|
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 |
BOV, Nichol caught in crossfire of culture warFor two years, the BOV has been caught between two opposing forces. On one side is College President Gene Nichol, advocate of long-overdo reforms, supported by the majority of students, faculty and alumni. On the other is a small group of vicious, conservative alumni with a long history of political sub-terfuge, unified by hatred of Nichol and a Machiavellian willingness to take him down regardless of consequences for the College. Vitriolic bloggers, often using multiple anonymous names to appear more numerous, waged a non-stop propaganda campaign. On Flathatnews.com alone, one such blogger posted 64 times under the name MacSuile, mostly personal attacks and misleading half-truths. Linda Skladany, a BOV member ten years ago when it attempted to abolish Black Studies, has long fought with Nixonian calculation. In a Nov. 16 email to fellow anti-Nicholites, she wrote an essay-length rebuttal to my column defending Nichol, ending: “I hope I have provided some fresh voice with something to cut and paste and call their own in order to respond to Max.” Some say Nichol or Powell crossed the Honor Code, but Skladany’s suggestion seems a far graver violation. In the campaign against Nichol, Thomas Lipscombe writes reports, posts blogs, and generally disseminates the destructive propaganda on which he built his career. Lipscombe was an architect of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a smear campaign that has been called one of the most ma-liciously dishonest in American politics and a major factor in John Kerry’s loss of the 2004 presidential election. Lipscombe works for the Heartland Institute, a policy group fighting to suppress scientific re-search with funding from Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil. If you have a loved one who has died fighting in Iraq or from lung cancer, you have Lipscombe to thank. Republicans in Virginia’s General Assembly pressured the BOV, summoning members to a kind of ideological tribunal before approving their appointments. The official blog of the GA’s Re-publican Caucus celebrated Nichol’s firing, calling it “a great victory for Conservatives around the state.” The post went up an hour and a half before Nichol announced his resignation. Who told them? Only Nichol and the BOV knew in advance and you can bet Nichol didn’t go out of his way to apprise the politicians pushing for his termination. The post was quickly removed. Perhaps they wanted to hide evidence of the BOV’s collusion with openly ideological politicians, who see this wound to the College as “a great victory.” They were certainly hiding something. A university president is fired only in extreme circumstances, when considered worth the indeli-ble scar left by the sudden, traumatic departure. Whether you agree or disagree with Nichol’s firing, there is nothing great or victorious about it. BOV members lean liberal, so the board’s decision was likely not ideological. However, board members, by the nature of an institution like the BOV, cannot dedicate much time to the College. As rational people, BOV members naturally prioritize their jobs and families. Spare time goes to appointments like the BOV. But each sits on as many as ten such boards and must divide their energy between them, leaving a sliver of time for the College. Anti-Nichol crusaders exploit this by pressuring members so that the BOV becomes dispropor-tionately demanding, distracting from members’ other obligations. The BOV, an important responsibility but not designed as full-time, has come to dominate the lives of members who have only four days a year to give. The BOV resisted at first. But when Nichol appeared to continue to attract criticism, enough was enough. Of course, Nichol didn’t really attract more negative attention. The same handful who hounded him his entire tenure just never went away. They found new, increasingly absurd “issues” to harp on. I suspect most are not particularly concerned with the Sex Workers Art Show or how the College ranks against Brandeis University except as excuses to rehash old attacks. Their mission from day one was get Nichol out of the president’s house whatever the cost. If our education or Constitutional rights suffer then so be it: for them, the ends justify the means. They may well have fooled the BOV into thinking legitimate dissent exists. BOV members live, on average, over 100 miles away, some as far as Delaware or New Jersey, and can only infer the state of the College. This tiny but dedicated group overpowered all other voices with non-stop disinformation and deft political maneuvering. Our alma mater has become the incidental casualty in the crossfire of their culture war. They will not stop with Nichol; they have gone after academics in the past. The books we can read and subjects we can study will be next. It may be too late for Nichol’s presidency but not to save the College. Max Fisher is a senior at the College. Note: This column was originally published Feb. 26. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
Max,
I hope you have a job prospect next year with Mr. Nichol. He will need supporters down in NC
— Alice'73 Mar 13, 10:45 AM #
Is it fair to cast as a victim of cross-fire shooting someone who starts the shooting in a drive-by?
— Joe Towney Mar 13, 11:04 AM #
Max,
I really appreciate your passion for this issue, and your ability to stand up to this group of people. Many students and faculty are extremely grateful.
— Devan Barber Mar 13, 12:00 PM #
Max,
Nichol fired all of the bullets that eventually hit him. They ricocheted around a bit, bouncing off the walls, but he fired all of those bullets himself. And he kept firing them, all the way to the end. It was not the same stuff over and over, it was new things every week. The biggest thing didn’t emerge until the end; the Sullivan e-mail, which Nichol suppressed from the moment he received it in December of 2006. Even you wrote an editorial stating that it was too much to be believed that Nichol didn’t know.
Your attacks on Linda Skladany are unwarranted. She is, and always has been, a champion of equal opportunity. You know nothing about her. She was never party to any discussion about the subject to which you refer. I am not sure what you mean by “Nixonian,” as Nichol’s behavior in suppressing information is a lot closer to Nixon than Linda Skladany’s is. Nixon held back the tapes and relied on exclusions for “national security” — fast forward to the present and we see Nichol and his loyal lieutenants withholding e-mails and claiming FOIA exemption because he is a College President. If there are similarities to Nixon, they are on the part of Nichol.
This “tiny but dedicated group” accomplished a lot, but it was not through inappropriate or ideological means. One reason the group was “tiny (and in fact it was not tiny at all) was that the Alumni Association successfully ensured that nothing was said to the alumni about any of the issues. The more alumni found out about the details, the less “tiny” the group of opponents became. Each time I have run into a new W&M contact in the past couple of weeks, they tell me of their own little groups as well. There is no way to know how many are out there, but I am guessing the number would astound you.
Success came through very tradition means, by which I do not mean screaming on the Flat Hat Comment Boards or in the blogosphere. It came by doing research (never yet rebutted), proposing evaluation criteria, pointing out the unmistakable facts to the Board of Visitors, reminding them of the inevitable result of taking no action, and asking that they consider fully the question, “Should Nichol Be Renewed?” At the end of the day (by which we mean many months later), the answer was “no.”
