<p>Just not students protesting. Proffessors are canceling classes as well. My daughter has no class tomorrow.
Like smdur, my daughter chose W&M partial for it's quirkiness. She's truly afraid many things at the school COULD change with different leadership.</p>
<p>William and Mary will be quirky no matter who is in charge.</p>
<p>I wonder how the president became so important to everyone since I was there. I always assumed he was just a fundraising figurehead.</p>
<p>Every paying customer ought to be darn mad. You're being ripped off. It's being called "Thankful Thursday! We all get to sleep in and have a free day to goof off. THANK YOU faculty!" Ah, what a moving moment. </p>
<p>You're on the money namtrag. Nichol had zilch to do with that reality. Nor will his departure. Oh, I almost forgot. He's not departing. He didn't feel so strongly about his principles that he resigned his tenure, that he'd been sure was there BEFORE he ever accepted the job. Oh no. He'll just sit in the back row for awhile and chuck spitballs. Count on it. What an idealistic fellow.</p>
<p>As a student I am more angry about the unilateral decision of the BOV to dismiss the president without consultation from students or faculty than I am about Nichol actually leaving. Sure it is the BOV's place to decide on whether or not to renew the contract of the President but it should also be there responsibility to hold civilized discussion among the community on the issue. Michael Powell's email in response to Nichol's only aggravated the community further by denying the fact that he was dismissed on ideological grounds without giving any reasons for his dismissal. It had a holier-than-thou attitude to it by not citing any reasons and comments such as:</p>
<p>"Our sacred stewardship and full insight into the affairs of the College convinced us change was necessary to advance the best interests of the College. We understand the sense of loss and will work hard to heal all wounds."</p>
<p>Here Powell seems to invoke divine right in the board's ruling and seems to be saying: trust us, we know better than you. In addition, even though it may be a bit early, so far no steps have been made in order to "heal all wounds." If anything the campus is in even more turmoil.</p>
<p>The BOV released a statement last fall about the review process. They asked for input from alumni, faculty and friends of the College. Nichol approved of this review process, I might add, and welcomed it. </p>
<p>Board</a> issues statement on review process | University Relations</p>
<p>The BOV is trying to let Nichol go graciously by not speaking out against him. It just wouldn't be professional. However, Nichol did not choose the same road. Much of Nichol's statement was inflammatory and downright false. I very much felt that he was trying to incite chaos and division by playing on students emotions. He was not let go for any of the controversial issues he cited, and the College has been assured they will continue to bring diversity and the Gateway Program, etc. </p>
<p>Furthermore it is common to receive severance packages for transition purposes. If he chooses to call it hush money or a bribe, again, he is choosing to inflame the situation and that is certainly not in W&M's best interest.</p>
<p>I was aware of the BOV's review process however I don't consider establishing an new email address exactly encouraging civilized discussion. On top of that, the BOV should still release their reasoning for his dismissal. If it was the fall in rankings or his inability to properly garner monetary support they should say so.</p>
<p>They have. </p>
<p>The</a> Flat Hat: BOV came to unanimous consensus, planned to work toward 'graceful' exit</p>
<p>“The weaknesses we found in executive skills were costing us,” Powell said in a telephone interview. “At the end of the day we felt we couldn’t make enough progress without making a change.”</p>
<p>That is the only line that I could see having anything to do with any sort of reasoning. Executive skills however accounts for anything and everything related to the office of presidency so I would not consider that response as anything besides a blanket statement saying that they were dissatisfied with his performance yet refuse to specify exactly what they were dissatisfied with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The law school dean was one of the 5 finalists 3 years ago, along with the education dean. Promoting in this way will make it unnecessary for the BOV to pursue a national search, which would take multiple years. However, I have also heard that the law school dean has emailed saying he is returning to that position after a replacement is found.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wren Chapel Cross
Sex Workers Art Show
More diversity in faculty
Gateway: more diverse student body including those that bring in Pell Grants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cross: Powell said in his email that the current situation of the Cross will not be changed.</p>
<p>Sex Workers Art Show: whatever. This was funded by student fees, and not under the Presidents discretion. It is not an issue at all, but became an issue with all the other things going on. There's no outcry that George Mason hosted it, because they didn't already have controversy to build on.</p>
<p>Diversity in Faculty: I don't think they will fire anyone. While diversity is a good thing, is it ok if quality suffers?</p>
<p>Gateway: The BOV is in full support of the Gateway program and wants to make it endowed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She's [My D] pleased with the diversity of her freshman dorm
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there's no other way to put it. WM is mostly white and upper middle class. Letting in 20 more black people per year does not magically make WM more diverse. All I noticed for more than a month my first year was how white the campus was. Know what? It's still white.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>THIS!</p>
<p>
[quote]
She's truly afraid many things at the school COULD change with different leadership.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Things will not change. Nichol did not make William and Mary what it is. The talented student body makes WM what it is. There have been many presidents before Nichol, and there will be many after. This school was not completely different under Timmy J.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a student I am more angry about the unilateral decision of the BOV to dismiss the president without consultation from students or faculty than I am about Nichol actually leaving
