Nichols Resignation

Colleges and Universities A-Z College of William and Mary
41

<p>"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>I haven't found this to be the case at all. I was also concerned about this issue when I was in the process of choosing which school to attend. I am glad I chose William and Mary. I have found that the students and faculty are very liberal here. There are also conservatives, but, speaking from my perspective only, I would consider the atmosphere much more liberal than conservative. More importantly, for the most part, people are tolerant of other views. As like anywhere, there will always be a few on each side who are more outspoken than others, but they are a minority. I wanted an excellent education and I feel that I am receiving just that.</p>

42

<p>Viscious:</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I have no doubt that there was plenty of support from students and faculty. The BOV and the legislature may be another story. In any case, I appreciate your on-the-ground point of view, and glad to see you report that a diversity of opinion is welcomed on campus. </p>

<p>It is, nevertheless, important to appreciate that small minorities can act in damaging ways that make big impressions on public opinion. If not balanced by reason, this can dictate the reputation of a fine school like W&M.</p>

<p>I, however, would question the idea that a severance package would include a "gag order." Secrecy is not a suitable approach for a university, even if it does ease the controversy.</p>

43

<p>and yes............there is a feeling of outrage and sadness on campus. Gene Nichol is very well liked by the students and faculty. Like the BOV statement which states that it's never a victory when things don't work out between good people.</p>

44

<p>"Teach</a> out" protest on W&M campus | TOP STORIES | WVEC.com | News for Hampton Roads, Virginia</p>

45

<p>I agree that the severance package does sound somewhat suspect and that is why I am in support of full disclosure of the BOV meeting. I do think that it is being misconstrued as a bribe however there simply isn't enough information on the topic to form an informed opinion but I do think the BOV anticipated such a reaction and tried to calm it by asking Nichol to cooperate. I suppose I am not in any more of a position to determine the ethics of the severance package as any one else and I will leave it at that.</p>

<p>Your comment on small minorities intrigues me. I believe that having vocal minorities can only be a positive thing as it encourages discussion. Previous to this ordeal the majority of faculty and staff supporting Nichol also voiced their opinion and I think it would be fair to say that both voices were heard. What I am in conflict with is that we do not know what was taken in to account in the decision and if the personal attacks and accusation actually had an effect on the decision. </p>

<p>In addition, I feel that W&M is one of the most encouraging campuses when it comes to discussing divisive political views. Most students and faculty keep an open mind to the points of the other side and it is quite civilized. This seems not to be the case at other universities however I am making this assumption from hearsay. For example, in many "liberal" (liberal is in quotes because I feel that W&M is actually liberal however it is traditionally not considered to be) universities opposing views are simply brushed aside rather than confronted. It seems that there is much more of a mob mentality at many universities that hush the voices of the opposition rather than debating it on its merits. </p>

<p>I believe that W&M is a great place to test your political beliefs as they will be challenged no matter what side they are on liberal or conservative. You will come out with stronger and more informed beliefs than if you were to base your college decision on whether the campus follows lock-step with your already established political leanings.</p>

46

<p>a little more information from the BOV about why Nichol's contract was not renewed-- this information is from an updated article in the flat hat</p>

<p>"Nobody expected this — not even top Board of Visitors members.</p>

<p>Rector Michael Powell ’85 said he found out about College President Gene Nichol’s resignation about 20 minutes before students did, giving him little time to make arrangements and respond. Powell asked Nichol to wait on releasing the resignation e-mail until the board could write a statement, according to Faculty Assembly President Alan Meese, but Nichol refused.</p>

<p>Nearly two hours later, Powell e-mailed students saying, among other things, that Nichol wasn’t dismissed for the ideological reasons discussed in his resignation e-mail. Instead, the decision came after a five-month review of Nichol’s performance that ended last week in a discussion where all 17 BOV members agreed that Nichol’s contract should not be renewed.</p>

<p>“The relationship at the top of the school was continually deteriorating because of the unwillingness of the president to see the board as an equal partner, let alone his boss,” Powell said in a telephone interview. “And the chief executive, no matter how gifted, must work effectively with the board.”</p>

<p>In Nichol’s e-mail, he said that he made four decisions that stirred controversy and led to his resignation: removing the Wren cross from permanent display, refusing to ban the Sex Workers’ Art Show, introducing the Gateway program and working to increase racial diversity. </p>

<p>But Powell said the board’s decision was based mainly on communication issues and that Nichol continued to announce major policy changes without consulting BOV members, even after the board repeatedly discussed the problem with him. According to Powell, Nichol announced the $4 million Gateway program without securing funding and without alerting the BOV, forcing the board to divert money away from other student aid initiatives to pay for the unfunded program. </p>

<p>He said the board agrees with the mission of Gateway and is currently trying to build an endowment for it, but he believes the announcement could have been handled more responsibly.
Powell also said Nichol removed the Wren cross without consulting the BOV and that Nichol would not agree to board members’ recommendations that he appoint a religion committee until six months into the controversy. By that time, Powell said, “enormous political capital had been expended.”</p>