The facts won out, and even the liberal BOV members saw that Nichol’s administrative, executive, leadership and fundraising skills were not up to par. He was not willing to take direction from the BOV or to improve or change his behavior in ways the BOV thought were important to the College and to Nichol’s own success as a leader. The Board wanted Nichol to succeed and they did everything they could to help him.
Nichol showed his respect for the College by quitting in a huff, identifying four things probably not even tied to the BOV decision and inciting a negative reaction among those with whom he had cultivated a cult of loyalty. To quote Nichol himself, a “wiser president” would have “done otherwise.”
The BOV made the right decision based upon months of taking comments from all sides, a 360-degree review, and the facts. They did not make their decision on the basis of what bloggers said (ask them) or what the press had to say, or what the General Assembly said. The decision was already obvious after the 360-degree results came in, which was well prior to the sex show.
This is not the culture war. It is the story of a smart man and outstanding professor who was well-liked and whose political sentiments made him the darling of the factulty and of many students. He was simply not up to the job of being the CEO of a major institution, a fact which should have been detected during the selection process. Nichol was unable to relate to large numbers of his shareholders or to tell the truth about what he knew and when he knew it.
Legitimate dissent existed. That’s why Nichol is no longer here.
The alumni’s mission was not to get Nichol out of the President’s house. It was to let the facts be known about Mr. Nichol and his record that were being actively suppressed, by him and by others, including, for a long time, the Flat Hat, so that the Board could make a decision on the renewal.
Lipscomb, by the way, was not an “architect” of the Swift Boat Veterans. He reported the story. The Swift Boaters formed after watching Kerry’s performance at the Democratic National Convention, and realizing that what Kerry said was not what they remembered about John Kerry. If you ever bothered to check, you would see that Lipscomb began his investigation as a journalist into these allegations believing that John Kerry was absolutely right about everything he said. Lipscomb was not at all anti-Kerry. It is just that upon investigation, he found that most of the allegations turned out to be true. Look at it logically: Kerry never released his war records. The Swift Boat Veterans claimed Kerry’s records did not match Kerry’s story. There are thus only two possibilities for the Kerry war records: they would either A) prove Kerry right and the Swift Boat Veterans wrong, or B) prove Kerry wrong and the Swift Boat Veterans right. If the records supported Kerry (option A), then Kerry would have released them, discredited the Swift Boat Veterans’ accusations, and won the election. If they supported him, what logical reason would he have to suppress them? He did not release them. So, Max, tell me why Kerry wouldn’t release the records? There is only one logical conclusion as to why he wouldn’t. They didn’t support his story. That is why people believed the Swift Boat Veterans.
Nichol did the same thing by suppressing everything via his FOIA exclusion and by refusing to release the Sullivan e-mail. To a liberal like yourself, the problem with Lipscomb is that he exposed the facts, first about Kerry, then about Nichol. If Lipscomb had exposed Bush instead of Kerry, Lipscomb would be your hero. Your problem, Max, is that you are coming at this from a purely political perspective, but you can only recognize “politicization” among Nichol opponents, even though you appear to be a completely political animal. You should use your mind to proceed with your education and learn to lead with rational persuasion rather than pure emotion.
Nichol opposition groups have pretty much disbanded or gone inactive, and no one is pursuing the books you read or the subjects you study. Anyway, they never were.
— Get a Grip, Max Mar 13, 12:11 PM #
Max,
I doubt that you will be able to succeed in a career when you clearly prevaricate, in public. Lack of talent is no excuse for engaging in fiction and presenting it as fact.
How to you measure the amount of support for Gene Nichol, by looking in a narcissistic mirror?
Do you have quantitative data to support your claim?
Have you quantitative data to support your biases claim that there is a small group of conservative wealthy alumni conspiring to unseat Nichol?
The answer to each question is no. You have no data to support your unfounded claims and accusations because you are engaging in fiction. that is not the mark of a journalist, but a muckraker. And not a very bright one at that.
Did it occur to you that Nichol has not performed his duties and was not renewed for cause? In the public sector the departure email in and of itself would have been grounds for immediate termination, for cause. Couple that with his Honor Code violations and lies concerning the endowment and he would have been escorted to the door, by security, in a corporate setting.
It does appear, having read your previously rantings, that you seek to find conspiracy where it does not exist. That is usually the symptom of delusion. Perhaps counseling is a more appropriate venue for venting your imaginary conspiracies. It could have a beneficial impact on your warped outlook.
From a liberal alum who is a believer in substance, not unsubstantiated bluster!!!!!
— gnwt Mar 13, 12:20 PM #
Pssst….pass me some more terfuge. No, not that kind of terfuge…the really good stuff. You know…the “sub” terfuge. It’ll blow Nichol right out of the water!
Max, Max, Max…off the anti-psychotics are you? (Your paranoia is showing.) So the “vast right-wing conspiracy” stikes again? Where do you get this crap? Do you make it up yourself or borrow it from Hillary’s campaign?
I’d never even heard of Nichol before he took over as President. If he attracted any enemies maybe it’s due to his political career in Colorado (you should read about it – “Clean Gene” he was definitely not!). So what? Politicians have political opponents. Well, golly gee and bowl me over with a feather. Who’da thunk it? Grow up.
Meanwhile the BOV was just asleep? The truth is they were dozing when they selected a low-life politician and former ACLU attorney for President. They came awake only when he showed his true colors – politician, schemer and lout who does not play well with others. Not to mention incompetent, undiplomatic and foolhardly. Nichol had one saving grace: impetuousness combined with bad judgment. Like the fool he is he sent out that wonderful (to his enemies), ill-considered resignation email full of false charges of bribery, caving to political pressure and opposing lofty goals only HE can bring. It was pure unadulterated bullshit and narcissism there for EVERYONE (except poor love-struck Max) to see. And by that action alone he did HIMSELF in and fully justified the Board’s (and everyone else’s) low opinion. [What is it with Nichol and emails? Can’t read ‘em, can’t write ‘em!]
The Board is not able to give other details unless your false god, Nichol, agrees. I am sure there are more juicy stories they’d love to share. King Nichol apparently thought he was dealing with the same distracted, half-awake BOV Max sees; people who “cannot dedicate much time to the College”. Fortunately, he brought them to full alertness by his stupidity and recklessness. He did leave behind a small cadre of like-minded, goose-stepping kool-aid drinkers, Max being one of the prime examples. But, like an accidently swallowed cherry stone, they’ll pass…with some minor discomfort, but eventually. After that the healing can begin.
