|
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 doubly damnedRegardless of whether you think it right for the Board of Visitors to have let former President Gene Nichol’s contract lapse, it failed in its task of stewardship. The BOV failed to articulate a doable job for the president and to accept the agenda which it demanded he set. If the BOV was right to let Nichol go, then in hiring the wrong man and working ineffectively with him, the BOV acted as a bad steward. If, by contrast, in Nichol’s ouster you see nothing but mammonism trumping the programs Nichol initiated and the good will he sowed, then, again, you are faced with a BOV that failed to represent your interests as a student, faculty member, staff member or alum. Thus, the BOV is doubly damned. If its decision to let Nichol go was right, then the BOV erred in hiring him. Picking the president is the most serious task the BOV undertakes, and it chose the wrong man. There was no doubt in hiring him because of his evident desire to forcefully act for students’ rights and diversity on campus. The BOV knew what it was getting itself into and did not have the courage to follow through on its decision. Much as it insisted on accountability from the president, so I insist on accountability for its mistake. The only foolproof way to prevent similar mismanagements will be to change the makeup of the BOV such that the College’s constituency can represent itself directly. If the BOV erred in letting Nichol’s contract lapse, you see in its decision a bungling of the College’s priorities tantamount to a violation of a sacred trust. Feeling that the BOV erred raises questions about their priorities. What is the work of the College president if not to nurture an environment in which money is simply the means to the ends of truth and reason? What are we to think of an effective president, championing the ideals of our College, who is cut down merely because he has not stayed the night often enough with our 100 most willing donors? What are we to think of a BOV that can find no other way to move the College forward than by relying on the president’s sole action? The BOV must take pause and consider that it has prioritized the pursuit of the College’s material wellbeing over the invaluable fruits of the open community Nichol fostered. There is, fortunately, ample precedent for ways to change the BOV to be more representative of its constituency. The simplest of these would be to change the way members are appointed. At Penn State, the governor appoints six members; the alumni appoint nine members; and their agricultural, business and industrial constituencies appoint 12. The University of Michigan’s Board of Regents is elected in a state-wide election. Though in the University of California system the governor appoints the Board of Regents, there is one voting student member appointed by the Regents. College BOV Rector Michael Powell said that the problem with having a student, faculty or staff voting member on the BOV would be that they should not be privy to the personnel decisions the BOV must make. Penn State offers a simple solution by adding the following clause to its Trustee’s bylaws, “No member of the Board of Trustees shall for personal gain or for the gain of others use any information not available to the public at large and obtained as a result of service to the University.” These are just a few of the many changes the BOV could make to prevent future damage like that which it recently inflicted. W.E.B. Du Bois said that, “The function of the university is not simply to teach bread-winning, or to furnish teachers for the public schools, or to be a centre of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, an adjustment which forms the secret of civilization.” The BOV has fallen from this work. It sacrificed inspiration, humanity and community to wealth’s pursuit. Only by dramatic structural change will I be convinced that it truly understands the priorities of this College. Daniel Souleles is a senior at the College. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
An awful lot of verbage just to say “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Life’s full of hard choices and that includes the BOV. And it was Nichol’s politicizing of his office that transformed their job into a high-wire balancing act. It’d be nice if they were shown something rarely seen in the FH: compassion. I don’t think Mr. Souleles even looked at their shoes, much less tried to walk a mile in them.
As for this statement: “[The Bov] sacrificed inspiration, humanity and community to wealth’s pursuit.” Easy to say when you have no responsibility for the grimey business of actually coming up with the means to allow pompous, wet-behind-the-ears college boys to use their newly acquired writing skills to spit gratuitous insults.
— owens Mar 21, 10:24 AM #
“Easy to say when you have no responsibility for the grimey business of actually coming up with the means to allow pompous, wet-behind-the-ears college boys to use their newly acquired writing skills to spit gratuitous insults.”