<p>“It collapsed into a situation where things were either his way or no way,” Powell said. “We tried many, many ways to work on it, but it became clear that we were asking him to be something he wasn’t.”</p>

<p>He added that Nichol did not properly consult the BOV about several other programs that required funding, and Nichol responded to the Sex Workers’ Art Show in a way that the board found unnecessarily controversial.</p>

<p>The board’s 360-degree review of Nichol, which included an appraisal by an independent consulting firm, concluded that he was doing a poor job developing relationships with the school’s top donors, Powell said. He added that the board had been considering a billion-dollar fundraising campaign as a follow-up to the $500 million Campaign for William and Mary but decided that insufficient progress had been made toward such a large project.</p>

<p>“It became crystal clear that, unanimously, the board didn’t have confidence that he would succeed,” Powell said. “We made the gut-wrenching decision to make a change.”</p>

47

<p>I've gotta say, this discussion makes me glad for W+M :-). SO many discussions quickly turn into heated debates; I'm glad to see so many thoughtful people!</p>

<p>Someone said, a while ago, they didn't think my opinion of the school should change as the president doesn't(/shouldn't?) affect the school. However, as a member of a religious minority, although I'm totally aware I would be in the minority at W+M and am ok with that, the removal of the Wren Cross made me feel much better about the school in that it showed that the school was aware of the lack of respect for other religions (historical or not, i would feel seriously uncomfortable praying in a building with a big fat cross on it). I'm glad, dolphinlover, you haven't seen any issues, but, I've got to ask, are you Christian? When visiting campus, I asked my tour guides about religious diversity. They responded by pointing out all the churches and telling how many students had ashes on their foreheads on ash wednesday. It's not the prevalence of Christianity but the guides' failures to even understand my question that worried me. Although individual students may be accepting, taking down the cross was, to me, a way to show that other religions are welcomed to the campus with open arms. So for me, the president's actions did make a difference in how I viewed the school...and what has happened now only makes me more wary of W+M's acceptance of others.</p>

48

<p>It wasn't the taking down of the cross that upset the BOV, it was the manner in which Nichol did so. He did not consult anyone and did not tell anyone before he did it. The BOV is not changing the manner in which the cross is displayed.</p>

49

<p>Viscious:</p>

<p>I want to be clear about the comment regarding vocal minorities. In no way would I advocate restricting opinions on all sides of this or any other issue. What I was referring to though was your comment about a small number of people abusing that privilege by threatening and making personal attacks on Nichol and his family.</p>

50

<p>mkt16a17,</p>

<p>I am concerned about your tour guides response to your question as well, and I would hope that you spoke with the admissions office about it as I don't believe it effectively communicates the College as a whole. Yes, I am a Christian, and I also support the removal of the Wren Cross. I just do not agree with HOW Nichol did it...it brought much more controversy than necessary. Had he formed committees and solicited input BEFORE the decision, I believe the Wren Cross would have still been removed w/out the fall out W&M received. Some people saw it as Nichol attacking Christianity and others fought it based on the historical aspect of the Wren Building, not understanding that the Wren Cross was not added until the 1930's. Had these discussions taken place BEFORE his decision, there would have been a lot less outspoken critics and saved us the embarrassment as well as the monetary repercussions.</p>

51

<p>I'm going to be contrarian on this, definitely not PC. I believe Mr. Nichol's antics and chronic biting of the hands that fed him, provided ample opportunity and excuse. It's not PC or campus-cool, but I am persuaded that the premise to his downfall was not merely HOW he made decisions. Rather, I believe it was the decisions. The cross removal offended many, notably those holding the cards, even though as noted, they were given ample OTHER issues that are more palatable to academicians and their understudies to fire him. His actions requiring the BOV to redirect the budget they'd approved, no matter the reason. His handling of what many, probably most of the BOV and the public would consider to be an obscene exhibit. These and no doubt more issues not exposed to the public or students got him fired. Process is simply a PC convenient excuse. The processors had soured on him not because they didn't ask them about the cross ... it's because he did it, and in the process alienated a great many of those being asked to foot his bills. We'll not hear it, but I'm confident we can believe it. Sometimes, especially on campuses though which are entrusted and funded by a generally powerful, well-heeled group of white guys, it's not popular to proclaim the cross is indeed part of the fabric and heritage of Wm & Mary. They're generally disinclined to stand up and support actions like this man's.</p>

52

<p>mkt16a17 - I'm sorry you had a bad tour guide. Tour guides here are not paid, and chosen through a very selective process. However, as with most tour guides, their strength lies with passion for the school and portraying it in a very positive light. The fact that you had one who completely missed the boat on your question means that a bad one (and i'm sure there are a couple) slipped through the cracks in the evaluation process.</p>

<p>Make no mistake, William and Mary is a VERY accepting place. I am not religious, and I would not say the campus has a religious vibe, at all.</p>

<p>as more and more comes out... we are getting a better view of the real situation here, and I think many people on campus who are actively protesting will quickly and quietly sink away.</p>

