Nichols Resignation

Colleges and Universities A-Z College of William and Mary
61

<p>


Why would you want to hear that? And what part? "Ranting like a baby" or Nichol doing a "poor job at what he . . . was hired to do" when he beat his fund-raising goals? </p>

<p>And just what was "The right decision . . . made on the cross in the end"?</p>

<p>What would have happened if it had been a menorah or a copy of the Koran that was removed? Were you defending tradition, or religious tolerance?</p>

62

<p>Proud Dad... you are kind of ridiculous. Your posts might be better received on the thread in the parents forum.</p>

63

<p>


Because I don't agree with you? Good reason! Make your case, grasshopper.</p>

64

<p>Proud Dad, the hypocrisy of your statements overwhelm me. First you say that the president should be the moral compass for the school and not primarily concerned about fundraising and then argue that the manner in which he removed the cross was acceptable, because the lost 12 million dollar donation might have been offset by further donations.</p>

<p>William and Mary's 500 million dollar capital campaign was started long before former President Nichol, he merely finished it. To say that he achieved the goal, while technically correct, would be a disservice to former President Sullivan who started and put the campaign on a path to success. The school and BOV were considering a new campaign in the wake of the 500 million dollar success, but decided that it would not be feasible, in part because of Nichol's lack of fundraising success.</p>

<p>As well, there is some controversy as to whether former President Nichol knew of the revoked 12 million dollar pledge (which had put the capital campaign over the 500 million dollar mark) when he announced with great fanfare that the goal had been reached. In truth, though, because of the pledge revocation, the goal had not yet been reached.</p>

<p>Your vendetta against business, Christianity, conservatism, and Republicans is intolerant and poisonous. The majority of people who believe the BOV made the right decision are neither Christian nor Republican, and it is irresponsible of you to suggest otherwise. You claim that because "Business" runs the BOV and the State Legislature, that the president must be the moral compass for the institution. Why do you insinuate that business leaders are completely devoid of morality and scruples? </p>

<p>Finally, please do not make snide remarks to members of the forum, such as soccerguy. While I do not personally know him, he is a student here and we have mutual friends who tell me he is a very nice guy. Your laughably ironic statement mocking his post because you "disagree" with him only highlights your completely refusal to even consider entertaining another point of view. Stop trolling.</p>

65

<p>No hypocrisy. i suggested a president should provide a moral direction. Others suggested he was fired for due cause of not doing his prime job; fundraising. My suggestion that he fulfilled that goal was in response to the suggestion that he was fired, not for his moral stance, but for not doing the fundraising job. So, who's being hypocritical? Those who suggest he was fired for his ethics in providing an environment free of the religious symbolism of one sect and increasing the diversity of the student body, and allowing free speech in an art show? Or those who say he was fired for not minding the business of "education" even though he met the fundraising goal? </p>

<p>If you all are offended that I chose to play in your sanctimonious sandbox, I'll leave. Just be honest with yourselves over why you resent my intrusion: because I don't agree with you. And, if you'd read it right, you'd see my comments on the religious right referred not to the BOV, but to the Virginia legislature. If you doubt the BOV are political appointees, read the bios.</p>

66

<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>I agree, and I think it's already happening.</p>

67

<p>I think Marc Fisher's analysis in today's Washington Post is the best I've seen on this issue. Basically, the Board got what it should have expected. That said, Nichol could have consulted more effectively...and he admits that in his e-mail statement.</p>

<p>washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines</p>

68

<p>Anytime a $12 million gift is peed away because of some potentially highly charged battle not worth dying on the hill for, he has miserably failed not only in achieving his fundraising goals, one of which must have surely been "I will not forfeit any 8 figure donations because of a battle that I contrived ... or stupidly took on", one has to really question the judgement of the selection of important things. That wound would never heal. And no, I'd sorely disagree. The right decision would have been to let that dog for others to kick. It's a no-win and he failed to recognize the minefield or else, he was essentially self-destructive. Or was he deluded in thinking he was undestructable? In any case, his choice was unacceptable, and in the end, as BOV rightly determined, indefensible.</p>

69

<p>The Post link is dated. Try this one: washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
For anyone to think W&M would have chosen a president without knowing that much about him is absurd. The reaction is directly related to the cross and to the "lost" $12M contribution and yet no one examines the motives and conviction of the alleged donor who was promoting his agenda. Has he now repledged his cash? Is everyone happy now? </p>

<p>dolphinlover (posting on several threads) and Whistle Pig notwithstanding, I see very little groundswell in the attempt to write-off Nichol. I do see an increase in those defending his principled stance, they're just not vocal on this slice of reality called CC. </p>