— owens Mar 13, 12:22 PM #
Owens,
You have it on the money. Terrific analysis. Devan, you need to have your kool-aid and water tested for drugs.
Nichol caused his own demise. The BOV was compelled to take their action after a very lengthy, impartial and in-depth review of Nichol’s performance.
It is clear that you see conspiracies everywhere. GNWT is correct in the assessment.
Your foray into naming persons and mis-characterizing them is base and without factual foundation. It is lower than Yellow Journalism.
You underestimate the BOV, their integrity and business expertise.
Stop the finger pointing and conspiracy delusions. Accept that Nichol is a hollow fallen idol. That is all he ever was and all he will ever be. You have been duped.
Your fictional rant does not speak well of your future prospects or probability of success. Inability to analyze factual situations and identify logical conclusions is a huge weakness.
Look in the mirror for the conspiracy.
— tlgn Mar 13, 01:01 PM #
Where is the outrage and condemnation of the desecration of the Wren by Nichol supporters? How goes the investigation of this case and prosecution of these crimes?
— baobabs727 Mar 13, 05:18 PM #
I have made few friends and many enemies in this fiasco. But I will say this – Max Fisher has once again proven that the power of the pen is no longer grounded in truth, research or perspective. I very much doubt Mr. Fisher has ever met Ms. Skladany. I took the time to meet a woman with whom I would not normally circulate. But I can say this – he has completely missed the point. His mudslinging yellow tabloid writing is completely off the mark. Ms. Skladany may not share my political viewpoints, but she is not REMOTELY the person this kid has portrayed her to be. Mr. Fisher – it’s time you left your pathetic dorm room, stepped off campus, and made an effort to reach out to people before you throw your silly little tantrums at them. Life is more complicated than your computer keyboard leads you to believe.
— Todd Skiles Mar 13, 07:41 PM #
Max, I am seriously upset and disappointed by your characterization of Linda Skladany. Have you ever met Linda? I have been friends with Linda since college (both members of the class of ’66). Although we often agree to disagree about politics, I have never doubted her love for William & Mary, which is transcending for her. When Linda was 15, she went door to door in her home town of Danville, Va, to gather names on a petition to allow African Americans to use the Danville Public Library, something they could not do at that time. Her father was a doctor in Danville, and Linda was well known. I might have shared her values but I would never have had the courage at that time (late ’50s) and in that place (southside Virginia) to take the stand she took. No one asked her to do that. She did it because of conscience. As a republican member of the BoV in the late 90’s, Linda supported the welfare of the College against the pressures of the Gilmore administration. For her efforts she was not reappointed by Gilmore. I am disappointed, Max, that you did not do a better job of research before you trashed a very compassionate person who has been very supportive of William & Mary.
— Anne Sullivan, '66 Mar 13, 09:13 PM #
FYI: It took me a second to realize this since I wasn’t at the College during his tenure, but Anne Sullivan (who just posted) is Tim Sullivan’s wife.
— Matt Beato Mar 13, 10:07 PM #
Max, I also know Linda Skladany. Her love for the College is second to none. Shw has dedicated years of her life to support and uplift the College. How dare you question her motivations?
Nixonian? I agree with “GetaGrip,Max” that it is Nichol who has taken a page from the Nixon history book. Like Nixon, Nichol lied, covered up the evidence of the lie amd then lied further about what he knew and when he knew it. Max, your own editorial at the time suggested that even you understood this. Perhaps you can blame memory loss.
Frankly, the Flat Hat should be ashamed of your brand of unfounded rumor-mongering, and remove your “opinion” from public view. Responsible newspapers do not allow unsubstantiated facts to appear, even in opinion pieces. Max and the Flat Hat owe Linda Skladany a big apology.
— Alumnus Mar 13, 10:48 PM #
When I was at the College, students who leaned to the political right were more active and self-confident than others. An important lesson that I learned from them was just how intellectually stultifying and dishonest the modern American conservative movement has become.
It’s a lesson that I’ve recalled throughout this sad episode where conservatives won their “victory” by pushing out Nichols, and it’s a lesson I relearn every time I read these pathetic attacks on Max Fisher.
I’ll take the silence in response to Fisher’s specific assertion about Skladany’s behind the scenes role in the attacks on Nichols as confirmation that the assertion is accurate.
“Responsible newspapers do not allow unsubstantiated facts to appear, even in opinion pieces.” Do you people reside within this mortal existence? BILL KRISTOL was just awarded a column in the New York Times, for goodness sake. How about them apples?
Keep telling the truth, Max.
— Brendan '95 Mar 14, 11:10 AM #
Brendan,
You broad brush the bloggers as conservative. Where is your evidence?
There was no victory in the most recent unfortunate event of Nichol not being renewed. What you witnessed was a competent Board of Visotors performing a duty foisted on them by Nichol and his substandard performance. It was regrettable since they hired him and publicly supported him.
While based on your graduation date it appears that you think you are in the realm of “mortal existence” you comments are not reflective of some with real world or business expertise.
With regard to your snide comments concerning Linda Skladany, silence is not affirmation. Silence is a dignified choice to not respond to the wild rantings of a person who has engaged in Yellow Journalism.
Max did not perform proper investigative reporting vetting, he only espouses delusion and fraud. That is not any example of responsible journalism. His ranting is not an analogy to Bill Kristol.
— wamya Mar 14, 11:52 AM #
My comments about Skalany are not snide. They are factual.
Fisher did not claim that Skalany is not a nice person, or that she doesn’t care about the College. Rather, Fisher made a very specific assertion. He stated that he learned that Skalany wrote an argument attacking him and circulated it among anti-Nichol activists and urged them to “cut and paste” pieces of her arguments to supplement their attacks against Fisher.
No one above has refuted that or even engaged this point at all. In Max’s opinion, Skalany’s tactic was underhanded. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion and of course that opinion deserves the light of day in the pages of the Flat Hat.
I am baffled as to why so many of the anti-Nichol activists bend themselves into such logical pretzels to try to deny that the origin of their dislike of him is political and ideological.
When you clear away the vague and not very convincing charges about Nichol’s management style, the specific grievances I’ve read from anti-Nichol activists all are attacks on him from the political, cultural, and economic right.
I’ve read attacks on Nichols for his supposed “lack of respect” for the College’s original goal of providing Christian education to the “savages” and education Anglican priests for the established church. (Never mind that Jefferson, our greatest alumnus, helped ensure that we no longer have an established church).
