|
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 |
Faculty votes down BOV 'no confidence' motionAt a special meeting Thursday afternoon, the College’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted down a motion to express a vote of no confidence in the College’s Board of Visitors. The ballot vote count was 93-76. The resolution was introduced by anthropology Professor Brad Weiss at the faculty’s special meeting on Feb. 15, but was delayed until after last Friday’s BOV forum with staff, faculty and students. Weiss argued in Thursday’s meeting that a vote of no confidence would make a strong, dissenting statement to the BOV after their Feb. 10 decision to not renew former College President Gene Nichol’s contract. “The claim of no confidence is meant to register that dissent very clearly,” Weiss said. Weiss also said a vote of no confidence would hold the board responsible for their promises to continue Nichol’s initiatives regarding diversity and greater access to public education. Several faculty members said that they were not satisfied with last Friday’s BOV forum, which was attended by seven board members, including board Rector Michael Powell ’85, and meant to answer questions regarding the non-renewal decision. “They came, but we are still not satisfied” English Professor Suzanne Hagedorn said, referring to the BOV. “Things right now are broke, badly. We have no faith in this board given their actions right now. They need to do something strong to restore our faith.” Chemistry Professor Gary Defotis argued against the “no confidence” motion. “This is quite unjustified,” he said. “The notion that faculty did not have input [in Nichol’s renewal decision] is absurd.” Defotis said that many faculty members “don’t seem to recognize that the job of a president is an extremely complicated one.” He also said that Interim President Taylor Reveley has already done a better job than Nichol in lobbying for the College in Richmond. Government Professor Paul Manna questioned the usefulness of the no confidence vote, saying that it would “accomplish nothing.” Manna asked the faculty if a no confidence vote would help the College move on since the non-renewal decision, and if it would harm faculty relations with the BOV and with Reveley. After the motion was voted down, the faculty passed a resolution drafted by English Professor Terry Myers, which thanked Nichol for his service, acknowledged the authority of the BOV, expressed dismay that the BOV’s presidential review process did not consult more the views of faculty and expressed concern over how the College is now perceived as “susceptible to ideological and political pressure.” “The Faculty calls on the Board to take action that will dissipate that perception and it requests that the search for the next President (and future evaluation procedures) involve significant representation from the students, staff, and faculty of the College,” the statement said. The resolution also expressed support for Reveley. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
The college is “broke, badly” because W&M seems to employ (and due to tenure, employ for ever) a bunch of professors that just don’t get it. I am shocked that 76 voted for no confidence. Thank God there are still some clear thinkers like Chemistry professor Gary Defotis. I love his quote: “The notion that faculty did not have input [in Nichol’s renewal decision] is absurd.”
Sounds like the faculty need their diapers changed and to quit sucking their thumbs. The whiney politics of higher ed are one of the main reasons I stopped my PhD program at the Masters – I wanted to get the hell out and I saw how profs with pretty coushy jobs allow their egocentric views of the world to dominate their lives – they would be eaten alive in the real world.
What a joke. As an alum, it’s been tough to watch my beloved college go through this mess, and no matter who you blame for what has happened, to see the profs get this close to widening the rift in the community is shocking. I bet one key reason W&M has a hard time retaining quailty profs is because they all want to go elsewhere to work with grownups.
— Joe Towney Feb 28, 07:22 PM #
Just a point of clarification- the final vote was 83 to 76, not 93. It is interesting that the Flat Hat chooses to quote Gary Defotis who, in spite of his forceful rhetoric, was virtually shouted down even by those who opposed the vote of no confidence, at this meeting and in prior ones. As the faculty member who introduced the motion of no confidence I want to say that I think the debate was quite wide ranging and generally thoughtful – parties on both sides of the issue left saying it was one of the most productive meetings in years. For my part, I tried to speak in a way that acknowledged the sincerity of all sides, even while dissenting from the expressed priorities of the Board. That was a message that was well received even by those who ultimately did not support this motion- which, I hasten to add, was made by me using language and principles that included input from a wide swath of faculty across disciplines and areas. I have no illusions about the fact the motion was voted down, but I do think a collective process was initiated and acted on that, in my view, can have a lasting influence on the direction of the College.
