|
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 |
$16 million withdrawn since 2006Since Oct. 2006, 115 monetary pledges to the College have been revoked, costing the College $16,013,616.42, according to information released yesterday by University Relations. The College released the information in compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request from the Flat Hat. The list includes the $12 million pledge revoked by James McGlothlin ’62 in February of 2007. McGlothlin said that he rescinded the donation to protest former College President Gene Nichol’s removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel in Oct. 2006. The list also included a pulled $1.8 million pledge and a $2 million pledge. The smallest revoked donation was $1.42. According to College spokesperson Brian Whitson, the revoked donations were not necessarily in response to College policy. Look for more information in upcoming editions of The Flat Hat or online at flathatnews.com. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
Note that the $16m is only revoked commitments, not lost revenue, which would be a higher number. There is no way to know how much WOULD have been given if it were not for Nichol and his antics.
— Alumnus Mar 17, 10:40 PM #
Alumnus,
You are correct to note that there is no way to know how much would have been given save the Nichol effect. But neither can we gauge how much money WAS given because of the Nichol factor. Only the net of those speculative numbers could provide any useful insight into the effect of the Nichol presidency on giving.
That said, the Nichol factor really shouldn’t matter. None of us gives money to any president. We give to the College with the ultimate beneficiaries being the students. If there be a common conclusion to be drawn from the vast majority of opinions – from either camp – expressed in these many forums, I think it might be that withdrawn commitments or withheld donations is an adverse outcome for and harmful to the College and its beneficiaries.
The students should not become drive by victims of the contentious and rancorous assessment of the Nichol era conducted by both sides of the issue. The dollars pledged or given today will endure and inure to the benefit of the many future students who have no dog in the hunt of today’s debate. I think our collective focus should be on that future.
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 17, 11:56 PM #
Starting now you can tabulate the withdrawn pledges since 2008. For instance, because of the way those who run the school have treated Nichol, I will not be donating for the forseeable future. The reason is, I would like to see the Board of Trustees cleaned out. That would benefit the students far more than any money I would give.
— '02 Alum Mar 18, 12:59 PM #
Jack Russell ’72,‘77, your post is sensible and very distinguished from what is usually posted on the Flat Hat.
I agree with you on this matter, but I fear most will find your post absurd because it is so sensible – that is, sadly, the America we live in today. People on either side are generally more interested in their own personal agendas rather than coming together and bridging the gaps of opinion.
— Senior at WM Mar 18, 01:33 PM #
It seems to me that the lost donations DO MATTER, but not for reasons that have anything to do with personal agendas on either side.
First, there were likely some donations given in support of Nichol. I know several alumni that gave large gifts cited their support of Nichol’s policies, but I saw no evidence that these alumni would not have given if it weren’t for Nichol. There were many more donations not given because of him than because of him. Even after Nichol lost the McGlothlin donation, no one stepped up to the plate and made up the lost donation for Nichol. Nichol needed someone to come through with a large donation in support of him, and no one did.
The loss of donations is critical, and worthy of being counted, for two reasons. First, because it is indicative of the importance of leadership on the part of a College president. Taking actions that are so egregious and insulting to such a large number of people, and, worse, refusing to work toward any sort of a consensus solution with all concerned parties is NOT leadership. Leadership involves the ability to listen to your constituents — all of them — and doing things in such a way as to make your constituents feel they’ve had a voice. Nichol did not do this. It simply was not his way. Did Sullivan, Verkuil, or Graves manage to lose any donations? Nichol’s loss of donations at a time when W&M needs them most, by falling on his sword over a political issue not central to the College’s mission, could not have impressed the BOV when they reviewed Nichol’s performance.
For the record, we know anecdotally that the W&M “phone bank” of students who call alumni to ask for donations experienced a very high number of calls in which alumni said they were not giving until Nichol was gone. The Business School had a list of over 150 alumni who had said they were not going to contribute any more money as long as Nichol was there. The true amount lost will never be known, but it is likely to be much higher than $16M.
Second, the loss of donations, obviously, hurts the College as a whole, not just the students (Duh). The amount of money we know Nichol lost would have funded a full-up Gateway program for the next several years, for example. Yes, of course that hurts the students. But it should be pointed out that it was the actions of Gene Nichol, and his refusal to even consider a compromise solution until forced to do so by the Board, that led to the loss of the donation. Nichol’s intransigence is to blame.
I’m sorry that ’02 Alum feels that he or she needs to start withholding contributions now. You have do do what you think best, but you ought to at least be absolutely certain that Nichol WAS actually treated unfairly before you take such actions. I hope few will follow your example.
I would ask all of you, Jack Russell and others, how alumni are supposed to have a voice? The Alumni Association did nothing to keep alumni informed about the situation with regard to Nichol. They were asked to do so, at least to publish letters, but they would not do so. Their role seems to have been limited to being a cheering section for Nichol and the College. As such, alumni have no real voice. The only way McGlothlin and others could have a voice was to withhold their donations. Those sorts of actions are necessary at times to get people to pay attention. The sudden withdrawal of large amounts of money tends to get peoples’ attention, much as a corporate CEO who loses lots of money draws the attention of his Board of Directors.
