|
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 |
Renew NicholOver the past few months, our college has lost sight of what we believe in. As a community, we have always strived to embrace the ideals of the Tribe, namely furthering the pursuit of being both a great and public university. In his inauguration speech, College President Gene Nichol stated, “I was given a remarkable foundation upon which to build … [made] possible by excellent, accessible, empowering public higher education … [a] treasure we celebrate today and that we work to assure in the years ahead.” Since his arrival at the College, Nichol has worked to strengthen and build upon that foundation. Over the past few weeks, we have spoken with the administration, alumni, faculty and students across campus in order to empirically gauge Nichol’s success. Nichol’s vision, as stated in his inauguration speech, consisted of lofty goals. First, he wanted to open the doors of the College to any qualified individual, regardless of income or class, by “mak[ing] clear [the College’s] recognition that talent, commitment, imagination and dedication are not the exclusive province of those with significant means.” Nichol is credited with the Diversity Statement and website, both of which put into writing for the first time the sense of community upon which the College had always prided itself. It is a place “where people of all backgrounds feel at home, where diversity is actively embraced and where each individual takes responsibility for upholding the dignity of all members of the community.” He is responsible for initiatives to diversify our faculty and administration, as well as our student body. Nichol has improved financial aid packages, including enacting and furthering former College President Sullivan’s concept of a Gateway Program. This new financial aid initiative grants access to the College to students who would otherwise be excluded for economic reasons. Another of Nichol’s goals was “to expand our horizons — bringing the wonders of the globe to the College and the talents and capabilities of the College to the broader global community.” Nichol has proven his commitment to both study abroad and international service opportunities. He facilitated a discussion with international service trip leaders to better learn how he could support their passion for service. Nichol’s commitment to global civic engagement is evident in his active participation in the WM Medical Mission Corps, now known as SOMOS. Last winter, Nichol traveled with the team to the Dominican Republic to set up a clinic and participate in ethnographic research. This gesture remains unparalleled by any other president in the College’s history. Nichol has even personally donated to the International Service Trip Council. His unprecedented support has led to the creation of 12 more trips and a promotional trip video for use in fundraising efforts. While addressing the Faculty Assembly during his interview as a candidate for president, Nichol stressed that “it is utterly required that William and Mary lift its sights, lift its attainments, lift its levels of participation and lift its private giving in ways that reflect an altered culture.” Nichol has since led successful financial campaigns for the College, involving as many as 58,303 active donors as of last December. The College endowment has increased by $94.2 million, 19.2 percent during his presidency. Nichol is creating an environment that fosters financial support from those closest to the College. Possibly Nichol’s most inspiring accomplishment is the close relationship he maintains with the student body. He has proven himself incredibly supportive of new student initiatives and has even instituted an open door policy in his home. Nichol has made conscientious efforts to vocally support student endeavors, and he attends a number of extracurricular events. We ask the community to consider the tangible accomplishments that Nichol has realized through his devotion to this College. Through his commitments to diversity initiatives, civic engagement, financial development and student relationships, it is obvious that he has already made tremendous strides in strengthening our foundation. Further, we must recall the short time in which he has had the opportunity to lead, limited by controversies exaggerated by those who hope for his failure. If a man with this dedication and achievement can be driven out of office in the short span of three years, what is the future of the College’s presidency? Renew the president who has pursued the vision of an institution both great and public, a dream we can all share. Renew President Nichol. Samantha Fien-Helfman and Sarah Rojas are a junior and sophomore at the College, respectively. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
Nichol’s only trumpeted “accomplishment” is the Gateway Program, an underfunded scheme which reallocates money from lower middle class W&M students to low-income ones. Does anyone realize what burden this is putting on our lower middle class students in lost scholarship/grant money, diverted federal loans and increased tuition? As for fundraising, most of this endowment gain (more than two-thirds) is from investment returns. We can thank Marshall Acuff for that, not Gene Nichol.
— MacSuile Dec 7, 04:07 PM #
Great Op-Ed. Nicely articulated reasons for supporting the President. Backed up with facts, figures and anecdotes. Thank you.
