<p>I'm wondering what current students might think about this? What's the reaction on campus?</p>
<p>Here is a link to President Nichol's resignation letter:</p>
<p>Letter</a> from Gene Nichol about his resignation - News - inRich.com</p>
<p>For the most part, furious. There's a protest this afternoon, another one this evening, and a sit-in tomorrow. Student groups in support of Nichol have launched a media war as well. Facebook groups and events are buzzing with activity.</p>
<p>Students have been a core of support for Nichol over the last two years, and the reaction on campus reflects that.</p>
<p>This sucks. I was seriously considering W+M (of course I have to get in first), but now...not quite as much.</p>
<p>I believe this has much potential upside for Wm & Mary. </p>
<p>While not necessarily a bad thing to be affectionately considered among the student body, that is not his primary audience. A university president's job is principally elsewhere. W&M needs to be about the business of raising mega-dollars if the College is to be competitive and a leader. As the former president himself noted, the College needs $, altho his answer appeared to point toward the VA legislature. It seems some of his most visible decisions chose to ignore the public who feed him while at the same time asking for larger portions of the trough. He seems to have had some genuine strengths, political and fundraising savvy not among them.</p>
<p>Whatever, will be interesting to watch how this continues to go down. Imo, the Board assessed the situation rightly, and did what they are appointed to do. All generations of students believe this is part of their purview.</p>
<p>I disagree. Nichol's fundraising efforts were quite adequate, save the overly emphasized $12 million revocation of McGlothlin's pledge. Yes, a few alumni withdrew donations over the Wren Cross, but Nichol is right in saying that "our values are not for sale." It is also true that McGlothlin's actions spurred other donors who supported Nichol's decision to contribute more to the College. I would remind you that the Campaign for William & Mary reached it's half-billion dollar goal early under Nichol's leadership even without McGlothlin's support.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would point out that today's students are tomorrow's alumni. To say they are not his primary audience is short-sighted at best.</p>
<p>mkt16a17 - there is no reason to change your view of WM because the current President was not rehired. Do you change your mind about the US when the current President is not reelected?</p>
<p>I have heard complaints from students about the BOV making decisions that don't affect them, like the students should be the ones making the decisions. Please. The students were very involved in the hiring process 3 years ago, which unfortunately yielded a final group of 5 that were less than stellar, IMO (including one candidate who was going to live in PA while he was President).</p>
<p>Nichol finished the fundraising campaign that was gaining huge success under the leadership of Timmy J, in spite of losing a $12 million pledge. Honestly, I have no stake in the Cross controversy. I couldn't care less about the thing, I just don't think it was ok for him to make unilateral decisions. Where is the new fundraising campaign? We want more money from the General Assembly. Great. But the bulk of WM funding comes from private sources, and we must remember that.</p>
<p>Nichol was met with open arms by the student body 2.5 years ago. The enthusiasm for Timmy J carried right over, and he benefited from this approval. Then, things started going bad. He is a failed politician, and we knew that when we brought him in. He discovered a place that he could use as his laboratory, and thought he was the final arbiter. As it turns out, he was not.</p>
<p>Daily life at the College will not change after Nichol's departure. Students will still go to class, challenge each other, and learn for tomorrow. Brilliant professors will lead engaging discussions that are found on few other campus across America.</p>
<p>Today's students are tomorrow's alumni. To say that you won't give to the College because of this decision reeks of shame. You do not care that the next generation has the same opportunity that you had? If you don't want to give to a general WM fund, that's fine. Give to something you participated in on campus that helped make your time at WM. Give to your department. Give to an EC. However, I have heard people today say they will never give money, and that is a very ignorant decision to make.</p>