This all happened because of Mr. Nichol and his ideas on leadership. Nichol broke things, and it was within his power to fix what he had broken and keep his job. He was evaluated by the Board, and I am certain that they considered whether or not he could change his behavior, or whether he would. He showed no evidence of willingness to adapt or modify his behavior in even the slightest degree. I expect that most of the BOV did not view that as a good sign of Nichol’s future performance.
— Jim Jones Mar 18, 02:39 PM #
I hope Nichol fans continue to withold donations. That’ll be counted as an “afterglow” of Nichol’s presidency and further diminish his legacy. The only way the College can fully realize that a President MUST be an impartial diplomat is through the post-operative pain of lost monies. Selecting a political hack instead of a true statesman should be an experience too gruesome to repeat. Cash not given, either by Nichol fans or opponents, is the bitter medicine necessary for healing. Keep those dollars not coming please!
— whozit Mar 18, 03:17 PM #
To Senior at WM, thank you for your comments though I was not seeking compliments. Alas, your last sentence was all too correct as evidenced by the comments of Jim Jones in post #5 immediately following yours.
To Mr. Jones I ask just where did you find in my post that lost donations don’t matter? I specifically stated the contrary.
Mr. Jones, though I think you intended to mock me with your statement “Second, the loss of donations, obviously, hurts the College as a whole, not just the students (Duh)” I prefer to say thank you for reiterating what I wrote in, “If there be a common conclusion to be drawn from the vast majority of opinions – from either camp – expressed in these many forums, I think it might be that withdrawn commitments or withheld donations is an adverse outcome for and harmful to the College and its beneficiaries.” Donations whether manifest in capital improvements, infrastructure, faculty, staff, scholarships, or even image all inure to the ultimate benefit of the students. Do you think there should be some other beneficiary?
Mr. Jones you asked me how how alumni can have a voice. No one nor no group has ever impaired my ability to exercise my voice. You may revel in martyring yourself or other alumni as voiceless victims but please don’t include me in that group. There is a stark difference between having one’s voice and having one’s way. And there certainly should be a stark difference between a gift (even $12 million) and a bludgeon. I cannot reconcile hurting one’s college to make it a better.
In the original post, I hoped to offer comments that might help move the discussion away from the incessant rehash of what was and steer it toward a more hopeful future. If I deserve a “Duh” then let it be for underestimating the dedication of those who seek only to polarize the debate. OK, you’ve made your points, but now Gene Nichol is gone and with him all of the sins you say were causative of withheld donations and withdrawn pledges. It is time for the quid pro quo. It is time for the Flat Hat to be able to run the headline: “$16 million recommitted since Nichol’s departure.” Otherwise, those points are specious.
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 18, 06:16 PM #
Gene Nichol’s salary was about $300,000 a year. Not counting McGlothlin’s donation, the College lost over $4,000,000. There were also lost contributions from alumni such as myself who would not give during Nichol’s tenure. This would mean that, at minimum, Gene Nichol would have had to donate 10 years worth of paychecks to undo the financial damage he caused. The Board knew when to cut its losses.
— '06 Alum Mar 18, 09:46 PM #
Make that over 13 years of paychecks.
— '06 Alum Mar 18, 09:55 PM #
The Flat Hat is to be commended for digging into the details of the Fund for William & Mary reported results. I would love to see an in- depth, documented report of the entire “fund raising” campaign. Peple have faulted the BOV for “lack of transparency” in their discussions regarding the Nichol contract renewal, but the BOV was a veritable “open book” compared to the secrecy practiced by the W&M administration in most matters. I frankly do not trust any “facts” of any kind as reported by the Nichol Administration.
It took seven years for The Fund to “raise” about $500 Mill but how much of that was attributable to “new” money and how much would have been contributed every year regardless of whether or not there was a “campaign”.
Before Nichol even arrived the campaign was stalled and mighty efforts were made to achieve the $500 Million Goal during the last several years of Tim Sullivan’s tenure, as a tribute to Tim, but those efforts came up way short. Do we know why?
How much money was actually given verses pledged? How much was given or pledged for specific purposes such as the Alan Miller Business school building under construction or the Laycock Football complex? Of particular interest is the accounting for the former Williamsburg Community Hospital building and grounds which the College and Sentara Corp valued at about $15 – $20 Million at the time of donation. Within weeks or months of accepting this complex the College “discovered” that the building itself was not suitable for any purpose [somewhat hard to believe] had to be razed and a new building constructed at a cost of another $20 Mill. The College is now struggling to get the State of Va to approve and fund the cost of the new building.
I believe that a truthful analysis of the Fund for WM Campaign could be helpful to the College in the future. How do we compare with other institutions? What percentage of Alums contribute compared with other schools, etc.
Like it or not, the individual who is President of W&M, and the direction that individual is taking the College is an important consideration for many, if not most, donors. There are too many worthy causes and contribution opportunities out there for folks to support if they are unhappy with the leadership at W&M.