— Tom '04 Dec 7, 08:12 PM #
Absolutely right. As a lower-middle class student, I am able to attend this college in part because of a scholarship from alumni pleased with Nichol’s tenure. For my own part, I am proud to say that, even though I am going into debt to finance my education, Nichol’s Gateway program is allowing those less fortunate than myself to attend this institution as well. It is certainly a noble goal for a great and public institution.
I believe in Nichol’s vision for this college and support him entirely, especially as he learns the ropes of piloting the college.
— Ryan Lintelman Dec 7, 09:16 PM #
once again macsuile, you graduated 20 years ago, stop trolling around on the flat hat website
— BL Kyle Dec 8, 03:59 PM #
Wow, it took the Flat Hat a whole two weeks to recover from the shock of Nichol’s email debacle and get back to their traditional boot-licking. Adios, PC zombies, you’re now on the USS Nichol heading for oblivion. Along with our politically correct new logo, let’s change our name to Antioch College II. And the “Flat Hat” should be changed to the “Flat World” for their anti-intellectual embrace of stultifying small-minded liberal dogma. As to inclusiveness, I’m sure that also means Ahmadinejad will have a new place to deny the holocaust (and claim his country is homosexual free) and Ward Churchill will be made a Dean to honor Native Americans. Bye bye, sanity!
— byebye Dec 8, 05:08 PM #
He’s right! Expand your mind! Embrace conservative dogma! I’ve been saying for years that we shouldn’t let anyone speak on campus that doesn’t espouse my opinions on everything.
— Ann Coulter Dec 8, 05:17 PM #
No, No, No. Do not embrace conservatives. Do not even consider their side. Chase them off campus and let them know they’re not wanted. Their ideas are a threat. I can see that now. What was I thinking? WHY was I thinking? Let’s just follow Nichol. He has ALL the answers. He’s like, waaaay smart, dude. Besides, hero worship is cool. Thinking about ideas we don’t like is not. We’re a cross-fee, conservative-free, Republican-free, old worrisome philosophy professor-free campus now, and the better for it. Nobody gets offended anymore, I mean, not counting those people we ran off. But they were like, not cool…not like us…now that I’ve seen the Light. Go AWAY Ann!
— byebye Dec 8, 06:20 PM #
Evaluating Nichol’s Performance
1) Undergrad applications, an indicator of reputation, were up an average of 11% for the public Virginia universities but up only 0.9% at W&M for the 2007 entering class (UVA’s were up 10% and GMU’s 27%). Student yield at W&M has fallen from 41% to 37% in the past two years (UVA’s yield is 51%). Entering W&M freshmen SAT midpoints (1350) and those in the top 10% of their high school class (79%) are stagnant. The top ten Southern school averages are 1363 and 80%, respectively (UVA’s is 88%).
2) The College fell 2 points (31=>33) in the most recent US News rankings while the law school (Marshall-Wythe) fell 4 points (27=>31). The Mason School and School of Ed are also down 4 points.
3) Campus recruiting by top industrials, investment banks and management consulting firms is almost nonexistent due to ranking declines. Even Big 4 accounting firm recruiting is now at risk.
4) Nichol’s loss of a major donor’s $10-12 MM bequest and others kept the Campaign from reaching a much higher level (more than 140 Mason School graduates have officially withdrawn their financial support). The Campaign’s growth rate was just 9% in FY 2007 and the Campaign did not raise its goal either of the last two years (UVA always exceeds its targets). The W&M Annual Fund has also missed its $5.0 MM (2006) and $5.2 MM (2007) targets for the past two years. Nichol pre-announced results in February, retracted, withheld in April, promised to wait until June 30th, then pre-announced June 13th.
5) W&M’s endowment grew 19% in FY 2007 but most (over 70%) was from Marshall Acuff’s investment returns, not Nichol’s fundraising team. W&M fell another point (127=>128) in the 2006 NACUBO endowment rankings released in February 2007. Nichol waited until the BOV meeting on September 27th to release the FY 2007 endowment results even though the fiscal year closed June 30th.
