then I would have to agree with you.
Finally, I am seriously dismayed that people like you continue to refer to the Sex Workers’ Art Show by names like “the titty show”. Actually no I’m not, come to think of it, as this just proves a perfect example of your ignorance. The fact that you maintain that tax dollars funded the show only solidifies my point – as many people HERE AT THE COLLEGE have stated, that money was allocated from the Student Activities Fund which is paid for out of pocket by students like myself. The same fund gives support to pro-life groups too, but you don’t see us trying to stop that.
— Dave Johnson Feb 25, 09:31 PM #
Sorry dude. Is it spelled “tittie”? They should put spell-check on this website. Hey, it’s just tomAto/tOmato, right? Glad to hear you spent your OWN money for the tittie show. And, of course, security, lighting, electricity, clean up, etc. – yours too? Didn’t think so. Not to mention the time, energy, publicity and the College’s good name not given to REAL causes. Please explain how proud you are to have done this rather than help end genocide or feed the starving in Africa. As for the show’s impact on social issues: a fraud. Unless you think AA should serve booze at their meetings to demonstrate its terrible affects on their membership.
You may not like hearing the other side. And you may think we do not respect your freedom to choose. We just think your choices stink to high heaven, and that’s what REALLY upsets you. You chose something frivilous and fraudulent, and are now using the sophistry the College has taught you to pretend otherwise. You’ve fooled nobody. You are wasting OUR money and doing so with pursuits that deserve nothing more than ridicule and disdain. If you want to parade around town saying you just saw “art” when everyone above the age of 13 knows it’s just porn, go ahead. I once read of a British officer’s droll report on a lackluster subordinate: “this officer is depriving a village somewhere of it’s idiot”. No village in Virginia need worry as the College keeps a ready-reserve, it seems. Wait until you get out into the real world and try some of this crap on actual grownups (Nichol wasn’t one). You’ll look back with nostalgia on the days when the only consequence was a little minor laughter and derision at your expense.
— robert Feb 26, 11:11 AM #
it’s=its…whatever…FH, spellchekc for us typo idoits plaese!
— robert Feb 26, 11:15 AM #
“an open minded person cannot form their own opinion on anything” – DJ
No, an ACTIVIST is someone who’s PRIMARY interest is direct use of action, often confrontational. Thus Ms Barber was there not to hear the BOV, but to confront them in an aggressive and accusatory fashion. She succeeded. I saw plenty of evidence of her activist personality, none of her open mindedness (she may have it, but it wasn’t on display at the BOV meeting). She didn’t wait even 15 minutes to let fly her barrage! Like Nichol, who decided the BOV was out to bribe him WITHOUT accepting their offer to discuss his severance and a joint statement, she attacked first, listened second (if she did listen).
Nichol could have answered Powell’s very sensible email in which he said “we will be flexible in trying to make this as good for you as possible. If you have ideas in that regard or there are ways to modify the proposal we provided I hope you will reach out to me, or John or with whomever you are comfortable. I am sure we can accommodate any of your concerns”. No, he went into activist, confrontational attack mode and, without warning, sent out his petulant email saying they were bending to right-wing pressure and trying to bribe him into silence. How does he know that when he didn’t even try to see how they’d respond to his concerns? How did Barber know what the BOV explanation would be BEFORE they had a chance to speak?
It appears the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.
Powell: “I am sure we can accommodate any of your concerns.” Is Nichol doomed to misinterpret EVERY important email he receives? AGAIN: “accomodate ANY of your concerns” That’s a barn door so wide you could drive the whole SWAS team, the Virginia ACLU and three unfairly condemned Philosophy professors through it and still have room for two draught horse and a small mule! Unless, of course, you were interested PRIMARILY in confrontation and the opportunity to try and make political hay – and to hell with the College, the BOV, the students, the faculty and anyone else but yourself.
— owens Feb 26, 11:58 AM #
It seems that the comments on this wall have gotten a little off topic from the issue at hand. (Although I do enjoy the bickering about semantics).
I personally want to commend the board for their openness and honesty. Their actions may not have been completely perfect (ie conveying the decision as unanimous) but their desire to help the college community have an easy transition during this time is commendable. Powell explains that the reason the decision was conveyed as unanimous was to provide a united front, and although it might not have been the most honest representation, the intent was noble. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a true man/woman to own up to those mistakes. Might we all recall Nichol’s excuses when the email evidence about the donation goal came out. His problem was that it was better for him to try and maintain his self image instead of doing what was best for the community. This is also evidenced by his resignation in the first place. He served his own selfish ends by writing a vicious, accusatory letter to the college community instead of acknowledging that he had executive short-comings (such as fund raising). I have seen a lot of comments throughout this whole process about Nichol having a love for WM that surpasses everyone’s but his actions don’t show that. If he felt that he could not finish his term he would not have left in such a state, but quietly accepted his fate. Personally, I believe that he should not have left at all. If WM meant so much to him he would have finished out his term even knowing that his contract would not be renewed. This happens all the time in the real world with CEOs and other executives. Hell does our own US President resign if he doesn’t get elected to a second term. No.