<p>The BOV tried to let him go nicely, without a commotion or significant criticism. Unfortunately, Nichol has forced their hand. Of course they will come to campus to do what they can. All of the allegations that the BOV doesn't care (not on this board, but here at school) are blatantly false. Why would they accept a position of the board if they didn't care?</p>

53

<p>As a Virginian, I'm disgusted by the action taken by the W&M BOV and even more embarrassed by the role the state legislature played in the action. This is not a tolerant state. The legislature is run by special interests and right-wing shirt-sleeve Christians who don't forgive but never turn down a contribution. This extends far beyond the Nichols resignation, to protecting developers at the expense of taxpayers, and interfering in the privacy and daily lives of all Virginians. We are, in many ways, a backward state, but this form of intolerance comes from flunky state legislators who win their races by appealing to the worst fears of their constituents. We deserve to be known as the Macaca state and every time I see that sick smirk of George Allen next to John McCain (for whom I have nothing but admiration), I have to wonder how much of his poor sole McCain has sold to the devil to get as far as he has. What you see happening in Virginia, WRT president Nichol and other legislative action, is not indicative of the majority of Virginians, just that vocal minority who profess to honor God but break his commandments without concern. </p>

<p>I'm not often moved to such action but I did send a not of support to Gene Nichol. It's a sad day when "Right" prevails over right.</p>

54

<p>You have a lot of anger, Proud Dad. You realize that all 17 members of the BOV were appointed or re-appointed by either Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, yes? Not to mention the fact that the BOV voted 17-0, unanimously, to not renew Nichol's contract. This was not the doing of "special interests and right-wing shirt-sleeve Christians who don't forgive but never turn down a contribution."</p>

<p>Please take your partisanship elsewhere.</p>

55

<p>You're, of course, forgetting the pressure put on them by the legislature. As one familiar more with the UVA BOV, I somehow doubt the appointees for either BOV are anything more than being paid back for their political favors. Otherwise please explain to me how John Kluge's wife made the list at UVA? Ex porn stars need love, too? The party doesn't matter, just the reality of political appointees directing higher education. And if that makes me angry? I suppose the real question would be why doesn't it make you angry?</p>

<p>So let's recap: Wilder appoints an ex-porn movie actress at UVA. Kaine replaces a retiring cranky-old-man Lawrence Eagleburger (at least he said "Hi" to me at the polls on Tuesday) at W&M with an executive for a plumbing supply company. And I pay for their parties. And they fire the president. And I'm not supposed to be angry about it?</p>

56

<p>He blew a chance to collect a huge pledge because of the way he handled the cross controversy and got fired for it.</p>

<p>Case closed, his job was to raise money. Period.</p>

<p>This endless debate about his high moral stance is sickening. He left in a huff, with no class, and did more damage to an institution he supposedly loves.</p>

57

<p>Why do I feel I've fallen to Earth in the midst of a Chamber of Commerce convention? Glad my kids have the good sense to convince me to let them go to college out of state. Is it too much to expect the president to also set the ethical standard for the school, too? </p>

<p>I'm not unrealistic enough to deny money wasn't the issue. Just look at the "accomplishments" of the W&M BOV members. A utility monopoly chairman, insurance exec, business lawyer, junior league member, . . . </p>

<p>This has something to do with education; I just know it. But I can't find what that might be. I'm sure you all will let me know what I'm missing. I won't tell you what you're missing or they'll kick me off CC. College Confidential : Chamber of Commerce? Hmm.</p>

58

<p>It is not an idealism run world, unfortunately.</p>

<p>I have met several people who said Gene Nichols was a very charming, personable sort who could have done wonders for William and Mary, image-wise, fund raising-wise. But he just didn't go about it the right way.</p>

<p>And the principals run both ways: if he were truly a man of conviction, he would have served until the end of his term with honor. Then he should have disassociated himself completely from William and Mary. Not rant and rave like a baby and then go back to his law school job at William and Mary just because he has tenure. </p>

<p>BTW, I am not a right-wing conservative Christian. I just think this guy did a poor job at what he deep down was hired to do. It's not like he didn't realize what he was getting himself into.</p>

59

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nichol meet his fund-raising goals even after the $12M donation was withdrawn because of the cross controversy? And wasn't that goal met earlier than anticipated? And weren't some donations received from alums who were supporting the removal of the cross and offered directly in response to the pulled $12M? </p>

<p>If Business runs the BOV, and Business runs the state legislature, and you all expect the college president to place Business (fund-raising) over all else, then who becomes the moral compass for the institution? :)</p>

60

<p>But how many more donations did not come in because of him? Plus the ones that did come in because of the controversy (to support him) would not have come in without the controversy. Hmm, twisted logic, I am in a knot now! lol</p>

<p>You might be right, but I would like your take on the last part of my previous post. </p>

<p>The right decision was made on the cross in the end, it's too bad he had to do it unilaterally and then backpedal.</p>

<p>The dude was just a bad fit from the beginning. We needed to take baby steps from the right to the left, not a giant leap!</p>