6) The Campaign for W&M has reportedly raised $518 million in the past 7 years but less than $100 million (47 and almost lost its ABA accreditation under Nichol while Chapel Hill’s law school plummeted from 21=>29 in the rankings while he was dean). He also lost two U.S. Congressional races and misrepresented his football career (he was never recruited by the pros).
The school has sustained major damage to alumni relations, fundraising and reputation under the Nichol Administration and is in serious danger of falling further in the rankings. The latest ranking declines should be a wake-up call (GMU is on Marshall-Wythe’s heels and Georgia Tech will soon overtake the College). The competition is coming up fast and endowment is critical. Even Arkansas, Louisiana State and Texas Tech have larger endowments. Most alumni still can’t believe the BOV dropped this bomb on the school. Denial is the only way that some alumni can deal with the betrayal.
— MacSuile Dec 9, 06:20 PM #
MacSuile et al. The burden is on you to PROVE your allegations, not just make stuff up because you don’t like the guy. A freshman with 20 minutes of free time could easily show why your arguments are BS. As to your points…
1. Debunked as, well, bunk here: http://wmfightsback.blogspot.com/2007/06/debunker-true-admissions-story.html
2. THe college consistently goes up and down between 1 and 3 points each year in the US News rankings. GO ahead and look at the rankings over time.
3. Claim made with no information to back it up at all. I left my last job in October which was at a 17000 person consulting firm and I was on at least two calls where recruiting at W&M was discussed and positively so. In fact, the VP of my section was a WM Business grad and my direct boss’ kid goes there.
4. “Failed to meet goals” Statements made without support of any kind. Lets remember that WM didn’t start raising significant private money until the 80s when Virginia started to have budget problems. Things got bad under Govs Wilder and Allen. Most of the other schools cited for having larger endowments are land grant institutions, which means they had tons of land to sell and create endowments. WM didn’t have that benefit.
5. So let me get this straight: Everything “bad “ that happens at WM is Nichol’s fault, but Nichol doesn’t get credit for the good stuff?
6. Im not sure this sentence makes sense.
Blither following those points: Will you PLEASE show some kind of FACTUAL support or basis for your claims that alumni don’t like Nichol? All of my closest friends, and most of my coworkers are WM grads and not a single one has any problem with Nichol.
— Dave S. Dec 10, 09:27 AM #
Huh? All of the stats are right there. This is why you got fired from your job at BearingPoint. You can’t see the truth when it is right in front of you. Please don’t direct people to your blog which calls people names instead of focusing on facts.
— MacSuile Dec 10, 10:22 AM #
P.S. The “pro-Nichol” crowd consists of you (Dave Solimini), Brian Cannon and three octegenarians: Johnson, Mikula and Yankovich.
— MacSuile Dec 10, 10:26 AM #
I’m a senior and have had several interviews from large consulting firms.
Can you please stop fabricating lies.
What next, are you going to renew your insults of Nichols appearance. Oh wait, why don’t you make fun of his daughter again. That was real classy when you guys did that last spring.
— Johny Dec 10, 10:29 AM #
I’m all about facts. I’ll let DS engage in the ad hominem attacks. Tell me, Johny, were any of those firms Bain, BCG or McKinsey? Please be honest.
— MacSuile Dec 10, 10:34 AM #
MacSuile,
You just said you were all about facts, and then you go on to accuse someone of being fired. Check YOUR facts before you go around attacking someone’s character. You disgust me.
— Tom '04 Dec 10, 10:55 AM #
Are we REALLY still a Tribe? The authors, Fien-Helfman and Rojas, say that we have “lost sight of what we believe in.” That is not true for many of us. Many just no longer believe in Nichol’s ability to get us there as a Tribe. What has been lost is our unity, and it is the Board’s job to try to figure out how to restore it. In the minds of many Nichol supporters, right-wing bigots are the reason. In our minds, the reason is Nichol himself. We had an extremely liberal president before, Mr. Sullivan, who managed to bring change to the College and work with all parties. So it isn’t the liberal views that are the problem. The problem, in a nutshell, is Nichol’s proven inability to separate his own political views from his role as president of William & Mary.