<p>Here's the donor in question, another former political appointee to BOV; this time from the coal industry, a bastion of caring and fair play in Virginia:

[quote]
James McGlothlin, chairman and CEO of the United Company of Bristol [Va.], a conglomerate involved in financial services, oil and gas, industrial supply distribution and golf courses

[/quote]

And, in case anyone doubts where detractors of Nichol are coming from, I offer this take on the spurned donor: College</a> donors talk with their checkbooks
Here's a taste:
[quote]
The College of William & Mary’s Wren Chapel cross issue is simply the tip of a much larger problem. For decades, college administrators and professors have sanctioned or participated in an attack on traditional American values. They’ve denied campus access to military recruiters, promoted socialism and attacked capitalism and instituted race and sex quotas in admissions and in the awarding of scholarships. They’ve used their positions of trust to indoctrinate students with anti-Americanism. Despite this attack, taxpayers and private donors have been extremely generous, pouring billions upon billions of dollars into institutions that often hold a generalized contempt for their values.</p>

<p>McGlothlin is to be congratulated for his courage in taking a stand against this liberal attack on American values. Other wealthy donors ought to emulate McGlothlin’s courage by withholding their donations to colleges that foster or sanction attacks on traditional American values and decency.</p>

<p>The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides information about colleges that have speech codes that suppress debate. The Young America’s Foundation publishes information about inane courses at some of our colleges, such as UCLA’s "Queer Musicology" or Johns Hopkins’ "Mail Order Brides."</p>

<p>Some colleges have brazenly violated donor intent. Princeton University has been taken to court by the Robertson family for misuse of $207 million of a gift estimated at $700 million in today’s prices. Because they violated donor intent, Boston College, USC, UCLA, Harvard and Yale have been forced to return multimillion-dollar gifts. It’s time donors large and small summon some of McGlothlin’s courage and hold colleges accountable to standards of decency and honesty.

[/quote]
Looks to me like Nichol and W&M are in some pretty good company. ;) You folks still want to stand by your claim that Nichols was fired for poor fund-raising results?</p>

70

<p>What exactly does an editorial by an economics professor at George Mason mean? How does that prove your point that President Nichol was fired because of a vast right-wing conspiracy of Christians, Republicans, and those Coal, Oil, and Electricity Robber Barons?</p>

<p>And no, McGlothlin, one of our school's biggest donors, and after whom an academic building is named, did not re-pledge his 12 million dollar donation and has repeatedly said he does not intend to donate any more money.</p>

<p>As well, there was quite a bit of ruckus on campus earlier in the week, but has significantly died down. People have moved on, so you should probably leave the speculation about what's happening in regards to President Nichol to those who have at least a vague tie to William and Mary. Any time the biggest student newspaper is an ardent and unabashed supporter of the president, only to have quickly turned on him in the aftermath of his resignation, you know it's going to be over.</p>

71

<p>Larry Sabato was editor of the UVA paper when I was there. That doesn't imply objective reporting anymore than your paper's current position. If you all continue to besmirch Nichol without examining the behavior of a W&M grad, ex-BOV member, one of the richest men in the state who made his money on strip-mining coal in SW Virginia, then you're simply proving my points. </p>

<p>As to whether or not someone has to have a "vague tie", consider my several visits to the campus, my daughter's application and acceptance there last year, and my regular support of the school and it's surroundings by promoting it over many decades. I don't disrespect W&M but I do regret that one of the state's wealthiest men can change the focus from religious tolerance and sensitivity, freedom of speech, and diversity to influencing the state legislature and using money as a club to sway university policy. Y'all can continue to deny that's what happened but, as the Washington Post editorial said, W&M knew what they were getting in Nichol. Why the about-face when some self-made strike-breaker who began collecting art when his wife "drug [him] to Sotheby's" threatens to cut off his cash? And, if that is really McGlothlin's point, then he's made it, so why not continue to support the institution he's attempting to buy to make himself feel he's overcome his humble beginnings? </p>

<p>This is no speculation on my part. I've likely lived in this state longer than you've been alive. I know how it works. We couldn't even get a bottle bill passed in this state because a state legislator was also the Pepsi distributor for Richmond. We are about to lose our hard-fought "proffer" system in favor of a capped impact fee in a bill sponsored by a real-estate developer who takes most of his contributions from other developers. It's a fact of life in the Old Dominion. At least we used to believe such partisanship stayed away from higher education. Obviously it's not true. And all the more fuel for UVA moving away from state funding to being self-supporting and enjoying self-determination. I'm sad for you all that this happened, and that you find nothing wrong with it.</p>