And this from you Owens? It must be even easier to spit gratuitous insults from the comforting hiding place of anonymity. It is your right of free speech to do so, no matter how gutless it may be perceived. This “talking dog” suggests that from deep within yourself, Owens, you cast your eyes outward, past the sparklers, and see the pretense and hypocricy of your statement.
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 21, 11:09 AM #
Arf, arf….grrr…arf(pant pant) – JRT
Why, yes, much easier – this is politics and politics is war. Every tool will be used. That’s a surprise to you? As for the morality: there’s a difference between being the initiator of an attack and defending against that attack. Why do liberals have such a hard time understanding this concept? Mr Souleles and yourself seem to think it’s perfectly fine to besmirch others yet somehow “unfair” if you receive some of your own medicine in return. I call it just rewards. Is it a revelation to you that if you go around slapping people you occasionally get slapped yourself? The BOV, sadly, have to sit and take this villification by you little piss-ants. That’s part of their job and they’ve done it with dignity and class. I, however, am not so constrained and can call a spade a spade.
— owens Mar 21, 12:36 PM #
Owens,
1. Thank you for noticing my, “writing skills.”
2. Contrary to your statement that, “you have no responsibility for the grimy business of actually coming up with the means to allow pompous, wet-behind-the-ears college boys to use their newly acquired writing skills to spit gratuitous insults,” I have worked for the last two and a half years as a student caller and then a supervisor in the call center of the Fund for William and Mary. This organization, under University Development, is dedicated to reaching out to alumni to raise money for research and needs based scholarship. To it I have given countless hours, and for it I have personally raised over $35,000.
3. As to compassion, this article attends my hope that what was worthwhile in Gene Nichol’s tenure will be present in the next president’s agenda. Nothing but my sincerest belief in an open community working towards common scholarly goals underscores every word of it. I hope this lends you a glimmer of what it’s like to be in my shoes.
— Daniel Souleles Mar 21, 03:35 PM #
Owens,
“there’s a difference between being the initiator of an attack and defending against that attack.”
So, just what was the preemptive attack that I supposedly unleashed upon you?
And just where and how have I supposedly vilified the BOV?
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 21, 04:04 PM #
I applaud your charitable efforts. And your second paragraph is a gem. Too bad you didn’t use the gist of it to replace the last three sentences of your article.
As to the BOV: first Nichol said they’d caved to right-wing political pressure, tried to bribe him and opposed his lofty diversity goals (implying they’d end without him). Then Barber called them liars to their faces. Now you say they “sacrificed inspiration, humanity and community”. All of that is grossly unfair. You and Barber have the excuse of passionate youth, not to mention being misled by your Svengali. Nichol’s statement, on the other hand, smacks of deception for political purposes and self-aggrandizement. Let’s hope that part of his legacy will NOT be present in the next President’s agenda.
— owens Mar 21, 04:17 PM #
JR – Souless attacked the BOV, I defended them, you joined in on his side. I admit I’m a smart-ass, if that’s what you are getting at. But the BOV do not deserve this opprobrium. I’ve about heard all I can stand of the legacy of Saint Nichol. The BOV is hardly a right-wing cabal and it’s about time they were treated with civility and maybe some respect too. If they erred it was primarily during the selection of Nichol. Is my defense of them civil or respectful of those who attack them? Not in the least. (Happy?) But as I did not start this and I’m fighting back with weapons THEY chose, my conscience is clear.
— owens Mar 21, 05:16 PM #
Owen,
Nice try but you didn’t answer the questions.
You authored the “talking dog” slur long before this particular forum. I ask again, just what was the preemptive attack that I supposedly unleashed upon you back then?
Merely opining that spitting out gratuitous insults is easier when done from the cheap seats of anonymity, a point that you agreed with, was hardly an attack upon the BOV. So I ask again, just where and how have I supposedly vilified the BOV?
I would like for your conscience to be clear on these items too, so could you please document my alleged transgressions without spin or obfuscation?