For the record, the information our organization (SNBR) has presented to the Board is entirely factual. It contains no ad hominem attacks on Mr. Nichol, and there is not one political or religious argument in our briefings. The Wren Cross is old news now; in the context of the on-going Nichol evaluation, it is simply an example of Nichol’s supremely bad judgment, which he continues to exercise at every opportunity.
Had our accusations been as baseless as Solimini and his supporters allege, would the Board have made the fact that they are evaluating Nichol so public?
In terms of name-calling, SNBR has not engaged in it. By contrast, over the course of the past two years, those who oppose Nichol have been called everything in the book: Enemies of the College, Neanderthals, social regressives, hatemongers, right-wing assassins, racists, bigots, hysterical right-wing nuts, crazies, and a host of other names I won’t bother to list. These attacks were made by people on the left. For a group that professes to love everyone so much, I have been surprised at the bitterness and vitriol that have consistently flowed from many Nichol supporters. An unhealthy cult of personality surrounds Mr. Nichol, and his admirers have such a strong personal admiration for him that they cannot see past it.
I have heard that Nichol tells his friends and supporters that he has done nothing wrong; he is only under attack because of his political views, and therefore he is merely a victim of right-wing assassins. Though this is untrue and does not take into account the effect of his own actions, he finds many willing ears in this poisonous political climate. Under Nichol, the way we in the W&M community react to each other has become an allegory of the ugly national political sickness we have all experienced; Nichol has turned friend against friend, ruining friendships that had lasted for decades, and has created an ever-widening chasm across which his supporters and detractors scream at each other. Gene Nichol simply does not care what anyone who disagrees with him thinks. His opinion trumps judgment. His opinion trumps history and tradition. His opinion trumps EVERYTHING.
It is true that rankings rise and fall, but the rankings at the law schools Nichol led for many years only fell. They never rose — that is, until Nichol left, at which point they stopped falling. Those are facts. Under Nichol, the rankings have begun to fall. Whether they continue to fall next year is, of course, an open question.
SNBR does not seek, nor do we expect, that a more conservative president will follow Nichol. Almost all university presidents are liberal. What we want is a president who can be everyone’s president rather than representing only those who agree with him. If no one on campus ever disagrees, there can be no real academic debate. The only kind of diversity which Mr. Nichol does not seem to support is intellectual diversity; but without that, we cannot be a top-tier liberal arts College with a healthy academic environment.
As you can see from the above editorial, even Nichol supporters are now acknowledging that Gateway was not Nichol’s idea. He “enacted and furthered it.” It would have been refreshing had Nichol ever paid homage to his predecessor and the others who did define the program (Feiss, Gamage, and Cottrell) rather than omitting to give credit where due. It would have been refreshing to hear Nichol give credit to Marshall Acuff for all his work that has led to the investment returns we have seen, but he did not. And no one mentioned that those endowment numbers were most likely just a reporting of the value of our accounts, which at the time were at or near the historic market high. I doubt we took those profits and now have millions sitting around awaiting reinvestment, but maybe we did.
As to diversity and giving Nichol credit for that as well, I would propose that we look back and see if there was a lack of diversity under the Sullivan administration; I would bet there wasn’t and that it has been on the rise for several years now. I can recall seeing, for the past several years, glowing reports on our students’ efforts on global social issues. This is not new under Nichol by any means. Our students were already doing it. In fact, it appears to SNBR that under Nichol, there has been an overall decrease in political, religious, and intellectual diversity, and that the trend is likely to continue. That would be a question well worth examining.