I’ve read commentators here argue that the true mission of the College should be to serve the “glory of God,” never mind that the College is now a secular, public institution that operates for the good of the Commonwealth and, well, see my comment about Jefferson.
I’ve read commentators complain that Gateway threatens to water down “merit” standards at the College, even though it never seemed to bother folks when sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters of alumni got special treatment because they happened to be related to someone who already went to William & Mary.
As to Linda Skalany’s political affiliation, I’ll note that according to public information available on opensecrets.org, she has contributed overwhelmingly if not exclusively to conservative Republican candidates and party organizations. In my mind, that indicates that she is a conservative. But in this bizarre debate I suppose that fact counts for nothing.
— Brendan '95 Mar 14, 02:03 PM #
Brendan – you miss the point. There are hundreds of millions of political opinions in the U.S. and they’re all different. The fact that Ms. Skladany disagrees with your viewpoint, or Mr. Fisher’s viewpoint is not at issue. The fact that Mr. Fisher all but LIED by inferring she was a racist is WRONG. This is what brings Mr. Nichol and his supporters down. It’s not that they have different viewpoints. I share their appreciation for public service, for diversity, and I’m probably far more left-wing on environmental issues than both of them. But the point is that if we’re ever going to get anything done in this country, conservatives and liberals are going to have to find a way to achieve cooperation, courtesy and respect. If you’ve never met Linda, you have NO BUSINESS lodging ad-hominem attacks against her. As a liberal, I took the time to meet her. I got to know her. I will PERSONALLY vouch that Linda is one of the most graceful women I may ever meet. You criticise Tom Lipscomb for his words, and then commit the EXACT SAME offense against Linda. Do you not see your own hypocrisy? No. Because you’re an arrogant ego-crat caught up in your own self-importance. Max was wrong. He needs to grow up and admit it. Linda is no racist. She may be a conservative, but that’s not a crime.
— Todd Skiles Mar 14, 07:56 PM #
Brendan,
Your facts are unsupported by evidence or fact. Thus they reside in the realm of fiction.
Your personal attacks on people whom you have not met have the stench of totalitarianism.
Your comments are the most glaring example of snide, whether you choose to accept that fact or not.
The root cause of your problem is you have insufficient business expertise or management acumen to recognize abysmal management in Nichol, when you see it.
Please do not transfer your inadequate capabilities to others in the form of personal attacks.
A person’s penchant for political contributions has nothing to do with their integrity, something you totally lack.
You are an embarrassment to the college.
A Liberal Alum Who values Substance not prevarication or subterfuge.
— ljf0828 Mar 15, 12:39 AM #
I am honestly struggling to understand the demands for “apologies” to Skladany and Lipscombe here.
Max wrote that when Skladany was a Visitor, the Board tried to eliminate Black Studies and that later she participated in the movement to oust Nichol. Because there was a demand for “proof” that people opposing Nichol were conservative, I noted that she has contributed to conservative causes and candidates. Max wrote that Lipscombe writes from a conservative point of view and has been affiliated with right of center organizations.
These aren’t ad hominem attacks. Nobody accused either Skladany or Lipscombe of not being graceful or decent or pleasant, or of hating Girl Scouts or killing puppies. We are all fortunate that we live in a country where they are free to advocate for what they believe in and to support others who share their views. They certainly shouldn’t apologize for leaning conservative (nor should Max for pointing this out.)
Nobody refutes that Skladany and Libsombe lean conservative and actively opposed Nichol. And yet there is a chorus screaming for Max to recant for writing that, well, Skladany and Lipscombe lean conservative and were active in their opposition to Nichol.
It’s relevant to note that Skladany, Lipscombe, and others who helped end Nichol’s presidency are conservative because there seems to be—and again, I find this baffling—an attempt to deny that politics or culture had anything to do with this episode.
I’ve never found all of the shouting about Nichol’s management skills to be terribly compelling. I believe that any clear minded look at this episode would conclude that the origin of the movement to get rid of Nichol was ideological. After all, this all stems from a political disagreement over privileging one kind of religious belief with display of its symbols at a secular, public institution. The opposition to Nichol was centered at “savethewrencross.org,” not “nicholisalousymanager.org.”
— Brendan '95 Mar 15, 10:52 AM #
Brendan,
Your recent post demonstrates your shallow grasp of the standard business metrics of performance. Are you Gene Nichol? The reason you do not find the sound rational and factually based arguments on behalf of the College is that you are another member of the Nichol group who has been seduced by charisma rather than substantive merit.
The fact, which you so readily admit, that you cannot comprehend business metric measurements of performance does not provide you with the right to criticize others who you have never met, discusses positions with or have any factual knowledge of.
Your shallow biased and immature emotional condemnation of Tom Lipscomb and Linda Skladany are libelous.
The real person who ended Nichol’s contract was Nichol himself.
The Board of Visitors were compelled to act, even though they hired and supported Nichol in public, due to Nichol’ failure to properly perform his duties.
For you to recklessly try to scapegoat a few names of persons who you have never had any contact with is not the mark of a knowledgeable or mature adult.
Until you are capable of comprehending the most basic of business performance metrics, it is advised that you refrain from making a bigger fool of yourself, in this forum, than you already have.
You self admit to being baffled by events or to see beyond your own self-censoring one dimensional realm of politics. It is far more prudent to not view the world through political glasses.
Your perspective is comparable to those who seek to blame events in life on their own chosen path.
Nichol is a professional victim. I speak from personal experience, as I have actually met Nichol on several and engaged in civil conservation with him.
I have also performed extensive research on Mr. Nichol, and reach this conclusion based on factual evidence and personal interaction. My research and engagement are vastly more than you have performed in regard to those who you seek to libel in your emotional, false comments.
Perhaps that this is because you fail to grasp that the Board is one of the most liberal if not the most liberal composition of member in the history of the College.
Their decision was not based on political penchant, but substantive performance or lack thereof, by Mr. Nichol. The Board bent over backwards to assist Mr. Nichol to succeed in his role as president of the College.
Nichol elected to refuse all offers of assistance. He refused to change his self-defeating performance. Mr. Nichol’s pattern of behavior is evident throughout his career. Thus, he returns to UNC as a mere professor, after three failed attempts at leadership roles.
For you to accuse the Board of Visitors of being swayed by conservatives demonstrates no analytical skills on your part.
You inability to accept that Nichol did not measure up to his goals and objectives is a further reason for you to cease and desist in engaging your rantings in this blog.
You have completely missed the mark on this topic of performance and are now engaging in a witch hunt.