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's funny, you mean like moving something on campus that has been in place for 50 years without consulting students or faculty? This decision falls under the BOV's control, and they will decide what they please. There is no need for them to discuss with the public, however, they welcomed public input into the discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michael Powell's email in response to Nichol's only aggravated the community further by denying the fact that he was dismissed on ideological grounds without giving any reasons for his dismissal. It had a holier-than-thou attitude to it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Powell responded tactfully, as one would expect in this situation. You have to read what he wrote. He wrote that it wasn't one thing, [read: it was many things] and that it wasn't ideology [read: it was the actions taken surrounding the ideology]. There was an offer on the table for both sides to leave peacefully and move on, and Nichol refused. He aired his dirty laundry to everyone, with his "I know what's better for the campus than you do" attitude. "These are the things I did, but no one else likes them." I don't know where he decided the hatred about the Gateway program came from, because I have heard nothing of the sort. He quotes Jefferson like he his the only one who can comprehend the American icon. And this... is this acknowledgment of a failure: "I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise."? I moved too fast and didn't care enough about things. That is... bad, right? I'm sure we all agree on that.</p>
<p>Diversity isn't just black and white. Economic diversity; religious, national and international.</p>
<p>And though I don't watch him, understand Bill O'Reilly is getting his cheap shots in at university's expense.</p>
<p>Soccerguy, I actually mentioned the unilateral decision because the BOV is presumably firing Nichol for making the very same kinds of decisions. Sure it is the BOV's decision to hire/fire the president. This is a replay of the the Wren Cross Scandal and we don't need that. We don't know the reasons that they used for his firing. Powell, by not giving any reasons and only saying it was not on ideological grounds makes it seem to a lot of people that it actually was on ideological grounds. And I'd like you to know that I have no particular allegiance to Nichol, I don't care about his tenure, I'm angry with the way the BOV has conducted themselves. Powell's letter was rushed and shoddy, it was arrogant and unclear, he stated reasons that were apparently not used in the dismissal but none that were.</p>
<p>Please correct me....did the board not renew his contract? Not terminate it?</p>
<p>Amazing the amount of press this is generating. Everyone has their opinion though most have no connection to the school whatsoever.</p>
<p>Nichol's contract was not renewed. The BOV hoped he would serve the rest of his term (June 20, 2008), but he chose to abruptly resign. The BOV was surprised by the announcement as well. Powell was informed shortly before Nichol released his statement, hence, the rushed reply.</p>
<p>I might also add that the BOV must be very careful in what they release about his nonrenewal. According to someone who knows employment contract law, they could open themselves to legal action. Nichol, being a lawyer, knows this. The BOV is considering coming to campus to answer questions and they are trying to be as open as they can be, but to release specifics could endanger any future chances for Nichol's employment as well as open the College to legal action. The BOV does not wish to do that, but it appears that Nichol and his supporters are forcing them into exactly that situation. Unfortunate indeed.</p>
<p>I must admit that I am not well versed in employment contract law however I still can not see how giving the criteria used for the decision to not renew his contract can be construed as illegal. If the reasons are valid and Nichol indeed failed to meet certain goals/criteria shouldn't it be the right of the paying public (students as well as taxpayers) to know exactly which goals/criteria he failed to meet?</p>
<p>I am happy that the SA has invited the BOV to come to campus to hold an open forum on the issue and I have submitted the question that I have been asking here all along. I acknowledge the right of the Board of Visitors to make the final decision on issues concerning the College but with something as controversial as this I think the best way for the college to return to a united state would be to be transparent about the decision. I feel that the BOV has handled this situation as improperly as many view that President Nichol handled the Wren Cross scandal. Surely they don't HAVE to discuss the matter any further but I believe that if they want what's best for the College they will address the students, faculty, and public openly and thoroughly. Accepting the SA's invitation would be a very good way of doing this and it would put aside many feelings students have towards the BOV, mainly the feeling that the BOV pays no mind to the concerns of the student body.</p>
<p>Finally, does anyone know if Nichol's contract with the BOV is in public record? Were there any consequences for him in breaking his contract and are there any clauses that specifically point out that if his contract were not to be renewed the BOV could not discuss the reasoning for their decision.</p>
<p>I have no idea if it is public record, and I understand why some feel that the BOV acted in secrecy. Again, I think they have refrained from making any public comments on Nichol's shortcomings because they did not wish to hinder his chances for future employment. Those feelings may have changed, only time will tell. I agree though that by showing the criteria used for their decision, some of the hard feelings toward the BOV may be resolved. I am hesitant to think though that will fix the problem because many of Nichol's supporters have already stated that their minds are made up about the issue and will not believe anything the BOV says, choosing instead to believe that it was Nichol's critics and Richmond who swayed the BOV. Just as some people decided they were never going to support Nichol, others have decided they will not support the future president or the BOV. Such divisions are unnecessary and hopefully someone can serve as a uniter. </p>