I must respond to Dave Solimini’s question above: “So let me get this straight. Everything bad that happens at WM is Nichol’s fault, but Nichol doesn’t get credit for the good stuff?” In case you have not noticed, Dave, Nichol has his hand in everything. It is his policy decisions, made without consulting the Board or anyone who might not see things his way, that are molding the College now. His administrators act on his orders to implement his vision. His administrators are as unlikely as he is to meet with anyone who does not agree with him. So, to paraphrase Truman, “the buck stops with Nichol.” In terms of what Nichol gets credit for, he takes the credit for everything, whether or not he deserves it. Failing to credit those who conceived of Gateway or those who have managed our investments is indicative of a major problem. If Nichol expects to take credit for the work of others, then he should expect to take the blame as well.
If the Board renews Nichol, then the Board must accept whatever consequences follow. They know that, and that is why they are engrossed in this review process. The Board members have been forced to watch the “All Nichol All the Time Cable Network” for the past year, unable to switch channels. Nichol has been under extreme pressure and public scrutiny for well over a year, but he has not changed his method of operation one bit. He has seemingly learned nothing. His standard interview has now become formulaic: he continues to say, in response to kid glove treatment from the press (except from Austin Wright, notably) that, yeah, he could have done things differently, but he’s still learning. And then he begins to talk about how wonderful he’s found our College to be; how “heartening” it all is. We would find it “heartening” if Nichol would accept any responsibility whatsoever for his actions and his words other than to say he COULD have acted differently.
RENEWAL IS VALIDATION. If the Board renews Nichol, they are in a very real sense validating everything he has done. That is why this major review is going on. Because the concerns that have been raised are not trivial, and the Board knows that.
Nichol has been president for two-and-a-half years. That’s enough on-the-job training. During that time he has continued to operate as he always has. We have not “exaggerated” the controversies, which are quite real, nor did we ever hope for Nichol to fail. What we did was to investigate Mr. Nichol to the best of our ability and present what we found to the Board. But our feelings about Nichol’s judgment, honesty, and integrity have to do with him alone; the future of the College’s presidency does not hinge upon whatever decision is made about Nichol. Any president who has the ability to distinguish between his (or her) views and his (or her) job, and who can looks to the future without discarding the past, can succeed and bring unity back to the College.
— Jim Jones Dec 10, 06:09 PM #
Well said Mr. Jones. I second this point: “RENEWAL IS VALIDATION. If the Board renews Nichol, they are in a very real sense validating everything he has done.” The BOV should be under no illusion that their keeping Nichol will be viewed as anything other than complete approval of his politics. It’s in for a penny, in for a pound. Nichol has made the campus a battleground for the culture wars. The BOV can either call a truce (note I did not say a retreat – liberal bombast reverberate throughout W&M) by selecting a neutral President, or they can don uniforms, pick up their weapons, and follow General Nichol on his next assault. There is no middle ground. Nichol’s inability to behave as a diplomat has removed that option. Personally, I’d welcome a liberal leader who is also impartial, cautious and measured in his approach.
— poindexter Dec 10, 07:06 PM #
typo – change to: “...liberal bombast will still continue to reverberate…”
— poindexter Dec 10, 07:09 PM #
Mr. Jones, While you may claim a non-combative tone now, you turned off a great deal of alumni and students with the prior language on your website. Last spring there was an “independent report” drafted by Mr. Lipscomb that was featured on the main page of your website.
Here are a few of the gems from that report.
Page 9: “It is enough of a problem for them to have to escort around an overweight
and unkempt college president…”
Page 11: “The producer, who had some wonderful footage of a profusely sweating,
overweight college president jogging and jiggling to get inside his office to
hide, was a responsible enough journalist to enough to knock on the door and
give Nichol a second chance.”
Page 20: “...Gene Ray Nichol waddled into the President’s House”
Maybe I haven’t been around as long as you, sir, but that surely sounds like “name-calling” to me?
How can you claim a moral high ground when your organization was so willing to display such attacks on your own website?
The reason why so many students and alumni have come to the support of President Nichol is because they were disgusted by the personal attacks on the President. While your group did not mean to necessarily make attacks on the college — that is how it was perceived.