Please refrain from further libel of either Mr.l Lipscomb or Ms. Skladany.
A Substantive Alum
— ljf0828 Mar 15, 01:44 PM #
In order for a statement to be “libel” it must be defamatory and untrue. I’ve stated that Lipscombe and Skladany lean towards the political right and that they were active in the campaign to oust Nichol. Nobody has offered any evidence indicating that either assertion on my part isn’t factually correct and, therefore, libelous.
I fully realize that the anti-Nichol faction is determined to deny that anyone who opposed Nichol was at all motivated by the Wren cross controversy, Gateway, student group freedom, and other social and political issues. But I’m not buying it. Robert Blair didn’t either. Nor do many of us in the College community.
Anyone who has read the debates online knows that many, probably most, of the specific attacks on Nichol were based on political and cultural disputes. All you have to do is scroll up in this thread to read someone from the anti-Nichol faction muttering that he was “a low-life politician and former ACLU attorney.” Which “standard business metrics” measure Nichol’s views on civil liberties?
Also: what is with the obsession among the anti-Nichol folks with the notion that it’s improper to offer an opinion about anyone’s role in this controversy unless you personally know them?
I know many conservatives who aren’t shy about telling me that they disagree with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s proposals about health care and other issues. Few of them have ever met Clinton or Obama, let alone “know” them. Is it improper for them to form opinions about Clinton or Obama’s health care proposals or their other ideas? According to public opinion research, a sizable majority of Americans disapprove of the job that President Bush is doing. Few of us have ever met Bush. Is it wrong for us to make judgments about his presidency?
— Brendan '95 Mar 15, 04:18 PM #
You have not offered any factual evidence or proof for your statements. You have a double standard for facts. You claim facts without substantiation and then require facts from others. How juvenile and non-logic based!!
It is unnecessary for others to offer facts to disprove fiction. Just because no one deems fit to engage in your undignified debate does not prove your fictional and libelous stance.
You engage in sweeping biased generalities about the debate which continue to demonstrate you true lack of knowledge about the facts
You have performed no personal research, ignored the Board of Visitors truthful account of the review process, have no interaction with those whom you libel and fail to provide anything substantive facts to base your opinion on.
You claim the right to have an “opinion” when you are called on your lack of facts. So your self-contradictory defense belies your claim of facts. You just continue to engage in prevarications concerning Mr. Lipscomb or Ms. Skladaney.
Your lack of understanding and emotional desire to paint those on the side of the College as anti Nichol and other stereotypes are baseless and show you lack in any analytical ability.
It is strongly urged that you publicly apologize for your falsehoods concerning Mr. Lipscomb and Ms. Skladany.
If you are so limited in your business experience or the real world, it is better to disengage in public comment on areas where you libel others and illustrate personal ignorance.
Your libelous efforts are unworthy of a true College graduate.
I suspect that you are really less than a College graduate.
A Substantive Alum
Who is also LIBERAL and an independent thinker.
— ljf0828 Mar 15, 05:23 PM #
I have offered evidence to support my assertions. This is getting tiresome and fairly silly, but I’ll do it again just to be clear.
Linda Skladany leans to the political right. That’s not a slur, it’s an observation. In a post above on this thread one of your compatriots in the anti-Nichol cause, Todd Nichols, observed that she is indeed conservative. And according to publicly disclosed data available on opensecrets.org, her political contributions have been to conservative candidates and groups, such as Phil Gramm, George W. Bush, George Allen and others.
It’s certainly her right to hold her views and to support whomever she likes. But it’s certainly not libelous for me to note the plain facts about her politics.
Skladany supported efforts critical of Nichol and supported efforts to oust him. Some obvious evidence: Max Fisher quoted from an email she circulated that provided arguments opposing Nichol. On SavetheWrenCross.org, she is listed as one of the “Leaders of the Save the Wren Cross Coalition.” (See here: http://www.savethewrencross.org/about.php)
I may disagree with the Wren Cross defenders on the merits of that case, but I’m perfectly willing to take them at their word when they put forward their own leaders.
— Brendan '95 Mar 15, 06:12 PM #
Brendan,
A mere political propensity, still unsupported with adequate evidence by either you or Max does not justify the LIBEL of Ms. Skladany or Mr. Lipscomb. You are relying on Max’s truthfulness, which is fiction and provided by a very twisted individual.
It does not provide you with the right to Libel either.
Your repetition of Max’s libel is libel in of itself and I quote you:
“Max wrote that when Skladany was a Visitor, the Board tried to eliminate Black Studies and that later she participated in the movement to oust Nichol. Because there was a demand for “proof” that people opposing Nichol were conservative, I noted that she has contributed to conservative causes and candidates. Max wrote that Lipscomb writes from a conservative point of view and has been affiliated with right of center organizations.
These aren’t ad hominem attacks. Nobody accused either Skladany or Lipscombe of not being graceful or decent or pleasant, or of hating Girl Scouts or killing puppies. We are all fortunate that we live in a country where they are free to advocate for what they believe in and to support others who share their views. They certainly shouldn’t apologize for leaning conservative (nor should Max for pointing this out.)
Nobody refutes that Skladany and Libsombe lean conservative and actively opposed Nichol. And yet there is a chorus screaming for Max to recant for writing that, well, Skladany and Lipscombe lean conservative and were active in their opposition to Nichol.
It’s relevant to note that Skladany, Lipscombe, and others who helped end Nichol’s presidency are conservative because there seems to be—and again, I find this baffling—an attempt to deny that politics or culture had anything to do with this episode.”
I strongly recommend that you separate yourself from Max’s libel and publicly apologize.
Otherwise you appear to be a greater fool than Max.
It is amusing that you still fail to comprehend the root cause of the issue Nichol’s poor performance especially in light of the overwhelming evidence reviewed by the Board of Visitors and his past performance at UNC and UCO. You would rather rant and point fingers, not the mark of a scholar, intellectual or a business person. You are unworthy of a degree from the College, if you really have one. I doubt that you really graduated form the College.
Your reliance on lies, sweeping generalities and stereotypes are the mark of someone with limited vision or reasoning. It unpersuasive and shallow. You are losing this debate. You remarks are prima facie evidence of flawed reasoning based on lies and libel.
A Substantive Alum
— ljf0828 Mar 15, 07:32 PM #
It should be noted that Max and Brendan have misspelled Lipscomb. Not a great indication to journalistic research or care.