<p>I expect the BOV will be setting up a timetable to find a replacement, which probably means a couple years. Hopefully they will do the job better this time than last time. That said, Nichol has brought a lot of positives to WM. He was a huge supporter of student athletes (WM is one of the few schools that encourages athletes to be students as well). He increased diversity, among the students and staff at the College. The problem is he brought a lot of baggage with him. Baggage that ultimately, was too much to handle. Rest assured in 30 years, he will not be listed among the greats who have graced William and Mary with their presence.</p>
<p>Also, he did not finish out his contract. When a US President doesn't get re-elected, they don't quit in November. He sent his last email to the student body with parting words, and cheap shots. BTW, he will still stay on as faculty at the Law School.</p>
<p>What's the big deal? When I was in school the president was Tom Graves. I never once met or saw the man. Why is the president all of a sudden so important to the students? IMO, the job is so unimportant to the every day student's life as to be meaningless.</p>
<p>Thank you for your posting, soccerguy. Caught up in my daughter's emotion, I too was upset at his resignation. Immediate resignation is NOT putting forth the best interests in the university nor it's students. Let's hope the BOV finds new leadership in a reasonable amount of time.</p>
<p>I agree. If he really cared about the students above all else, he wouldn't have made such an ass of himself by resigning immediately and sending out a rambling email to make excuses.</p>
<p>Well said soccerguy and namtrag, though I'd be quite surprised if really the "students were very involved in the hiring process ..." Represented among the committee, perhaps a student spot on the BOV? Absolutely, no doubt, politically correct, nice for the other comm members to hear the students' view. But tell us when the say so of students ever got a president hired, fired ... or even vetoed? Perhaps in the proverbial blue moon. For the most part though, never. </p>
<p>If in fact Mr. Nichol was so lovingly embraced by his students, that simply suggests, while very nice and useful in keeping the campus quiet, that his time was sorely misguided. He was not hired to be a super dean of students. And when a college pres ever thinks she is the final arbiter on matters such as those Nichol chose to do battle over, well she either doesn't understand the job description and to whom she answers or she has decided to trip on her sword and die on the dumbest hill on a campus. At the very least he would be a slam dunk to convict as guilty of amazingly poor judgement.</p>
<p>In the end you said it well. He was the ultimate failed politico, (buffoon comes to mind), deluded that the myth of "academic freedom" somehow extended to him and covered his ridiculous decisions. His primary roles include raising money from the privates and raising money from the legislature, all of whom are elected by the public that he believed he could do without and essentially thumb his nose at. Sadly, his tenure will become an incredulous footnote in the storied history of this great place. </p>
<p>And his final mea culpa, sending out his letter, well that's nothing short of silly and childish, portrayed somehow as heroic or high-minded. He'd have better used that notion in hosting a lecture on the vast meanings of morality, tradition, and common sense.</p>
<p>The good news is that for the most part, maybe aside from an occasional fireside chat or tea and crumpets with the pres, students won't have a clue who's sitting in the oval office. Life will go on as it has for centuries at Wm & Mary, which imo merits far superior leadership than has been delivered of late. </p>
<p>And yes, alumni-to-be threats are nearly as immature rationale as the kissmyyouknowwhat letter of the ex-pres. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, somehow hoping that one's decision to NOT support the alma mater, hoping for its destruction or at least diminishment, makes any sense. Sorta like burning your bra and then wondering why the guys think you're flat-chested and hairy-legged. The only difference is that they are to be expected from 20 year olds who think they should hire and fire the College's major lobbyist/fund-raiser. </p>
<p>However their student loyalty to the only leader they've ever known is laudable, even if he was leading down a dirt road.</p>
<p>One final thought ... ANY day a president is responsible for losing a $12 million already made commitment, well, that's not "adequate." Not at all. For what reason? Are you kidding? And especially at a public institution where that type of gift is not merely "another $12 million ho hum gift." Clearly Wm & Mary's endowment reflects that while they are indeed strong, they aren't in the same league with their peer institutions, especially on a per capita basis. And a meager 25% alumni giving rate and being ranked 111th in "Financial Resources" among top national universities (2007 US News) lends clear, obvious direction about what needs to be done if Wm&Mary is to enhance its academic capacity and reputation. Raise private bucks. And there will be zero miracles coming from the legislature, although Nichol was clear to point his finger in that direction, suggesting that despite his do-as-I-darn-please approach to highly volatile issues, the public somehow owed his college more. Seems he should have been pointing it in the 180 deg opposite direction, if he really wanted to make a difference. No chance of that now.</p>