I don’t know if Lance Kyle is associated with SNBR, but his attacks were over the top. He went so far as to attack Nichol’s daughter. After hearing months of such attacks, students tuned out. When you try to have an intellectual debate about the financial welfare of our College, and in the same breath, blame Nichol for the feathers, you do your organization a grave disservice.
When people like MacSuile try to drag Mr. Solimini’s name through the dirt (with a baseless attack about his prior job) then people no longer take you guys seriously.
So, if you want to claim your good intentions. Denounce Mr. Kyle, Mr. Lipscomb and MacSuile. And then maybe people will actually listen to what you have to say. Otherwise they’ll associate you with the whole lot of them. You sir, will be tarnished by their previous attacks.
— Tom '04 Dec 10, 09:12 PM #
I agree, Tom.
Also, I take offense at the suggestion that Nichol “brought the culture wars to campus”. This place was as peaceful a forum for political discussion as one can find in America until Joe L-E and the rest of the Informer gang started “reporting” on the cross ordeal.
— a student Dec 10, 09:45 PM #
“This place was as peaceful a forum for political discussion as one can find…” – Interesting. So what you are saying is that as long as conservatives shut up and accept Nichol’s politics, everything will be peaceful? So those 18,000 who signed the petition to restore the cross were just a mob whipped up by the Informer? And the national attention drawn to the campus by the cross removal was their fault too? WOW! Sounds like they should all get 6 credits towards journalism (101 & 201). Imagine – a tiny campus newspaper did all that. They must have a hell of a lot of influence. Is that what you’re saying?
— poindexter Dec 24, 06:14 PM #
Tom ’04, et al,
Please excuse the lengthy reply. There are a number of items on this blog which need to be addressed.
I do not claim to be non-combative. If I were, I would not be the SNBR spokesperson. What I do claim is that the arguments we have made are non-political and non-religious. I believe that for many of you, the fact that SNBR exists and opposes Mr. Nichol IS the problem. I know that what I and SNBR are fighting for is what we believe to be best for the College. If it were a simple matter of not liking liberals, why did we not attack Sullivan? The answer is simple: Sullivan knew how to separate his politics from his job as president. Nichol has proven himself consistently unable to maintain that separation as well as to establish a record of integrity and honesty that this College needs and deserves. The release of the Sullivan e-mail should have made that obvious. Nichol’s track record is one of politicizing every issue, acting unilaterally and letting the Board read about it in the papers, taking credit for the work of others, ignoring all criticism, and blaming someone else for every problem. That is why he is in this mess.
I am sorry you were offended by the Lipscomb paper, but that is pretty much what I have heard already from Nichol’s supporters over the past months. The Lipscomb report, which IS independent and which SNBR had nothing to do with, has always been controversial. I asked Mr. Lipscomb to remove the language you have listed above; as author, he chose not to do so. Further, he told us that if we edited it ourselves, then we were no longer allowed to use any of the material. Thus SNBR was left with two options: 1) remove the report in which much of the initial material on Mr. Nichol was first revealed, or 2) keep the report on the site as an independent report. We chose the latter, but it was not such an easy decision. Mr. Lipscomb, and Mr. Kyle for that matter, are not on the SNBR Board and they operate as they choose to operate. Our choice was to censor the report by removing it or to let it stand as an independent report. After much consideration, we chose the latter. In the end, a majority of the SNBR Board felt that the material in the report was simply too important to suppress. More than one of our core group left SNBR over that decision.
You should also note, however, that on our site, and in all of our briefings to the Board of Visitors, there have been no personal attacks on Mr. Nichol whatsoever. There have also been no criticisms of Mr. Nichol based on either politics or religion, as The Flat Hat can confirm, since they have all of the material. You will be hard-pressed to find anything in all of SNBR’s material or the material that others prepared that is based on anything besides issues of Mr. Nichol’s honesty, integrity, financial management, and judgment.