So if they have this fact wrong what else have they concocted? Very sloppy work and not true journalistic stuff, rather Hearst-like journalism or tabloid style.
Nichol lied about the McGlothin donation, he lied about his football career in college, so it is likely that he lied in his departure email.
Max and Brendan side with a liar and then engage in the same behavior. Actually they do Nichol one better, they then engage in libel.
What a travesty for the College and the Honor code. We need to rebuild the credibility of the school and go beyond people like Max, Nichol and Brendan.
— 2428lp Mar 15, 08:14 PM #
Yup, and it should also be noted that 24281p (a.k.a. ljfo828, tlgn, gnwt, and wamya?) has misspelled “McGlothlin.”
Seriously, there must be more to do on a Saturday night than to hurl insults under multiple blog names. Brendan, your points are well made. Ignore her.
— mnk Mar 15, 09:35 PM #
What we are attempting to do here is to infer what the intention of the BOV was when it decided not to renew Nichols. While the political influences on the BOV has been well documented by Max and Brendan, what they omit in their analysis is the possibility of some other reason. Perhaps poor performance?
Before we decide which of these is the “real” reason for the non-renewal shouldn’t we know the basis for the alleged poor performance? This is similar to hearing one side of a court case and then deciding the outcome without knowing what evidence the other side might have presented. As W&M students, I can’t imagine that Max and Brendan are unable to understand the simple concept of reviewing all the information before reaching a conclusion. Instead, it seems they are selecting only those pieces of information that support the conclusion they wish to draw and ignore everything else.
We know the BOV conducted an evaluation of Nichols but have not disclosed this report for privacy reasons. We hear much criticism of the BOV for not being transparent but here, Nichols holds the key to the lockbox. My guess is that the BOV would be more than happy to make the report public if Nichols simply agrees to allow them to do so.
So Max and Brendan, don’t you think it would be important for us to know the results of this report. If this evaluation was simply designed as a rubber stamp of approval for a predetermined BOV action wouldn’t you like to know? If Nichols was judged on criteria that are measurably different than those used in academia wouldn’t that be important evidence that would show that politics was the overriding reason for the actions taken by the BOV?
Shouldn’t Nichols be demanding the public release of his evaluation so that he can prove, as he asserts in his letter of resignation, that he was ousted for political reasons? Of course, the absence of such demand leads one to the conclusion that Nichols would prefer that his evaluation not be released. And since we are so want to speculate on the issue, what other reason would he have other than a desire to prevent disclosure of his shortcomings as President?
— Guy Mar 15, 10:06 PM #
Brendan, et al,
I am sure that the Board, absent Robert Blair and one or two others, would like nothing more than to reveal the facts of their evaluation. They cannot do so, as has been pointed out numerous times. Nichol must authorize them to discuss the review. You will wait a very long time for him to do that. He won’t — ever. If the review were made public, then his claims of being a martyr on the altar of politics might be proven false. With the Board effectively muzzled, Nichol can make whatever claims he likes. This is what he has done. If making the review public would help Nichol, he would do so. He isn’t, so the conclusion ought to be obvious.
As I was the spokesman for ShouldNicholBeRenewed.org )SNBR, the main group that came to oppose Nichol’s renewal, I can tell you firsthand what we did and did not do.
First, I might mention that I am not so sure that Tom Lipscomb “leans conservative.” As has been mentioned before, Tom went into the Kerry investigation thinking he was going to prove Kerry was telling the truth. The facts turned out otherwise. Lipscomb was also the first to smell a rat with regard to the loss of the $12M donation, and it was he who first surmised that Nichol knew far more than he was admitting to knowing, and he knew it a lot earlier. Why Nichol did not admit to the loss, say that he hoped the donor could be brought back, and take the hit and move on is beyond us. Why the lying? EVEN MAX, in his November 2006 editorial, says that he doesn’t believe Nichol’s explanation of the Sullivan e-mail. Nichol had no apparent reason to lie. He had programs like Gateway that were, and are, widely supported. He could have come clean on all this the moment the original story broke in the Daily Press in February of 2007, and said “Of course I knew. I have been hoping that we could turn the decision around.” Instead, he claimed he had never heard anything about it. Why did he do that? The only thing I can think of is that he had already reported the Campaign numbers ($502.7M I think) to the Board on February 9th, 2006, and he had neglected to tell Sean Pieri (Director of Development) that the $12M wasn’t coming (as we saw in the Sullivan e-mail, he had plenty of warning). Pieri did not know that the donation had been pulled, so he counted it. Therefore, Nichol was stuck; Rector Powell, who knew about the loss of the $12M, assumed Nichol had told Pieri about the loss, but Nichol hadn’t, and Nichol had reported Pieri’s numbers, which Nichol knew to be bad but Powell didn’t, to the Board, the press, and everyone else. So Nichol had no real choice but to say he had no idea of the loss until it broke in the papers. Nichol’s mistake was in not telling Pieri of the problem. Why didn’t he do that? It is possible that Nichol was not competent enough to tell his VP of Development about a $12M problem, but I don’t believe that. My belief is that Nichol was desperate, in the midst of all the flak about the cross, to show that all was well at W&M. He needed to be able to announce that the Campaign had reached its goal six months early. If anyone else has a better explanation that takes what we know into account, please let me know what it is.
Saying that Lipscomb and Skladany (and I) “lean conservative” and actively oppose Nichol is about as useful as saying “Brendan and Max and Zach Pilchen and almost all of the faculty lean left and they support Nichol.” So what?
Brendan, the PROBLEM with Max and others insisting that this all took place because of the cross, and people who “lean conservative,” is that it presupposes that the opposition to Nichol was ideological and political. Max makes an effort to point this out, simply because it supports his argument that Nichol’s downfall was due to vicious attacks from conservatives like me. Max is about as far left-of-center as one can get; does his ideology color his opinions? I am very much a centrist, not likely to conduct a political witch hunt. Max’s logic leads to the conclusion that I had no valid reasons, other than political ones, for opposing Nichol. Time will show that this conclusion is false.
Lipscomb, during his investigation of Nichol’s shenanigans, and until very recently in fact, worked for the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, not for the Heartland Institute. If, in the few months Tom has worked for Heartland, he has caused cancer deaths and the deaths of service members in Iraq, then he is indeed a powerful guy. If you, Brendan, think that Max ought to be saying this sort of thing, and openly accusing Linda Skladany of racism, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. This is yet more evidence that the really nasty name-calling in this matter almost always originates with pro-Nichol individuals. What do these allegations have to do with the facts about Nichol? The answer is, NOTHING. They are simply a tactic that plays to emotions and leads people to ignore facts.