72

<p>Sorry but in my mind a "person of integrity " as Marc Fisher calls Gene Nichol would have honored his contract, finished out his term and tried his best to make the transition as smooth and seamless as possible(especially if he cared as much about the students and college as he claims) and he would have actively stopped faculty members from postponing their classes in protest. I sent my daughter to W&M to be educated not miss classes because these same faculty members feel the need to make political statements. As my grandmother used to say, Put your big girl panties on and deal with it! What's done is done and now it's time to move on!</p>

73

<p>There's obviously no point in arguing which action more epitomizes integrity; leaving when you have no support from your superiors and refusing hush money (no "severance" would have been forthcoming had the contract simply expired), or stomping your feet, enlisting the legislature, and reneging on a donation because your alma mater didn't toe the line of the donor's narrow-minded sense of ethics and ecumenicalism. </p>

<p>I'd love to stay here and wallow in the mud with you all but you seem to be enjoying it far too much. Maybe W&M should merge with W&L.</p>

74

<p>That's a spectacular idea. I doubt any of th powers that be would go for it though.</p>

<p>My final thought on this: Of course he was fired because of financial/revenu bungling and because of his decision on the cross. He blew the 2 most critical issues, sorely failing to recognize and represent the vaules of those to whom the University's existence is entrusted. And it can also be said they would seemingly have underestimated or misjudged the values of he whom they hired. So plenty of fault to go around, but in the end, the boss is not always right, but they are still his boss. He refused to buy that simple fact of life, and soon learned not even he is above accountability.</p>

75

<p>Too many people, unfortunately, read Nichol's parting words and took it as gospel, when, in fact, it was not. The campus is quieting down. Throughout the whole ordeal, I only had professor cancel class. I think, though some people were very upset, this ordeal has been blown out of proportion. Some of the media made it sound as though the majority of teachers and students went on strike when that is certainly not the case. I can tell you that there are just as many who support the BOV's decision and many more who just do not care. I would urge caution however to anyone who only bases their opinions on Nichol's statement as it seems many have. </p>

<p>Proud Dad, is there a rule against posting in more than one thread? Is there something wrong with letting people know that not everyone here on campus is against the BOV decision?</p>

76

<p>inchoative - thanks.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because I don't agree with you? Good reason! Make your case, grasshopper.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Proud Dad, my points have been made clear. And I do take comfort in the fact that my views have been placed online on Wednesday of last week. Many are available at an earlier point in this thread, which were later edited and added to, and have since been posted in the thread on the parents forum. You might be interested to know that the campus is coming very quickly with my views... the views of reason. I'm sure you would know what I think if you bothered to read the thread before posting like 5 million times in a row.</p>

<p>Gene Nichol did not fail on principles, he failed on administrative duties. He lists things like the Gateway program in his parting email. However, the BOV supports Gateway 100%, only, they wish funding had been secured for it before it was released. Do you think it's bad to have funds for something before you put it into place?</p>

77

<p>"Gene Nichol did not fail on principles, he failed on administrative duties. He lists things like the Gateway program in his parting email. However, the BOV supports Gateway 100%, only, they wish funding had been secured for it before it was released."</p>

<p>Exactly! Does anyone in the real world think if they spent MILLIONS of dollars (no matter how worthy the cause) without proper funding or approval, they would have a job the next day? I mean, come on, really? The Gateway Program was already in the works, Nichol just chose to implement it without approval or funding and suddenly he is a man of virtue! </p>

<p>I would also like to add that the BOV has stated that the Wren Cross is off limits to all future presidents, and that diversity is something The College does care about, despite what Nichol claims in his attempt to discredit The College. </p>

<p>I understand there is some bad timing with the BOV members being called to Richmond and this announcement. I note that Powell stated that Nichol requested to be notified as soon as possible (after the review that was announced last fall and Nichol supported and welcomed). However, I will not believe that the BOV members were threatened until the BOV members say so themselves. Nichol's integrity has been called into question before. Did the GA attempt to persuade the BOV? Probably, but do we know the BOV members had not already decided to not renew the contract beforehand? No, we don't. To imply that they caved to the GA gives those GA members in question much more power than they deserve and the BOV none of the credit they deserve.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
...the BOV has stated that the Wren Cross is off limits to all future presidents