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 21, 06:05 PM #
I agree that the BOV was wrong either in hiring or firing this joker. (It was the former, not the latter.)
Good luck in changing the means of selection of the BOV. I would love to see constituents (especially alumni) have their voices considered more, but I’m going to predict nothing changes in the Virginia Statehouse.
— Kevin Eberle '92 Mar 22, 10:21 AM #
A poor attempt at humor? If you wish to disassociate yourself from Mr Souless, then I take it back and apologize. I thought you were on his team.
Besides, with a name like Jack Russell you’ve never had “terrier” appeneded to your last name before? You must be tired of that lame joke. Sophomoric, unoriginal and weak it is, but a “slur”? Methinks thou doth protest too much. How many “Owens” jokes are there?: “Owen to the fact that you’re here, we can assume [fill in the laugh line]”. Every Owen or Owens in the world has heard that about 10,000 times.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t take all this Nichol adoration with anything but scorn. And I have to struggle to elevate it to that level. He was nothing but a rather ordinary politician from Colorado, complete with a history of scandals and chicanery typical of that breed. Then he lands this job at W&M, screws up, tells a few sad fibs about his supposed “enemies”, and now he’s some kind of martyr. I can understand how the students accepted that bull about his invisible right-wing opponents. But you’d have thought the Sullivan email (which exposed him as a fraud) would have ended his saint status. Then comes his wonderful, nutty resignation by vitriolic email. If Nichol had asked me for advice on how to resign I could not have come up with a better plan than the one he concocted. (I, who readily and proudly admit to being his political enemy, would want him to ruin his reputation and also help his kool-aid drinking followers awaken from their trance.) I’d have advised him to resign in a snit, write an email accusing the mostly liberal BOV of being involved in a right-wing conspiracy & attmpted bribery, and claim to have been the author of every liberal initiative the College has ever produced. He came damn close to doing exactly that WITHOUT my “help”.
Yet his deluded zombies are still walking around singing his praises! It’s a real head-scratcher, unless it’s true that W&M students are no longer taught to think for themselves. It’s as if they were Borg and somebody had cut them off from the Collective. It’s astounding, sad and disgusting all at the same time. Thank God the skin-heads or the KKK didn’t get there first, or we’d have a worse problem. Is the mind of the average W&M student that weak and malleable? I have to assume those allowed to publish in the FH are the smarter ones. If that’s true, God help us.
— owens Mar 22, 02:43 PM #
It’s worth noting, Owens, that this column goes out of its way to allow for the assumption that Nichol was poorly suited as president. It’s actually a remarkably fair-minded and cool-headed analysis of the BOV with respect for the possibility that Nichol may have been a good or bad president.
Dan, like many of the very bright students here on campus, is deliberately analyzing the state of the College outside of his particular feelings for Nichol’s presidency. The first priority of students on campus is the well-being of the College, not petty fighting about every little policy Nichol ever put his hand to. Dan is looking forward to evaluate how best to form the future of a university that, while great, obviously has some problems to deal with.
Personally, I find this pretty damn encouraging. I’m proud to belong to a community with people like Dan, who is willing to put the well-being of the whole ahead of his own personal feelings and — despite having the misfortune to live in a world full of people like you, vicious, petty and full of vitriol for anyone, like Dan, brave enough to unify rather than divide — who wants only to further the collective good and not any personal political agenda.
That’s leadership. That’s character. There’s nothing “astounding, sad and disgusting” about leadership and character but the anonymous cowards selfish enough to hate him for it.
— Max Fisher Mar 22, 05:20 PM #
Owen,
Nope, still an F for your reply. You have not and cannot find a single example of me “attacking” you nor an example of me vilifying the BOV to substantiate your “there’s a difference between being the initiator of an attack and defending against that attack” rationalization. Pure hypocrisy on your part and no courage to admit it.