All of the pro-Nichol crowd, without any exception I am aware of, have focused exclusively on an effort to prove that attacks on Nichol come from right-wingers and are therefore groundless. Even if every single person opposed to Nichol were a far-right conservative, which isn’t at all the case, it would not prove that the allegations against Nichol were groundless. In the end, it comes down to the facts, as it did in this case. You will find few defenses of Nichol, besides how much he is loved and how great and inspiring he is, that actually talk about his achievements. Gateway was NOT Nichol’s idea. That is a fact. Almost all defense of Nichol is emotional, and is based on attacking those who oppose Nichol as mere political hacks out to get revenge for the cross. Even if that were true, and it isn’t, Nichol’s record would be no different. We didn’t make anything up; Nichol did it all himself.
People ought also to note that the Save the Wren Cross movement posted a rather gracious note on their web site accepting the Wren Cross compromise and shut off their petition immediately. Opposition to Nichol from that group ended long ago. It is NOT the center of opposition to Nichol in general; it was only the center of opposition to Nichol’s unilateral decision on the cross.
If you go back and read the Flat Hat profile on me, you will find Linda Skladany quoted in that article as an advisory board member for SNBR, of which I was the spokesman. She has not hidden this fact. I told the Flat Hat quite clearly that the Wren Cross incident was what had woken up a lot of alumni and gotten them to start paying attention to what was going on at W&M and what Mr. Nichol was doing. That is also a fact. While the folks who “lean right” started looking more closely at Nichol, the folks who “lean left” continued to develop an emotional attachment to the man and defend him on purely emotional grounds. I am not making this up; go back and look at the body of available material in the press. Defense of Nichol is emotional and based on how inspirational he is to everyone, and how much everyone loves him.
Whether Nichol was right or wrong about the cross — and opinions and scholarship do in fact differ on whether he was right or wrong — the way he proceeded was unacceptable, to me and to many others, both on and off campus, who do not share his views on the Constitution or on separation of church and state. Nichol moved unilaterally, continued to claim he welcomed discussion but conducted none, and responded to none of his detractors. It took him six months and the insistence of the BOV to even appoint a committee. Nichol showed many of us, then and there, that his level of respect for the history and traditions of William and Mary was extremely low. He did not care if thousands were offended; he chose to make whoever it was that complained happy instead (remember he released only one letter in his FOIA “response”). If he had cared what anyone else thought, he would have acklowledged that fact that he deeply offended thousands of people and sought to work with those who disagreed with him in order to reach a consensus solution. That is the difference between a leader and a dictator. Nichol was, and is, the latter. It is his way or no way. I had thought those of you who “lean left” didn’t like that sort of behavior in a leader. Yet you excuse it in Nichol. Odd.
I briefed some of the BOV in July of last year, and briefed Rector Powell in September. Our briefings were factual and contained not a single religious or political attack. The Flat Hat has the briefings and that can be verified independently. The cross and the sex show were listed as evidence of poor leadership, and THAT WAS IT.
The Board was initially suspicious that SNBR was making political attacks, but after they saw the briefings, almost all of them got past that idea. They spent many months evaluating Nichol. The Board asked Nichol to change his focus and asked him to do a number of things. Over the months, he did not change his behavior one bit.
For Nichol, the cross was a sword on which he was, apparently, willing to fall. His actions alienated many alumni (the ones Nichol supporters have repeatedly called “mean-spirited,” “racist,” and “socially regressive” to list only the nicest of the names), plus others. Nichol’s actions angered many in the General Assembly (the “right wing nuts” as the pro-Nichol crowd has said), especially Bob Marshall, who is certain that Nichol lied to him at lunch about when he knew about the lost donation. All that made it much harder for Nichol to maintain good working relationships in Richmond. This was one of his most critical jobs, and he failed at it because of his inability to compromise.
The Board paid no attention to the press editorials and the screaming in the blogosphere. They did not speak further to SNBR either once the review process began. They embarked on a serious process, in which they took thousands of comments from people in the W&M community and engaged in a 360-degree independent review of Nichol’s performance as an Administrator.
The Board, who if you know any of them personally, as I do, are not exactly likely to be swayed by conservative pressure, made their decisions on the facts. And it was not an easy decision. They made it knowing that the students and faculty would be horribly upset by it, but still feeling that it was the right decision and had to be made.
The details of the 360-degree review are not public as they are a personnel matter, but one can reasonably assume that the conclusions were not favorable to Nichol. The release of the Sullivan e-mail, after the Flat Hat got Nichol to say on record that he had no knowledge of the withdrawn donation and then hid behind his FOIA exclusion, made it clear to most on the Board that Nichol had not been truthful. While it didn’t prove Nichol was lying, it did prove that Nichol was either lying or that he was completely incompetent. Neither is good. The Board, who largely agree with Nichol politically, found it very difficult to work with him when he kept on announcing new programs with no funding source, and because he never told them what he was doing, they became afraid to pick up the morning papers, which is where they invariably found out what Nichol had been up to. I expect that got old quickly, as did the fact that, as Rector Powell said of Nichol, “it was always his way or no way.” Being loved by students and faculty (in a climate where if you didn’t love Gene, you usually kept quiet) was only one part of being a College president. Nichol failed in almost every other aspect of the job. That was why, in the end, he had to go.
I hope that at some point, someone will do a story on the briefings SNBR gave the Board and the Rector. I intend to provide them to the College archivist very soon, as the archivist has contacted me to ask for the briefings. They will then become a part of the official record of the Nichol presidency, and anyone who wants to look at what we actually said, rather than spouting inane accusations, can see them.
The desperate need for good governance at W&M, sorely lacking under Nichol, convinced the Board in the end.
— Jim Jones Mar 15, 11:49 PM #
Jim: Thanks for your post. I found it to be an interesting and thoughtful account of your view of the events and, I think, a fair recollection of how the Cross incident affected you and others’ decisions to call for an end to Nichol’s presidency.
While I continue to disagree on a number of points, I appreciate your effort to engage with the facts at hand and that you refrained from questioning my whether I graduated from the College.
Based on what I’ve read in these threads, I think you’re underestimating how much of the anti-Nichol commentary took the form of ideological cheap shots from, as you put it, political hacks. But I suspect that we both know that we’ll probably never agree about that.