<p>Go Tribe!</p>
<p>I must say that the discussion on this board is far more intelligent than the thread under the parents' section! But I will give one perspective that I haven't seen here. I am the parent of a son who was strongly considering W&M last year when applying to colleges. We live in the northeast (yes, that hotbed of communist liberalism that so many Virginians like to make fun of). </p>
<p>My son was attracted to the serious academic setting at W&M as well as the beauty of the campus. His concern, as was mine, was that there might be an intolerance of liberal ideas as well as a religious idealism that would make people of faiths other than Christianity, or no faith for that matter, uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Ultimately he was accepted to his first choice school so this decision was made moot. However, in the wake of this situation I believe it would have put a chill on our visit were we to be making this decision today. And I think this will have an effect on out-of-state enrollments from certain parts of the country. </p>
<p>Now, you could well say "good riddens" to those like us. But let's not forget that people like us pay full tuition so in-state Virginians can enjoy your low-cost education. It also lends prestige and vibrancy to a public college to have a diversity of opinion and ideas.</p>
<p>Now, the BOV had every right to make the decision they made. But I am bothered by a few things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There was a toxic atmosphere that resulted in threats and an extraordinary lack of respect for Nichol and his family. This is an issue that transcends the BOV and puts into question the level of civility and decency of the entire community.</p></li>
<li><p>There is an allegation that Nichol was offered a large sum of money to keep quiet about this matter. This needs a full investigation as it goes to the heart of whether the BOV acted in an ethical manner. </p></li>
<li><p>While there are those who believe that Nichol was a poor politician and, perhaps, lacking in mediation skills, he did, at least in my opinion, stand up for principles that I think are critical as an example for a university community: protecting freedom of ideas and refusing to bow to the powers that be when it meant abandoning ethical choices that he knew in his heart to be right.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I wish you all well and hope you don't simply put this behind you with a new president who is willing to simply do the bidding of the BOV and become nothing more than a fundraiser. A leader is much more than that.</p>
<p>It is a matter to note, I think, that in regards to an "intolerance of liberal ideas," the members of the BOV are appointed by the governor for 4 year terms, with each of Virginia's last two governors being Democrats. Take that as you will. </p>
<p>The vocal minority opposing Nichols' actions, what you would probably characterize as intolerance of liberal ideas (and might very well be), was just that, a minority. It might be a slightly larger minority than at other schools, but you yourself said: "It also lends prestige and vibrancy to a public college to have a diversity of opinion and ideas."</p>
<p>As the son of two parents born and bred in Massachusetts (I was born in New Hampshire however only lived there for two years) I find the assumed intolerance of Virginians quite annoying. First of all, I believe that W&M is a very tolerant campus. For example, I am an atheist and have had no problems with people of any religion what so ever. In a tolerant community however, tolerance is demanded both ways, atheists should not personally attack people of religion and vice versa. That being said, debating the existence of God is perfectly acceptable. </p>
<p>Next, I am not sure how familiar you are with the issue at hand or how it came about. For the better part of the controversy, a very small minority of students (usually those affiliated with the Virginia Informer) consistently attacked the President both appropriately in some cases and other times inappropriately. The student and faculty support for Gene Nichol was much more in his favor than not, the successful "I heart Gene Nichol" campaign comes to mind. The personal attacks on Gene Nichol and family were made by a very small minority and did not echo throughout campus. </p>
<p>The large sum of money you mentioned is called a severance package, I see nothing wrong with attempting to ease the transition by not stirring up more controversy however the BOV hasn't helped their cause by remaining virtually silent.</p>
<p>Yes Nichol did stand by his principles to a degree. He removed the Wren Cross (which I agree to be the correct decision) however he did it abruptly and unilaterally with no open discussion on the issue. He allowed the Sex Workers Art Show on campus however he did censor it. </p>
<p>The president of a university's job is mainly as a fund raising figurehead. At the College where money is extremely tight, money is a very big issue here and perhaps Nichol's absence will allow the university to grow and thrive in ways that he was unable to offer.</p>
<p>Lastly I think both the controversies during Nichol's Presidency and the current controversy over his resignation stem from a lack of transparency which I hope changes in the next presidency.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:info@shouldnicholberenewed.org">info@shouldnicholberenewed.org</a></p>
<p>With just a bit more information, you can see that this is much more than the Wren Cross or the Sex Show.</p>
<p>The fact that Gene Nichol was such a long time activist with the American Civil Liberties Union in both NC and CO makes one wonder why he was ever elected to begin with. </p>
<p>A prestigious "public ivy" with such deep traditons and historical significance was not ready for the agenda of Nichol. Some feel that he was unable to successfully transition from a political activist to college president.</p>
<p>Just saying.......</p>