The BOV has made every effort to explain their decision and answer everyone’s concerns. Why there are still calls for Powell’s resignation or vicious attacks being made against the board members is beyond me. Other than having come to the decision that you had hoped for in the first place, what more can you ask of them? Many criticize them for not defending Nichol’s reputation prior to the contract renewal or for being overly critical of him during the process, but are you not doing the same thing right now? What do you hope to gain by attacking the board members and calling them liars?
I implore everyone to stop dwelling in the past and move forward. We are not going to gain anything by attacking each other and picking apart every aspect of the contract renewal debate. Now we have the opportunity as a community to find a new president who will further WM. Student, faculty, staff, and alumni activism during this crisis has been great, but why not take those efforts and those emotions and actually put some good into the situation. We have a long road ahead of us in finding a new president who can redeem WM and hopefully serve for a long time. Make your voices and opinions heard in that regard and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
— Steph '07 Feb 26, 04:06 PM #
Robert,
You keep bringing up the notion that its “your” money, and seem to think that is all the College runs on. For your information, the College budget has relied on student tuition more than state appropriations and gifts for the last 3 years. So go on, keep telling me how your money is worth more than my own.
You seem to be under the impression that I organized the Sex Workers’ Art Show, or that I attended. In fact, I did neither of those things, nor did I want to; I simply respect their right to bring the show here.
I am fine with hearing your opinion on the matter, since that is your 1st amendment right as well; the problem comes in when your side will not tolerate our own free speech or expression and therefore seeks to limit this.
“Please explain how proud you are to have done this rather than help end genocide or feed the starving in Africa. “
How dare you call into question my values and accuse me and other College students of not serving the global community. On this Saturday I am leading a group of students to Mexico to build a home for a family that cannot afford much more than a plywood and corrugated tin shack. I have often times placed this responsibility ahead of my grades because I sincerely believe in its worth. Throughout the year, more than 15 other trips (student-led and by a large margin student-funded) go all around the world engaging in service, not to mention all of the domestic trips that students lead. In addition to the many hours of labor each of the trip leaders use to plan our efforts, we all take a full slate of courses and hold jobs. This movement is the largest of all the colleges in the U.S., and some of the students whose values you abhor are a big reason why that has occurred.
— Dave Johnson Feb 26, 04:39 PM #
“On this Saturday I am leading a group of students to Mexico to build a home for a family that cannot afford much more than a plywood and corrugated tin shack.” – DJ
Good for you and buena suerte! Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if all the wasted attention & effort diverted to the titty show had instead been sent towards your worthwhile project? Unfortuntely, the College is known across the nation now for the cross removal, the titty show and the philosophy department debacle (the last mostly in academic circles). That’ll make it harder for splendid efforts like yours. Unfortunately, that’s how the game is played. A wise leader would know this and put aside his personal political agenda for the greater good. Now… let’s see… who is responsible for the College’s image? The football coach? No. The choir director? No. I give up. Oh, wait… maybe the President and, to a lesser extent, the SA – one brought the titty show, the other refused to veto it. So now we’re laughed at and not taken seriously. Asi es la vida!
Sarcasm aside: kudos for your charity work in Mexico. My sombrero is off to you and your group.
If you put on a display of Mexican culture or highlights of your efforts in the University Center, would you get two sold-out shows and turn people away at the door? Be honest. I don’t fault young people for the testosterone flowing through their limbic systems. I make no comment on the morality of nudity onstage. But please don’t blow smoke up my skirt by trying to pretend you’ve brought art to campus or that it competes in quality or merit with REAL charities (like yours) or real art. I’d would have had more respect for them it they’d called it “The Titty Show with a Little Vacuous Commentary Thrown in to Fool Our Parents”. That actually might have been a pretty good show and possibly low-art, much like vaudeville. But all that pathetic whining about how it was like the Venus de Milo or paintings by Manet got quite tiring.