A couple of simple questions were all that I asked. And you replied with more of your hackneyed rehash of your perceptions of Mr. Nichol. You wrote a check that you simply cannot cover.
As for the terrier or talking dog stuff, could I maybe accept it as a “poor attempt at humor?” Sure if it hadn’t been for all the other barbs and criticisms included in your earlier March post. Look, I could care less what you say to me and I know you couldn’t say it to me in person. It’s the hypocrisy of your statement, the rationalization you use to reach your clear conscience, and your choice to shout from anonymity that renders your points forgettable and immaterial to the discussions. You simply want it both ways. It really has nothing to do with “He touched me first, Mommy!” It’s anyone that mentions any point you happen to disagree with that becomes fair game for your “every tool will be used” rubbish. You seem to have confused civil discourse with politics and then equated that to war.
I think this exchange between you and me has migrated toward the “Electronic Mob Mentality” forum. Several folks there have raised the valid points that anonymity is important to allow people to say things they wouldn’t be comfortable saying otherwise. In that light, anonymity enriches free speech. However when anonymity simply empowers the weak to snipe, insult, mock, or attack then we lose civil discourse. In the former example anonymity allows some to say things they wouldn’t otherwise say. The latter example facilitates some to say things they COULDN’T say in person or write with attribution. I think, by analogy, it’s all a bit like body language; if you won’t look me in the eye when you say something then I do not think you to be forthright.
We are done, Owen.
— Jack Russell '72, '77 Mar 22, 05:52 PM #
Can’t we all just get along? Let’s move past this most unfortunate chapter of The College’s history and begin rebuilding the value of our degrees that have been so severely eroded by these unbelievable series of messes.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of many of you, I would encourage you all to send letters the to the following address requesting that he consider stepping in and returning our school to its place of prominence:
Dr. Robert M. Gates (W&M ’64)
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
He has a strong resume. He seemed to do a pretty solid job of building Texas A&M to where it is today and maybe he would be willing to return to the ‘burg as he will likely have some time on his hands come this time next year…
— Wingfield '93 Mar 23, 12:37 AM #
Bob Gates would be an excellent choice for President, but he is not particularly liberal. By appointing him, the BOV would be accused of kowtowing to conservatives, no matter how good a candidate Gates might be. Thus I would not hold my breath, Wingfield.
In terms of the BOV’s failure, remember that they were quite sold on the candidate, Mr. Nichol. Nichol had the support of Tim Sullivan, and the enthusiastic support of Rector Susan Magill and others on the search committee (remember, he is extremely personally engaging), and was on the list of candidates presented by Isaacson-Miller, the search firm that the Board chose to use. When the candidates visited campus, Nichol was reportedly the darling of the faculty and the students. The Board leans liberal, and Nichol was certainly politically simpatico, so what would you expect the Board to do? Despite what Daniel says, I am not at all convinced that the Board had really done enough research to know what they were getting, despite claims to the contrary.
Tim Sullivan must have believed that Nichol would be an excellent president to which he could hand over W&M in good conscience. He was Nichol’s friend and mentor.
Nichol’s “thank you” to Sullivan was, in the end, to put Sullivan in a very bad situation. After Nichol told Austin Wright of The Flat Hat that he hadn’t known of the lost donation until it hit the papers, the Nichol administration closed ranks and no information got out. Nichol invoked his FOIA exemption when The Flat Hat asked for e-mails concerning McGlothlin between Sullivan and Nichol in December 2006.
In my briefings to the BOV on behalf of SNBR in July and September of 2007, of which The Flat Hat had copies, there was a key e-mail from Jim McGlothlin to me which stated that McGlothlin had written Nichol in December of 2006 to express his unhappiness over the cross removal and of Nichol’s leadership. He attached that letter, and it should have been obvious to anyone that read it that there was big trouble in River City. McGlothlin further told me in that e-mail that he had made it clear to Tim Sullivan in December that the donation was being pulled. That information was a complete surprise to SNBR. We did not believe that McGlothlin would say something that wasn’t true, and we were also confident that Sullivan, whom we have always felt is extremely responsible, would NEVER have withheld such information from Nichol and would instead have told him immediately. We suggested to the Board that they confirm with Sullivan what really happened and what (and when) he told Nichol. I don’t know if the Board did that or not, but after Nichol told Austin Wright he had not known about it, The Flat Hat apparently decided it was worth following up with McGlothlin and Sullivan to see if there was more to the story.