Nichol supporters don’t usually care much about facts or about Nichol’s track record of making every issue a political one. If you bother to look back at Nichol’s record, it is clear that he always politicizes every issue. He always has; it is behavior that is totally ingrained in him. It is my firm belief that had SNBR pulled the Lipscomb report from our site, NONE of you who are so offended by Lipscomb’s portrayal of Nichol would now be supporting our position: that we need a different president at W&M. The report’s existence is simply a convenient way of allowing you and other Nichol supporters to summarily dismiss all of SNBR’s arguments without the need for any further consideration of the issues. It is, as is usual with regard to Nichol, a case of emotion trumping facts. I am sorry that you are offended, but I am even sorrier that you are willing to forego consideration of any of the real issues with Mr. Nichol because of the comments in the Lipscomb report. You looked at the report only to pull out the personal attacks and paid no attention whatsoever to anything else it said. OF COURSE Nichol didn’t want to talk to Fox News, but having his office lie to them about being out of town the following week and then being caught red-handed coming out of his front door early the following Monday morning, then running away from the camera crew across the Wren Yard to the Brafferton in a panic, was not one of his finer moments. Nichol should simply have agreed to be interviewed in the first place instead of pretending to be out of town. Would Nichol have fled CNN and had his office tell CNN he’d be out of town? I think not. Nichol had his office tell Fox News he was out of town simply because they were Fox News and he didn’t want to talk to them. My question is why Nichol had his office lie to the producer in the first place, no matter what network it was. Nichol, and his office, knew perfectly well that Nichol was not going to be out of town that day.
Mr. Nichol and his Administration have been behaving like the Nixon Administration, hiding behind executive privilege in an attempt to suppress information that needed to be made public and which was forced out by The Flat Hat’s reporting. Nixon had his tapes; Nichol has his e-mails. Using the logic of Nichol supporters, if the media at the time had made unkind comments about the size of Nixon’s nose, the facts about Watergate shouldn’t have been further considered.
MacSuile’s attacks on Mr. Solimini, whoever he is, are his own business and I have no opinion about them. Solimini can defend himself. I have told everyone numerous times that SNBR does not control Mr. Lipscomb, Mr. Kyle, or MacSuile. It is simply convenient for those who have an interest in ensuring that the facts about Mr. Nichol are ignored to insist that because they do not like the tactics taken by some Nichol opponents, then ALL of Nichol’s opponents can be written off. That is why I feel absolutely certain that even if Mr. Lipscomb’s paper been pulled from the SNBR site, and even if Mr. Kyle had never spoken out, that none of you who continue to support Mr. Nichol today would instead be opposing him. I am not buying that. These are simply excuses used by Nichol supporters to avoid looking at the facts which have emerged concerning him and his actions. Unfortunately for Nichol, his worst enemy has been, and continues to be, Nichol himself. If Nichol was a conservative, and the Sullivan e-mails came out, would you be defending Nichol as you have done? I doubt it.
Nichol opponents are always accused of being politically motivated, as if SNBR is a conservative organization out to revenge the Wren Cross, or to “get” Nichol for being a liberal whose only crime is being a progressive and dragging W&M out of the Dark Ages in which his opponents supposedly want to keep it. As if the College was in the Dark Ages under Sullivan, or was a conservative school that was so benighted as to require Gene Nichol to remold it in his own image. That’s nonsense.
What I do know that everyone in SNBR loves the College. I will also not denounce either Mr. Lipscomb or Mr. Kyle for doing what they do, whether or not I agree with it, not only because I know that they love the College, but because doing so would make no difference to Nichol supporters anyway. Last I checked, these individuals were also entitled to an opinion. I am confident that those who continue to support Mr. Nichol even after the facts have been revealed will continue to do so no matter what. SNBR never wanted this to be about religion or politics; Mr. Nichol and his supporters have made it so, by denouncing all Nichol opponents as enemies of the College, as politically motivated assassins sponsored by mysterious right-wing organizations, or as religious nut cases. I am also sure that no one still on Nichol’s side is going to apologize for how SNBR and other Nichol opponents have been characterized.