— robert Feb 26, 06:03 PM #
1. The Student Assembly did not bring the Sex Worker’s Art Show. We provided some funding for the event, just like countless other events on campus, but the SA was not the sponsor of the show. It should also be noted that it would have been illegal (a violation of the Student Assembly’s own Constitution and a violation of substantial Supreme Court precedent) to deny funding based on the content of the show.
2. Nichol had no ‘veto’ power. He is not allowed to pick and choose which events are allowed on campus and which ones are censored. Again, that would have been illegal, and you better believe that if he HAD denied students the right to bring the Sex Worker’s Art Show, the College would be facing a lawsuit right now. He had no choice.
— Devan Barber Feb 28, 09:07 AM #
I’ve said it before. From a legal standpoint, Devan is right on re: #1. See Southworth v. Grebe and Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin v. Southworth. The Court basically found that a referendum mechanism to vote on how monies should be distributed to different groups would actually violate their 1st Amendment rights. More importantly, any program that distributes mandatory student activity fees, which are themselves constitutional, (the program in this case, the Student Assembly), must be viewpoint-neutral and cannot deny funding based on the content of the applicant’s viewpoint or message (i.e., restrictions on free speech must be content-neutral). There’s more, but I’m tired.
I don’t want to get heavily into #2 because the arguments are long and detailed, but suffice it to say that – under the current Supreme Court rulings and Congressional laws – it would have been illegal and unconstitutional to ban the SWAS from campus. The Miller test for obscenity (from Miller v. California, 1973) would be used, which has three criteria to categorize an instance of speech as obscene (and thus lose 1st Amend. protection):
1. Whether the average, reasonable person (using contemporary community standards) would find the work as a whole appealing to a prurient interest in sex;
2. Whether sexual conduct or excretory functions (as defined by state law) is depicted in a patently offensive way; and,
3. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS test)
(All three are necessary to label speech as obscene.)
As much mainstream pornography has been argued (successfully) to have some artistic or literary value before the Supreme Court, the SWAS – which has a clear argument for its political agenda – would almost certainly not be ruled as obscene because of its failing the SLAPS criterion. Additionally, it would be interesting (and possibly successful) to see the argument made that the average reasonable person in the contemporary community (College of William and Mary / Williamsburg) would not find the show to be appealing to a prurient interest in sex. Finally, the display of genitalia does not necessitate obscenity, as found in the famous Utah case involving Larry Peterman that I can’t remember the exact name of.
I’m not saying I support the show or that I’m against the show. I’m just giving some basic information on why its legal and an unconstitutional ban would likely face a successful lawsuit.
— Legal scholar Feb 28, 09:45 AM #
Devin – All you shown is that the inmates are running the asylum. Once again it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, like Nichol worrying about how the ACLU (himself) might sue over the cross or the feathers. If that’s the law, then the law is an ass. Students are not there to run the school but to learn. And their abysmal and immature choices show they’re clearly not up to the task.
LS is probably right. However, alumni and taxpayers ALSO have rights: the right to cut funding and donations even more if the College persist in this idiotic nonsence. And please don’t bore me with another defense of your porn as art. I have the right to view it as what it is: PORN. (Devin, I predict, will someday have a rude awakening as to the nature of male sexuality, but that’s another issue for another forum.) There’s no constitutional or legal necessity for students to be running the school in any tiny part or fashion. Were this not a liberal arts school where mostly esoteric, impractical things are taught, this would not be an issue. Do you think engineering students are allowed decide which higher math courses they’d prefer to skip or substitute with titty shows? More to the point: which airplane would you rather fly in, one designed by a serious student who studied math or one who went to W&M to learn about porn as art? Many liberal arts universities have become the property of liberalism where their lame philosophy is jammed down everyone’s throats to the exclusion of all others. Common sense is on a permanent sabbitical.
Nichol attacked the cross because his enemies, the Republicans and/or conservatives, tend to also be Christians. Using the fig leaf of protecting phony (and probably non-existent) “offended” persons, he went into political attack mode. The titty show is another in-your-face example of PC hiding behind some clever legalisms and phony excuses to attack, attack and attack. Was anyone on campus “offended” by the titty show? Too damn bad – only liberal offendedness counts. It’s good the be the King. The public is now about ready to call an end to this nonsense. If students can exercise no self-control, they should have no say in what the College does. At some point the esoteric must translate into the exoteric in a way John Q. Public can understand. But make no mistake about it: he’s most likely been to a titty bar and he’s damn sure not going to pay for some effete college boy’s night out. He may not know Venus de Milo from Manet, or what “sophistry” means. But he knows a con job and pure, unadulterated bullshit when he sees it. Nobody pays for his beer, pickup or porn. Why should he pay for yours?