— Jeff '62 Mar 19, 12:22 PM #
Jack,
Actually, I categorically deny that I have a personal agenda. But I believe Nichol did, and it was obviously so. Our group (SNBR) did what we did because we felt it was the right thing for the College. Our only “agenda” was to get the Board to look closely at Nichol and his record, and to add in what they also knew (but we didn’t know), plus their own experience in working with him as President, and make a decision. I believe they made the right one, and that time will solidify that view. If Nichol had loved the College, he would not have departed in such a way as he did. He might have been terribly hurt and sad that he lost the best job he ever had, but he knows why he lost it. He could have chosen to depart with some class and helped Mr. Reveley transition into the position, and left on a positive note, but he didn’t. His departure was all about him, not about the College. SNBR correctly predicted, in our briefing to the Board of September 11, 2007, that Nichol, if he departed, would depart in this manner, causing further damage as he went.
I apologize for the “duh” but it was not at all directed at you. It was just to point out that it was obvious that what you were saying was true.
We are in competition for donor dollars. To paraphrase something Tim Sullivan said concerning donations, one of the most important things about fund-raising is the credibility of the person who is asking. Nichol had immense credibility among his political fellow-travellers — the people he actually talked to and corresponded with and inspired, but the faculty and students, by and large, are not generally loaded with extra cash to donate in support of Nichol. Nichol’s failure to reach out to his critics early on, when they had not yet formed fixed opinions of him and were willing to work with him, was a major failure on his part. With a significant percentage of alumni, Nichol was simply not credible as a fund-raiser. It was as simple as that. Alienating a sizable component of the College community (if you prefer, the “socially regressive” component of which I am told I am a part) is a non-starter for a President and CEO.
Also, I have NEVER subscribed to the idea that I am a victim or that any other alumni are “voiceless victims” either. That terminology is used by the ultra-left, and I do not agree with it. I am not a victim, nor have I or anyone else associated in any way with SNBR ever claimed to be a victim. Nor do we seek martyrdom, and neither did we make a martyr of Nichol. If anyone martyred Nichol, it was Nichol himself. My group and I simply shone a bright light on Mr. Nichol, his past record and his divisive behavior, of which losing $16M was only the most obvious result. Once the bright light came on, no amount of hiding behind FOIA exclusions could keep the facts from coming out. I am sorry that pro-Nichol people don’t like it, but the facts are the facts, and Nichol himself made every single choice that led to his downfall.
The $16M only scratches the surface. We know there were thousands of people who were called for donations and said “no” — the numbers are staggering. And when Nichol most needed a big donor to swoop in and save him, no one came forward.
Someone should ask Sean Pieri whether Nichol ever showed up in the Development office and asked Pieri for the list of W&M’s wealthiest alumni and potential donors so that he could work the list, especially after his administrative duties were passed to the Provost. I would bet good money that he did not. Nichol was too busy with other things, like “fixing” the philosophy department, lying to a member of the General Assembly, invoking FOIA exclusions, making political speeches at conferences, announcing worthy but unfunded initiatives, and having discussions on what it means to be “great and public.” I have it on good authority from those who should know that Nichol also spent a lot of his time telling people that “the right-wing nuts were after him.” What he WASN’T doing was his job: reaching out to those he’d offended, showing the Board that he COULD change his ways, and working for unity. He wasn’t calling donors, nor was he walking the halls in Richmond trying to rebuild an effective relationship with the General Assembly. Those were his two main jobs, and he did neither of them.
My point about alumni not having a voice was a general comment. The Alumni Association, which says it wants to be the voice of all alumni, was the opposite in this case, ensuring that no information on the goings-on at William and Mary got out through their network of e-mail and publications, except what the College PR department wanted to get out. I should have been clearer — alumni who want to know what is really going on and what the issues are, instead of just deciding they are happy being part of the cheering section, no matter what is going on, do not have any advocacy through the Alumni Association. I am not that sort of alumnus.
As to why bother now that Nichol is gone, we believe it is important for the facts about Nichol to come out. He left W&M in a martyr’s role, and that is how he is being welcomed back to UNC — as a victim of the culture war who lost his job at backward William and Mary just because of his support for diversity and free speech. What a bunch of nonsense. He lost his job due to a combination of lies, incompetence, intransigence, and rigidity that made it so that anyone who was not in absolute political lock-step with Nichol was simply ignored. Search the internet and look for Nichol’s history. His history over many years is one of politicization and divisive behavior who has never been able to be a unifying force in any community except those in which all members are in total agreement with him. The facts are the facts. We did not make them up.
The next president will be liberal, and will support many of the things that Nichol believed in, as do we, in many cases. I must add that we also support intellectual diversity as well as the other kinds. Let us all hope, however, that the next president can make a distinction between his (or her) political views and his job.
The College is denying FOIA requests right and left now, claiming that all of Nichol’s papers are still exempt, so I guess we won’t see much of the openness that everyone seems to be calling for. Too bad Nichol won’t allow the release of everything. Wonder why not?
— Jim Jones Mar 21, 01:07 PM #
Just out of curiosity….. does anybody think that this could possibly be due to the current state of the economy?
How many pledges are normally withdrawn over a 2-year period?
We’re missing far too much information to make any sort of judgements or conclusions.
— andrew Mar 24, 06:20 AM #