— Brad Weiss Feb 28, 10:11 PM #
Alumni have been criticized for having disproportionate influence at William and Mary and waxing nostalgic for a mythical College that never actually existed. Fair enough. However, this environment in which COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBERS personally mock other faculty members in online comments to student newspaper articles cannot be characterized as an improvement. I think I would remember if faculty were such a-holes to each other 5 years ago. Is this really the kind of collegial atmosphere in which you wish to live and work, Mr. Weiss?
— '03 alumnus Feb 29, 12:05 AM #
I’m fairly certain that the Flat Hat is correct in reporting that the vote was indeed 93 to 76—at least, those were the numbers I heard announced by Margaret Saha and Carl Strikwerda in Millington Hall.
— Philip Daileader, Dept. of History Feb 29, 12:07 AM #
Comment three appeared while I was typing about the vote count. After reading it I have to say: although I voted against the no-confidence motion, Brad Weiss articulated his position with a clarity and a respectfulness for his colleagues that was admirable. He has always done so, in my experience. I see nothing in his post that could be construed as mocking other faculty members.
— Philip Daileader, Dept. of History Feb 29, 12:21 AM #
I appreciate Phil’s comments here. I am not in any way mocking Professor Defotis- I think it’s simply accurate to report that other members of the faculty were actively denouncing his comments as they were made. My criticism is with the Flat Hat for it’s narrow coverage of the debate. There was a much wider range of opinions offered than is suggested here, and I doubt that the premise that most of the faculty “don’t seem to recognize that the job of a president is an extremely complicated one” is credible, or held much sway even with those who voted against this motion. On both sides, the complexity of the job and review process has been acknowledged, and – for my part – I think it’s this complexity that leaves the Board’s decision wanting; faced with a very complex range of responsibilities and commitments, the Board gave priority to principles in it’s evaluation of Nichol which I think (based on the proposal we DID pass) do not reflect the priorities of the faculty. Personally, I find the Board’s privileging of managerial skills over a demonstrated commitment to inclusion and openness in the academy to be incompatible with the mission of the College, so I supported the motion of no confidence. Not everyone did, for perfectly legitimate reasons with which I disagree. I don’t have to think my opponents are jerks, or hacks, or infantile to disagree with them; I hope to be treated in the same way.
— Brad Weiss Feb 29, 06:19 AM #
“I find the Board’s privileging of managerial skills over a demonstrated commitment to inclusion and openness in the academy to be incompatible with the mission of the College”
This seems to assume that these abilities are mutually exclusive. I tend to believe that a school with the reputation and proud history as W&M should be able to find a president who can do both.
— Joe Towney Feb 29, 09:18 AM #
Brad – I’m confused by this: “Personally, I find the Board’s privileging of managerial skills over a demonstrated commitment to inclusion and openness in the academy to be incompatible with the mission of the College, so I supported the motion of no confidence. “ as well.
Who says they privelege management over inclusion? As Joe points out, they aren’t mutually exclusive… if Gateway is doomed to failure because of financial constraints, you can’t fully credit Nichol with opening up the College.
But beyond that issue, lets suppose that the BOV prized inclusion over managerial skills. Does that mean that someone who is successful in their efforts to foster inclusion should be forgiven failings in management? Inclusion and diversity are necessary, but not sufficient qualifications for a successful presidency.
We really have no insight into what the number one priority of the BOV was – we don’t know what quality the board “priveleged” over others. But we do have solid evidence that inclusion and management were BOTH important, and we have evidence that Nichol succeeded in one and failed in another. That says nothing about what the priveleged priority of the BOV is – just the range of issues they were considering.
— D Kuehn Feb 29, 10:05 AM #
Regardless of whether you agree with the BOV or not, we need to be realistic here and divorce the “inclusion and diversity” issue from Nichol’s non-renewal. Aside from a couple wackos posting responses to these articles, virtually EVERYBODY – those for an against Nichol’s non-renewal – supported the Gateway program and efforts to enhance diversity. It is a non-issue because nobody is criticizing Nichol on those subjects, EXCEPT for Nichol himself in his resignation address.
I think Brad Weiss should strongly rethink his continuing criticism of the BOV over that issue at least, considering that the BOV has come out strongly in support of the inclusion and diversity initiatives. By continuing to harp on that non-issue, Brad and others create the illusion of controversy where really there is very little disagreement. That just keeps the College community divided longer.