And please do not start with that crap about how “student funds” paid for the titty show. All that demonstrates is how finanically ignorant you are. Most of you have not paid for your way in this world so far (some have – my hat’s off to you). If you do perchance rent an apartment off campus, how much does it cost? I’d guess, utilities included, around $500 a month? How much do you think it cost to run a University Center, which is probably 100 times larger and 200 times more expensive than that crappy apartment? The water bill alone must be astronomical. And the public pays for that so you can see TITTY SHOWS !?!? Maybe for now but just you wait and see. Joe Sixpack may run his own gas station, paying utilities, mortgages, upkeep, etc. When he sees that huge University Center being used like the run-down topless bar just across the tracks, he smells a rat. Lack of education or refinement does not mean stupid.
W&M is a PUBLIC university, as you like to keep telling us. That means the public, including Joe Sixpack, have a vested interest in what’s going on inside those ivy-covered walls. Right now he’s pretty sure it’s something with almost no value to him or anyone else. And he’s right too. Yes, I know the College does other important. Damn find job you’re doing of communicating that to Mr. Sixpack, the guy who pays the bills. (And the titty show’s affect on public confidence was entirely predictable had Nichol behaved as an actual adult rather than as a lame, PC-driven politico.)
The Bard:
“Th’ expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action, and till action, lust
Is perjur’d, murd’rous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,
Enjoy’d no sooner but despisèd straight,
Past reason hunted, and no sooner had,
Past reason hated as a swallowed bait
On purpose laid to make the taker mad. . . .”
Hey, you’re college students. Lust is in your bones and for that I find no fault. But your temporary “madness” is not reason enough for us to approve, much less admire, what you’ve done.
— robert Feb 28, 11:56 AM #
Just to clarify, I’m not saying student funds were the only funds used, or that taxpayers and others don’t have the right to pull funding, or anything of the sort. I was just clarifying what the law currently is (a descriptive assertion). I agree – the law is an ass in many situations (maybe this one, maybe not), but it is the law, and it is not within the President’s, the BOV’s, or the University’s role or authority to re-interpret the law according to what may seem right. That is the job of the judiciary, and the judiciary alone.
If you want me to get into what the law SHOULD be (a prescriptive assertion), get out the checkbook. :) That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame, ladies and gents.
— Legal scholar Feb 28, 12:05 PM #
important “things” (left out “things”) and Devan not Devin (sorry – not intentional) and probably other tpos too.
LS – how about some pro bono for the BOV when the SA/ACLU lawsuit starts? And I cannot help but notice that Nichol’s wet dream, the merging of the SA into the ACLU, seems to be happening. He’s a much more clever politician than I’d given him credit for thus far! Perhaps student ID cards should have a box on the back right next to the organ donor section: ACLU donor? Please check “Yes” or “Just Give Me Straight C’s”.
— robert Feb 28, 12:16 PM #
First of all, the UC Commonwealth would have been heated and lit regardless of the presence Sex Worker’s Art Show. The only extra “resources” they used were the microphones and a few minutes of the projector.
Moreover, assuming “Joe Sixpack” is a Virginia taxpayer, he pays an average of $7 to the College of William & Mary per year. I think it’s safe to assume the portion of that $7 that was used to keep the UC Commonwealth open the night of the Sex Worker’s Art Show was fractions of a penny.
— Devan Barber Feb 29, 10:59 AM #
Trying to justify something because it didn’t cost any one individual very much is a slippery slope. As you get older you’ll see how dangerous this kind of thinking can be, especially as your federal tax bill doubles to cover entitlement programs that in their inception were justified on that same foundation, it won’t cost any one individual very much.
— Joe Towney Feb 29, 11:14 AM #
Looks like we know which ACLU donor box Devan checked!
“The only extra “resources” they used were the microphones and a few minutes of the projector.”
Thanks for proving my point about ignorant college students when it comes to the real cost of doing business. It’s evident you’ve never been responsible anything financial above the level of keeping the coffee machine supplied. Make mine one sugar, one cremora please.
— robert Feb 29, 11:36 AM #
“robert” seems obsessed with three words, one of which appears in, it seems, every one of his posts: “titty”, “porn” and “ACLU”.
Weaned too early, perhaps?
— on campus Feb 29, 01:02 PM #
on campus – LOL! I do like a witty retort. I don’t know what happened to my last post as only “ACLU” made it in. I’ll work on that as I wouldn’t want to disappoint you. Hmmmm…spend a lot of time looking for certain words in anonymous online postings, do you? Kind of a “Beautiful Mind” moment?
— robert Feb 29, 01:09 PM #