Sullivan was really put on the spot by Nichol. Sullivan tried his best to stay out of the whole thing, but in the end he was forced into making a statement. Even then he said only that he had done his best to tell the College everything he knew, as clearly as possible, as soon as he knew it, and the College, not him, should be the party that released whatever information there was. Nichol made it so that Sullivan was the only person who could keep the wheels from coming off the car. If Sullivan said nothing, then no one could prove that Nichol knew. It was a fine choice that Nichol gave his friend: Sullivan could choose to defend himself and implicate Nichol outright (which Sullivan has too much class to do), to lie and say nothing happened (another thing Sullivan has too much class to do), or to say he dropped the ball and come across as a complete idiot who found out about a critical problem and failed to pass on the information. Some choice. Sullivan’s statement was the best of a bunch of very unattractive options.
The Flat Hat then spoke to Jim McGlothlin, and he went on record confirming that he had made it all clear.
With both Sullivan and McGlothlin having spoken to the press, Nichol’s excuse of preserving confidentiality was gone. The only party to the transaction who needed confidentiality was Nichol himself. Once the e-mail was forced out, it became clear why Nichol had claimed a FOIA exemption. The e-mail was staggering. To this day, I cannot understand how anyone reading it could continue to support Nichol. Even Max Fisher wasn’t buying it, and said so.
Sullivan’s e-mail of December, 2006, is clearly urgent. Sullivan wrote from London to warn Nichol of a serious problem that needed immediate attention. Sullivan, I think we can agree, did not mince words, nor was he the slightest bit unclear. He also assumed Nichol knew exactly what he was talking about. Nichol claimed confusion, but whatever Nichol thought Sullivan had meant, he did nothing about it, which is, again, totally appalling. And to say that he had no idea of any problems until the story broke in the papers in February is simply beyond belief.
The e-mail was also very revealing in terms of what sort of leader Nichol was. As you can see in the e-mail, Sullivan had offered to make himself available to Nichol at any time to help him with anything he could. In the e-mail, Sullivan was clearly surprised, and probably offended as well, that Nichol had never called him about anything, even ONCE, since Nichol had assumed office. That is clear evidence of major arrogance on Nichol’s part. He simply didn’t need anyone’s help.
Nichol, on several occasions, said he was still “learning how to be a College president,” and yet he never asked his friend, mentor, predecessor, and sponsor for advice? That ought to send up red flags for everyone. I am sure it did for the BOV. What sort of person gets a new job that they don’t know how to do, and is lucky enough to have their highly-esteemed predecessor and friend there to help them whenever they need it, and through all the trouble, never calls EVEN ONCE?
SNBR was annoyed that the Board didn’t fire Nichol for cause after the Sullivan e-mail emerged. I honestly think that the Board really wanted Nichol to succeed, and they supported him until they could no longer do so. In the end, they took many months to be sure they did a fair assessment, and to ensure that everyone had their say. Right up until the end, they thought Nichol would be professional about everything. As we saw, he wasn’t. As was the case with most of Nichol’s previous actions, Nichol’s last official action also came as a complete surprise to the Board.
In the end, the Board took action to correct the mistake they had made, knowing that it would be painful, but knowing that it had to be done.
— Jim Jones Mar 23, 08:51 PM #
Without concern for conservative or liberal, I would just like to see someone competent and with a positive track record to replace the void that has been created. Even in the latest communication from the BOV (3/21/08) states that “The Board takes seriously its responsibility to evaluate the President of the College in his capacity as
the chief executive officer of this institution.”