<p>update: the inside track to the Presidency is held by the interim appointment. The Dean of the Law School was one of the 5 finalists 3 years ago, and I believe the runner up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
though I'd be quite surprised if really the "students were very involved in the hiring process ..." Represented among the committee, perhaps a student spot on the BOV? Absolutely, no doubt, politically correct, nice for the other comm members to hear the students' view. But tell us when the say so of students ever got a president hired, fired ... or even vetoed? Perhaps in the proverbial blue moon. For the most part though, never.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The committee reached a final 5 candidates, and they were each brought to campus. There was a session for each of them where they talked to the students, and fielded questions from anyone who wanted to ask. After the sessions, students could fill out comment cards, that I assure you were read. After the last discussion, students who attended 4 or 5 of the sessions were invited to give overall feedback in retrospect, and rank the candidates. While surely not carrying large weight, the views of the student body were taken into account as much as could be asked, and surely more than was necessary.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing specifics. </p>
<p>Do you know anything about the law school dean? What makes you think he/she has inside track. Wasn't one lawyer one too many? jk</p>
<p>Seems to me a fresh start could be beneficial unless they can get a transition guy.</p>
<p>What, if any, changes can the college anticipate? Reading his resignation letter, he outlines four points:</p>
<p>Wren Chapel Cross
Sex Workers Art Show
More diversity in faculty
Gateway: more diverse student body including those that bring in Pell Grants.</p>
<p>Anyone see the diversity factor changing? Is the VA legislature trying to impact even more conservatism? UVA is conservative enough. Why daughter chose W&M.</p>
<p>Who knows about the diversity thing. Probly depends upon lots of things including budget. That is a very expensive lunch, and when other things are "tight", well it's fair to assume that will not necessarily remain the highest of priorities for the ensuing leadership. Guaranteed the campus motto won't be "damn the torpedoes ... stay the course!" </p>
<p>Suspect you can answer your own question #2. This "conversation" would not be happening if the funders, public, legislature and powers-that-be thought all was kopesetic (sp?).</p>
<p>My son's a senior at the Naval Academy and the leadership there changes on a yearly basis and in the end, it really doesn't make much difference. He went through his four years, got his first choice for service selection and will be graduated and commissioned in three short months. The basic day to day for the W&M student shouldn't change and in the end, they'll still get what they came for (a degree) regardless of who the president of the college is.</p>
<p>My D went to William and Mary believing that there was a place for quirky kids. Until the restrictions placed on the SWAS (yes, it was allowed to go on, but with several contractual limitations according to her) she has been happy with the environment. She's pleased with the diversity of her freshman dorm---reading of even the recent past, it seems like that would not have been the case even a few years ago. I hope the new president will be as right-minded at Nichols, but more able to be effective. It would be the best thing for the College.</p>
<p>I used to work for the president of a small college, whose favorite joke was about the college president who died and went to hell and it was three days before he knew the difference. It's a tough gig.</p>
<p>I was in basic agreement with Nichols' decisions on the controversial issues he outlines in his letter. But he was clearly lacking the social and political skills to be effective. Failure to build consensus means failure, as the current US president could tell you if he was smart enough to see it, which he apparently is not.</p>
<p>I would have to respectfully disagree, having read and listened to a number of people of influence who found his decisions, not merely his demeanor and strange strategies, off the beam. This was more than political acumen, i.e. the capacity to sell strange decisions. It would appear that this was public outcry of enuff. Not in this public sandbox.</p>