In the end, the Board has the facts, and they know many things that even we don’t, and they will make their decision for the reasons they believe are critical. Let us hope that decision comes soon.
The last letter above from “a student” is illustrative of the rift Nichol has caused. “A student” thinks that we were all just happy little campers engaged in peaceful political debate until the Virginia Informer (which Dave Solimini’s blog says is “not even a newspaper”) started causing trouble? Nichol’s actions had nothing to do with the problem; everything was someone else’s fault, and if it weren’t for these powerful outside interests, everything would have been all right. That note says a great deal about the state of intellectual thought on this campus.
— Jim Jones Dec 27, 01:24 PM #
Mr. Jones,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. The difficulty many of us have in determining who speaks on behalf of SNBR and who is merely slinging mud on their own volition is the lack of any sense of transparency on your website. There is no published list of board members. I assume that’s intentional and I do not criticize that decision. I mention it only to let you know why many of us lump “you all” (for lack of a better term) together.
— Tom '04 Jan 16, 07:23 PM #
To Tom ’04 and FH Staff -I am not a member of SNBR, though I am one of the 724 who’ve signed their petition (so far). [http://www.shouldnicholberenewed.org/index.php] I am also troubled by the anonymous nature of this debate on both sides. However, in a truly representative democracy it is up to the authorities to take the high road in these situations. Criticism of public officials may carry more weight if done openly, that’s true. However, the higher standard must accrue to those who wield power. They have the greater burden of transparency and fairness – that’s how their power is kept in check and our freedom is preserved. In short, taking a few hits, anonymous or otherwise, is part and parcel of being a bureaucrat. But to say that such attacks, if done anonymously, then excuse the use of anonymous sources by our government officials is turning justice on it’s head. Note that Nichol removed the cross based on anonymous complaints which, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, he’s yet to corroborate. (Perhaps, as with the Sullivan email, he just got it dead wrong?) Additionally, the Philosophy Department chairperson’s demotion and public chastisement of two other professors was done using anonymous sources. Finally, had it not been pointed out to them (repeatedly) that anonymous denunciations were a favorite tactic of the French revolution’s reign of terror, the Nazis and the Communist, Nichol’s administration would have continued to allow the Bias Reporting System to accept such reports.
The Flat Hat told us in an editorial that “There is no reason to fear the Bias Reporting System” (FH, 11/13/07 Staff Editorial: Bias System Better Defined) And why is that? Because, the editorial goes on to explain, although “concerns were raised as to the nature and consequences of the BRS” an email from Nichol has assuaged our fears because “anonymous submissions of bias incidents will not be accepted”. That must be a huge relief to Christians upset over the cross removal, the demoted Philosophy chairperson Professor Lemos, and the other two humiliated philosophy professors, Harris and Davies! Were not anonymous denunciations used in these cases? Why was it not as unacceptable in those instances as Nichol now admits it will be for the BRS?
I am encourged by the debate but saddened the FH has failed to address this issue head on. My personal opinion is that this is all the entirely predictable result of a university President who has decided to use his office for political purposes. It’s as if a small town mayor had decided he was not only going to be mayor, but also judge and police chief. Plus nobody should question his judgment or impartiality as he dons whichever robe, badge or seal of office that strikes his fancy in various situations. How can Nichol, who used anonymous sources for the cross removal, then sit and decide if using anonymous sources to dismember the philosophy department was fair (while at the same time saying they’re unfair for the BRS)? Is a little consistency too much to ask?
I hope that Tom, the FH staff and others reading this will take the time to put on the shoes of those who feel themselves under attack at W&M. Would you like to defend yourself against a university president and his staff armed with the power to accept and act upon anonymous complaints? If so, please explain how you would defend yourself? What safeguards and other means of insuring justice are in place? Why, historically, have despotic regimes relied so heavily on the anonymous denunciation? Why, in free societies, is the ability to face one’s accuser generally considered an important right? I am sure there are things I have missed but this does seem a reasonable starting point.
— Boethius the Menippean (call me Bo) Jan 17, 01:52 PM #