I don’t think Nichol was a perfect leader or president. Of course there were areas where he made mistakes and could have done better. That’s true of any leader.
What I find annoying are the claims that politics and cultural issues had nothing at all to do with what engaged at least some conservatives who joined the anti-Nichol faction. Your helpful post puts the reaction to the Wren cross incident into context for how that opposition unfolded in a way that I find much more reasonable that the oft heard blanket denials that politics had nothing whatsoever to do with the opposition to Nichol.
— Brendan '95 Mar 16, 01:21 AM #
Brendan, or should I say Max,
Perhaps you should review the following excerpt from definitions.uslegal.com:
“Libel is published material meeting three conditions:
1. the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; 2. the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, 3. the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published, as distinguished from slander.”If the shoe fits….
— 2428lp Mar 16, 03:00 AM #
Obviously, I am not Brendan (who has far more patience than I ever could).
As for the libel ridiculousness, I’d like to point out a few things. For example, that something has to be factually false to be libel.
Also, ironically, publicly accusing someone of a crime you know them to have not committed (such as libel) could be considered libel if damages can be proven. But I doubt very much any actual damages would come about from attacks by someone like “ljfo828”/“2428lp”/etc, a supposed “adult” too cowardly and childish to even use his or her own name while launching petty personal attacks and thuggish attempts at intimidation against a 23 year old undergraduate on a late Saturday night.
A final irony: By repeatedly posting provably false statements and making cowardly threats against anyone who disagrees with you, you have done nothing to disprove a single point in my column, but have in fact gone to great lengths to demonstrate the truth of one of my earliest points:
Vitriolic bloggers, often using multiple anonymous names to appear more numerous, waged a non-stop propaganda campaign. On Flathatnews.com alone, one such blogger posted 64 times under the name MacSuile, mostly personal attacks and misleading half-truths.
— Max Fisher Mar 16, 12:27 PM #
So Max, why is it that you want to ignore the question of wether there might be evidence showing that Nichols didn’t fare very well when his performance was objectively measured?
Don’t you think that might be an important thing to know before you assume that he was take down as a result of right wing politics?
— Guy Mar 16, 07:13 PM #
Dear All,
What a lovely exchange of ideas! I’m impressed with the civility, respect and tolerance shown by all. Max, of course, is a paragon of rational discourse with no ax to grind, no preconceived prejudices and no secret Nixonian “enemies” list. He makes mere paranoia seem like a step up towards sanity.
When Nichol took over we were promised a new, more open campus in which “inclusiveness” and “welcoming” were to be the norm. Gone were the days of “offensiveness” and stultifying divisiveness & disharmony.
So tell me, one and all: how’s that been working out for you? I’d say that if you were face to face and sharp implements were handy, there’d be blood on the floor within three minutes. Max might not begin the slaughter but he’d join in with relish. Is THIS the grand plan of Nicholism at W&M? Thank God for anonymity or you’d soon be egging each other’s houses (or worse).
Please, do tell. I can’t wait to hear your replies.
— observer Mar 17, 10:08 AM #
Brendan,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for actually hearing me out in what I had to say.
A couple of things:
1) You say “I think you’re underestimating how much of the anti-Nichol commentary took the form of ideological cheap shots from, as you put it, political hacks. But I suspect that we both know that we’ll probably never agree about that.” Actually, I do agree. There have been all sorts of yahoo postings on the Flat Hat site and on blogs of every political and religious stripe. Many have been extremely bad, and many cheap shots have been taken. However, SNBR has never engaged in any of it. We have been extremely careful to avoid making any political or religious arguments whatsoever. An examination of our documents will show that. So while I agree that this has been nasty (on both sides) we at SNBR have done our very best to remain objective. I think that is why the BOV decided we were not making political attacks.
2) You say “What I find annoying are the claims that politics and cultural issues had nothing at all to do with what engaged at least some conservatives who joined the anti-Nichol faction.” Again, you are probably correct that some people were opposed to Nichol on political grounds, just as it is quite clear that many supported Nichol on political grounds as well. Nichol’s views are very left-of-center, as is well-documented, and he was well-known over many years for politicizing everything. The Colorado Democratic Leadership Council (admittedly a moderate group of Democrats) disavowed Nichol’s approach and constant politicization and divisive approach to every issue. I find it annoying that many pro-Nichol people can keep a straight face while accusing Nichol opponents of being political while supporting a man who is, and always has been, a completely political animal.
I will say, again, that I am not much of a political animal myself. Our opposition to Nichol was founded upon the principles of good governance. We believe that Nichol had serious failings in the areas of integrity, administrative competence, respect for the history and traditions of William and Mary that are part of what make us unique, and in his ability to reach out to, and work effectively with, people with whom he disagrees. He’s just not good at it, and he showed a disconcerting unwillingness to learn from his mistakes and make the changes he needed to make in order to both support his own principles (which many of us shared) and to be a leader that successfully represented his entire constitutency.
I would welcome more intelligent conversations and actual debate of the issues than we have seen to date. It would give me some confidence that the liberal arts are alive and well at W&M.
Best,
Jim
— Jim Jones Mar 17, 11:37 AM #
“On the other is a small group of vicious, conservative alumni with a long history of political sub-terfuge, unified by hatred of Nichol and a Machiavellian willingness to take him down regardless of consequences for the College.”
Wait, count me in that group of vicious people!!1
— John R. Kennedy '08 Mar 18, 12:39 AM #
Max,is there any reason for this editorial? The whole Nichol saga is over and I think we can all agree that it’s in the best interests of the College to move forward from this. This editorial does nothing but to drag further out the controversy.
— Nick ('09) Mar 18, 03:13 PM #
Max,
If you love a president like Nichol so much, then why don’t you transfer to some place like Radford or Longwood. Men of his calibre are sometimes able to squeak into such institutions on the basis of a law degree from a second-tier law school. Nichol was an insecure and haughty wannabee who thought that playing theatric games with the cross and with sex shows would put him in the same league as the presidents of UC Berkeley and Stanford and Yale and such. He only succeeded in making the whole College look silly…REAL progressive universities went through this stuff 40 years ago. Nichol is the backward and unenlightened one. What’s more stifling and conservative than trying to imitate a state of affairs that prevailed at better universities in the distant past? Perhaps it’s my fault for not paying attention to the affairs of the College for so many years. How on earth did this guy get into a position to make such bone-headed and awkwardly anachronistic moves?
— m.tobin '89 Mar 21, 10:14 AM #