There is a lot that is open for debate on the BOV. I personally have been more or less satisfied with their conduct… I’m a little concerned about this “unanimous” question, and a few other things, but generally I support them. But I really don’t like people trumping up the diversity issue just to get a rise out of people – lets come together on this rather than continuing our criticism, since this is an area where there actually is some common ground.
— D Kuehn Feb 29, 10:13 AM #
and by the way, brad – since both of my posts could are clearly in disagreement with you, I want to point out that I found nothing offensive about that intitial post you made – I’m not sure what the responding post was conerned about, exactly. I think you’ve been entirely civil in this forum.
— D Kuehn Feb 29, 10:26 AM #
As an executive myself, I am pretty certain that if I made a public announcement about a program before informing the board or before securing funding, I’d be out on my ear. The Gateway program wasn’t the problem, it appears that it was Nichol’s handling of the information and making a public commitment before it was secured financially.
— Joe Towney Feb 29, 10:38 AM #
D Kuehn – I agree with your analysis on diversity and inclusion. They are non-issues for this specific debate. I think it is fair to say that substantially all of the participants, both in favor and opposed to Nichol’s renewal, welcome these thoughts and want to see that they are expounded upon. There really is no controversy regarding these matters. As you point out, this may be one of the only areas where both sides actually share the same opinion.
— Class 2000Fosheeezy Feb 29, 10:53 AM #
thanks 2000Forsheezy –
You really need no other evidence about how widely Gateway is supported than the fact that the Sons of Liberty of Affirmative Action Bake Sale fame advocated a Gateway-like program as an alternative to affirmative action. When you’ve got the Sons of Liberty, Nichol, the BOV, the GA, and English and Anthropology professors in agreement on an issue, it doesn’t seem like its something that’s driving any of the debate here.
In full disclosure and for those that recognize my last name – I was involved in the Sons of Liberty during my sophomore year at the College when it was a more general anti-statist, anti-war group, but distanced myself from it after the Bake Sale because of how much that hurt a large segment of the College community. I also did not participate in or plan any of the Bake Sale myself.
— D Kuehn Feb 29, 11:06 AM #
My mistake- the vote was 93-76. I misheard, and apologize for my earlier inaccuracy.
Honestly, I’ve talked this one out; I’m not running from the debate, and welcome anyone to contact me if they’d like to continue discussions, but the electronic pages of the Flat Hat aren’t the best place to do that for me.
— Brad Weiss Feb 29, 04:12 PM #
Diversity, Diversity, Diversity! I’m sick to death of it. For some of you professors who want diversity so badly, why don’t you seek employment elsewhere which would then open up a position to increase diversity. If you want to have outreach and recruitment, that’s one thing. However, don’t actually hire someone or deny employment to someone on the basis of their race, sex, ethnicity, or other ‘diversity’ factors. The same is true for some of you students. If you’re so intent on having diversity, why don’t you transfer which would then open up a slot to increase this diversity. Let’s see if you can walk the walk…
— Tribe '89 Mar 4, 01:21 AM #
D Kuehn, the bake sale was admittedly a very “in-your-face” display, highly reminiscent of the ones the left employs on every conceivable issue. But since it is only social regressives who don’t like the in-your-face tactics of the left, that is of no concern. I’m sorry, but when I see people on both sides of the line taking responsibility for the impact of their actions and words on others, I may become more sympathetic.
In terms of inclusion and diversity, I welcome both, as does nearly everyone else. I would like, however, to see the concepts of “inclusion” and “diversity” included as topics for civilized debate and dialogue. At present, any differing views on said topics are considered tantamount to racism. That is unfortunate. My own definition of diversity has become “something which adds clear intrinsic value to every situation and group, but whose nature must never, ever be discussed.” What is diversity and why does it add value? The one thing we know for certain about diversity is that we can’t talk about it.