The lack of resume and suspect history that Nichol brought to the college must not be repeated. The most basic research done with Wikipedia would have shown – Nichol’s tenures at both Colorodo and UNC were disastrous).
Wikipedia excerpts from 2007 (taken prior to all of the most recent hubbub clearly details his history:
“Gene R. Nichol is the twenty-sixth president of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. An American public administrator who succeeded Timothy J. Sullivan to become the 26th president of the College of William and Mary in July 2005,
Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree from the University of Texas. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 and dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995 after which the Colorado Law School almost lost its American Bar Association accreditation{Colorado Daily}. Both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Law Schools suffered a major drop in their US News and World Report ratings while Nichol served as dean and neither have recovered to where they were when he arrived {US News and World Report Law School Rankings}.”
We need someone (regardless of label) who can get W&M back to credibility. Gates has proven that he is capable – despite being liberal, conservative, or a purple Martian.
— Wingfield '93 Mar 24, 07:11 AM #
RT – You win. I’m a petty smart-ass on the low-road, you’re on the high road. Sue me.
“It’s [Souless’ article] actually a remarkably fair-minded and cool-headed analysis of the BOV” – Max Fisher
“[the BOV] sacrificed inspiration, humanity and community to wealth’s pursuit” – Souless
Sure Max. And when Barber read a definition of lying from the Honor Code and then asked the BOV if they were “misrepresenting themselves”, she was just trying to get on their good side.
It’s not as if these insults were subtle or cleverly crafted. Again – the BOV, a mostly liberal group, have reaffirmed all Nichol’s goals that you hold so dear. The three philosoply professors, victims of a Nichol/Strikwerda vendetta, are also mostly liberal (and atheist). When are you Nichol zombies going to wake up? The man was a POLITICIAN and egotist, nothing more. All your slavish devotion proves is that, Rasputin-like, he continues to command a following. Is the BOV system perfect? Hardly. But they managed to find Sullivan, didn’t they? The failings Souleles sees are more the result of an misfit, incompetent President determined to do as much harm to the College and the BOV as he could during his departure. I’ve never said Nichol was stupid. He was successful at catching the BOV off guard and striking them hard when they least expected it.
Again, from Powell’s email to Nichol on Feb 11th: “If you have ideas in that regard or there are ways to modify the proposal we provided I hope you will reach out to me, or John or with whomever you are comfortable. I am sure we can accommodate any of your concerns. I empathize with the difficulty of the choices you all must sort through. I encourage you to talk with those you trust to give sound advice and give this the time you need to work it out.”
What part of these statements are fuzzy, unkind or threatening?: “there are ways to modify the proposal” and “I am sure we can accomodate any of your concerns”. I see an outstretched hand of compassion, accomodation and concern. It was an offer to negotiate. Nichol saw weakness and an opportunity to stab them in the back while their guard was down. What followed was an uproar on campus as students and faculty reacted to false charges of bribery, caving to political pressure and abandonment of diversity programs. All lies.
Yet Souleles thinks the BOV needs to be reformed as everything was their fault!? I think his article is a waste of intellectual capital that would have been better spent analyzing how a low-life politician and ingrate abused his office, the BOV, the students, the faculty and the College community as a whole.
As a conservative, I can’t believe I even bother to come on this website and defend two liberal-dominated groups: the BOV and the philosophy professors. I should just let you folks continue to commit fratricide and gloat silently. However, there are aspects of TRUE liberalism that I admire, for example: the defense of truth and the unwillingness to go along with the mob. Those two groups have shown great courage and determination to hold fast to what is right, despite risk to their public standing and in some cases their careers. Souleles, Fisher, Barber, Piepenbring, and others have shown the student body, whom I presume they represent, to be little more than just such a mob. It’s disheartening and disturbing.
— owens Mar 24, 12:05 PM #