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And this would seem to illumine, at least some of the real reason for Mr. Nichol's dismissal rather than merely his method of eliminating this symbol of the founding fathers of both the nation and the College of Wm & Mary. They are undoubtedly still feeling the sting of this stupidity imparted from THEIR superiors, and want no more of it. Like it or otherwise, it is a powerful part of the legacy of the College, and equally so to the vast majority of those who support the College today. It may not be popular among the naysayers, nor PC to acknowledge such, but they've made the point powerfully, firing he who determined its removal and assuring his successors ... hands off. But then he who was nailed to it said this would happen. Mr. Nichols administrative inadequacies simply opened the door that would have been much more delicate in today's climate than 'twas. Unlike him, the BOV gets it.</p>

79

<p>Wow. I wish I could contribute intelligently to this thread, but Proud Dad is right. You really do prefer rolling around in the mud. So just a few points, and I'll keep them brief so you can start attacking me too.</p>

<p>First: Nichol has been the victim of a smear campaign nearly two years long, largely led by Joe Luppino-Esposito of the Virginia Informer and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. Two key events - the Wren Cross issue and the SWAS - were greatly misrepresented in media coverage. </p>

<p>Second: The Wren Cross decision represented a long overdue step towards religious tolerance on a campus that is all too homogenous. Irrespective of the College's history, a wall of separation between church and state is appropriate at a public institution like W&M. Just because religious affiliation was once a part of W&M's history doesn't mean that should always be the case. The College once employed slaves too. Remember W&M was founded as a private institution. Religious affiliations should have been dropped when W&M transitioned to a public university.</p>

<p>Third: The historical significance of the Wren Cross is overblown anyway - it hasn't been there forever. It's a relatively recent addition in the College's history.</p>

<p>Fourth: Yes, Nichol lost a large donation over the Wren Cross. So what? Religious bigotry can't be overlooked for $12 million.</p>

<p>Fifth: Yes, it's true that Nichol did not start the fundraising campaign. However, he finished it (early) even without McGlothlin's dollars. I think half a point goes to each side on this one.</p>

<p>Sixth: Sullivan's communication to Nichol regarding McGlothlin's donation is truly ambiguous. Read the actual text of the communications yourself. It can quite easily be interpreted that McGlothlin would not make further donations, but not that he would revoke existing pledges. </p>

<p>Seventh: Threats against BOV members by state legislators are wildly inappropriate.</p>

<p>Eighth: The state provides less than 20% of W&M's funding. If it desires to exert 100% control, it should rethink its financial contributions.</p>

<p>Ninth: Students on campus disagreed with the BOV decision by a ratio of approximately 10 to 1. The number of students upset enough to protest is smaller, certainly. However, protest efforts are dying down because Powell has acknowledged the uproar and will be visiting campus. The student body is smart enough to know that Nichol is not coming back. Now, all that can be done is to wait and see what Powell has to say. If students and faculty and staff are not satisfied with the BOV explanation, or with the level of community involvement in selecting Nichol's replacement, I'm sure the protesting will commence again. Perhaps not to the same level as before, but student (and young alum) satisfaction is hovering dangerously low.</p>

<p>Tenth: It's almost time for midterms. Students might want to protest, but they're not going to fail a course over this.</p>

<p>Eleventh: Today's students are tomorrow's alums. The BOV would do well to remember this when taking into consideration the long-term financial success of W&M.</p>

<p>Well, that ended up being longer than I planned on.</p>

80

<p>One prof noted so profoundly, "You have to stand somewhere to look at anything." </p>

<p>So our views of this situation may be quite different here, depending upon where we stand and what we value. But the outcome is 100% clear and the same for all, and that was the intent of those entrusted with the well-being of the College of William & Mary. So we may agree or disagree, delight or chafe as we speculate about the collective motivation for this ... but we should be in full agreement on one important thing. Mr. Nichol is no longer the president of the College of William & Mary. </p>

<p>And that was the desired intent of those trustees, who in effect, took painful responsibility, acknowledging that the first mistake was theres, not Mr. Nichol's. They failed to judge that he was not a good fit, for whatever reasons, for the College. </p>

<p>So it would seem that while the details, motivations, timing, and reactions may not have been those hoped for or preferred, those responsible have accomplished what they deemed essential to that institution that is their responsibility. </p>

<p>As the hurt heals for those who consider the BOV's determination "wrong," they've now 2 equally clear choices. Wish and work to make W&M better. Wish and work to diminish W&M. Their choice can have impact upon their College, good or bad, up or down. And it is a personal choice to be made. In the event that they may choose to be destructive, then it will serve them well to recognize their apparently irreparable disdain for the College and its future. Hopefully in which case, for their own well-being and that of the College, they would determine if they should choose to remain in an environment that they would seek to destroy or to seek one where they may be constructive and grow. All soldiers should pray for the end of the conflict, and Marshall had it right.</p>