Frankly Nichol wasn’t all that welcoming to a lot of people. It was clear that not everyone saw the cross fiasco Nichol’s way, despite the fact that he knows what Thomas Jefferson would have done in his place. Nichol may have been the darling of the faculty due to his far-left political views, which, not surprisingly, correspond closely to the political views of a high percentage of the faculty; faculty who are not liberal (and who are not yet tenured) do not normally make that fact known to their colleagues for reasons that ought to be obvious. And Nichol was the darling of the students as well, often there in the dorms to help them move their suitcases in and what not. The students who didn’t have as much love for Nichol as his fans did generally kept it to themselves as a matter of survival. If you weren’t a Nichol fan, best not to tell anyone.
There were large numbers of alumni, and more students than one might think, who did not think Nichol was at all welcoming to them. He did as he pleased, took no counsel from either friend or foe, never informed his Board of his plans, never backed down, and never adjusted his views even in the slightest degree. Thus a great number of alumni, myself included, felt disenfranchised, unwelcomed, and excluded. Nichol’s student fans told us that as alumni we were outsiders and not entitled to an opinion. Perhaps knowing the frustration of having no voice wasn’t a bad lesson for some of us to learn, but Nichol wasn’t teaching that lesson because he gave a damn about us; we learned it as a side effect of Nichol’s habit of never, ever listening and always doing what he “knew” was the right thing to do. What others thought didn’t matter to Nichol. It never has.
“Welcoming” means welcoming to ALL, and maybe that doesn’t have to be accomplished by making some feel more welcome and others less so in the process. And real diversity includes both political and intellectual diversity. Without those additional types of diversity, the end result is a campus of like-thinkers with no real reason to debate any topic or to have to defend their own views to others, or even to have to deal with the opinions of others. Everyone simply agrees. How wonderful.
In the end, Nichol fell victim to Nichol. Nichol never learned anything from his mistakes. He didn’t learn how to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. He saw all his detractors as political, but failed to see himself as such. He found out that some people cared whether or not he told the truth about important matters. Humpty Dumpty wasn’t pushed; he really DID fall.
The All-Gene-Nichol-All-the-Time cable channel ran continuously for two and a half years on WM-TV. The show has now been cancelled. I, for one, will not miss it.
— Yet Another Alum Mar 7, 12:10 AM #
Yet Another Alum;
How dare you suggest W&M promote political and intellectual diversity – the faculty would never stand for it and most could not survive a debate where others with a different view had an equal voice – imagine Nichol, as chief lemming, leading faculty lemmings,and naive student lemmings over the cliff – note there is no diversity of opinion amongst lemmings. [Admittedly, it may be difficult to procure a lemming suit that would fit Big Nick – but how about a Flat Hat political cartoon?]
In spite of all the brouhaha over “diversity” at W&M there has been absolutely no discussion at W&M regarding the proper way to implement cultural diversity on a campus such as W&M or even whether forced cultural diversity is a good idea. Does forced diversity really help the students succeed in life or is it mostly a “pat yourself on the back”, “feel good”, “photo op” experience for its promoters and sponsors? Many serious and reputable scholars, and many black educators, believe that forced diversity in higher eduation is a disaster for most of the students involved.
The most important criteria for any University admissions officer is to insure that the school is the “right” fit [culturally, intellectually, and socially], for the student. Poorly prepared students invaribly do poorly in class and inevitibly fail or drop out of school. It is not the fault of the students that they are poorly prepared, but for the University and diversity advocates to set these students up to fail is unconscionable.
In spite of the politically correct lemmings, diversity for diversities sake is not important. What is undeniably important is providing these “Gateway” students with the opportunity to get a good education and preparation for a productive and successful future and W&M may not be the right place for that for them. A minority low income student who meets W&M admission requirements in terms of test scores, GPA and HS class standing could probably get a 100% scholarship to Yale. In a sense, W&M can not compete with wealthier schools for those students who would be most likely to be successful at W&M.
What we know about Gateway so far is that the College does not have the money to pay for it and no known prospect of obtaining the necessary funds; and that W&M admissions standards had to be lowered in order to accomodate many of the Gateway students. Not an auspicious beginning I fear.
On the positive side, I believe the Gateway program offers great opportunity for W&M faculty [and student] researchers to apply for research grants to monitor and study Gateway from day one until the first class has grduated. If the studies prove the program is a success it will be easier to obtain additional funding. If Gateway proves to be less than successful, the research as to how? and why? would be invaluable to W&M and other institutions of higher learning in the future.
— Jeff '62 Mar 7, 12:36 PM #